2 ms·
I think we should have a scientific definition of time -- something that is highly static and precise (such as the time it takes for an atom to vibrant a number
by max76 7y ago
I think we should have a scientific definition of time -- something that is highly static and precise (such as the time it takes for an atom to vibrant a number of times, or the time it takes light in a vacuum to travel a certain distance) and a cultural definition of time that is more loose than UTC (There is always the same number of seconds in a day, but maybe some days have shorter seconds than other days).
Cultural time is fine and dandy for human level stuff. Keep that simple. Scientific time for business, engineering and scientific stuff.
- brianpan 7y agoTime might not be too hard to define (relativistic effects aside), but the problem is days and years. The reason for inserting and removing seconds is because the rotation of the earth is NOT static and precise. It changes so seconds are added and removed to keep the day from drifting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations
- masklinn 7y ago> Cultural time is fine and dandy for human level stuff. Keep that simple. Scientific time for business, engineering Business and engineering are chock-full of human-level stuff. And scientific stuff which isn't either doesn't use UTC (astronomy) or is not impacted (because it deals pretty much only with sub-day durations and everything works based on the SI second only).