On May 1, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Andrew Long <xxxxxx@mac.com> wrote: > 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? None at all, this is essentially like converting between Metric and English units; the physics will be the same regardless of the units involved. > 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 is merely a matter of how we define one standard second. Say an 'Imperial second’ is 2.38763901 of ours because ancient Vilani carts were 1.3459233 meters wide, the physics will not change, just the numbers attached. So long as we don’t inadvertently mix the two and learn first hand the brief, but spectacular wonders of lithobraking maneuvers, all will be fine. > This sound to me much like the plas to make Pi equal to 3 by legislative fiat. No because that was an attempt to alter a unitless fundamental constant; all changing the definition of units does is alter the numbers…the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle is π regardless of the units it’s measured in. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
