On 1 May 2014, at 23:51, Freelance Traveller wrote:
>
> Where the local astronomical year doesn't match up with the Imperial
> year, a local calendar may be considered more important than the
> Imperial one, as agricultural rhythms will conform to the local seasonal
> cycles. Local timekeeping may persist, too, as a better fit than the
> Standard Imperial Clock - for example, rather than adding a 37-odd
> minute "comp" to the day if I were on a resource-independent Mars, I'd
> simply make my seconds about three percent longer, so that the Martian
> day would be 24 *hours of 60 *minutes of 60 *seconds, so that everything
> comes out nice and even, and time-zone corrections don't have to worry
> about "are they six hours ahead or are they in Comp right now, or ...".
> For communication with Earth, I'd have access to clocks and calendars
> that keep Earth time, but it doesn't otherwise make sense for Mars to
> conform to an Earth clock or Earth calendar - it simply doesn't fit the
> astronomical facts of Mars.

But just jow much of Physics would be placed at risk by that decision? We currently use the second as defined by qunatum oscillations... no matter that it was *originally* a fraction of a sidereal year (or a close approximation of one)

This sound to me much like the plas to make Pi equal to 3 by legislative fiat.

Rehards, Andy

--
Andrew Long
Andrew dot Long at Mac dot com