British time.
Nov 1st 2006 | 9:43 am
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> >Exactly. For convenience the time in most parts of the world is the same number
of
> >> >minutes past the hour, ie it is split into 24 1-hour zones. Within that
context,
> >the
> >> >"correct" time zone for any place should be such that the two definitions of
noon,
> >on
> >> >average, are as close together as possible.
> >>
> >> Without the standard time zones "noon" is when the sun passes
> >> over the local meridian. Solar. Period.
> >
> >Yes, which is why I wrote "within that context".
> So context is critical for determining "correctness".
Correctness within that context.
> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
> >
> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then it
> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then that
> >would be correct.
> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
> equal to three?
> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> >If the local jurisdiction said that the earth is the centre of the universe,
> >then that must be correct too.
> Mathematically everything can be done as if it were, but it's a
> bloody mess. A method of telling time is not a physical entity,
> no different than deciding whether to measure lengths in feet or
> meters.
Feet and meters are two completely separate measures with different subunits etc. You
could define the time of day using alternative measures to hours, minutes and seconds
with no noon or midnight if you want. But AFAIK nobody does.
> >> >> But as the example of the state of China reveals, this is not always the
> >> >> case. The westernmost regions are some 60 degrees west from the easternmost
> >> >> regions in China. Time difference should be some three or four or perhaps
> >> >> five hours between these regions but it isn't.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly. Hence some of those regions are in the wrong timezone.
> >>
> >> Please define your vsion of "wrong" again. I'm having trouble
> >> following.
> >
> >Read the first quoted paragraph at the top of this post.
> I don't see the part that defines "wrong". I see "correct" in
> quotes, but that's not the same thing at all.
"Wrong" is that which is not "correct". "Correct" I have defined.
--
Andy
news:[email protected]...
> >> >Exactly. For convenience the time in most parts of the world is the same number
of
> >> >minutes past the hour, ie it is split into 24 1-hour zones. Within that
context,
> >the
> >> >"correct" time zone for any place should be such that the two definitions of
noon,
> >on
> >> >average, are as close together as possible.
> >>
> >> Without the standard time zones "noon" is when the sun passes
> >> over the local meridian. Solar. Period.
> >
> >Yes, which is why I wrote "within that context".
> So context is critical for determining "correctness".
Correctness within that context.
> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
> >
> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then it
> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then that
> >would be correct.
> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
> equal to three?
> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> >If the local jurisdiction said that the earth is the centre of the universe,
> >then that must be correct too.
> Mathematically everything can be done as if it were, but it's a
> bloody mess. A method of telling time is not a physical entity,
> no different than deciding whether to measure lengths in feet or
> meters.
Feet and meters are two completely separate measures with different subunits etc. You
could define the time of day using alternative measures to hours, minutes and seconds
with no noon or midnight if you want. But AFAIK nobody does.
> >> >> But as the example of the state of China reveals, this is not always the
> >> >> case. The westernmost regions are some 60 degrees west from the easternmost
> >> >> regions in China. Time difference should be some three or four or perhaps
> >> >> five hours between these regions but it isn't.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly. Hence some of those regions are in the wrong timezone.
> >>
> >> Please define your vsion of "wrong" again. I'm having trouble
> >> following.
> >
> >Read the first quoted paragraph at the top of this post.
> I don't see the part that defines "wrong". I see "correct" in
> quotes, but that's not the same thing at all.
"Wrong" is that which is not "correct". "Correct" I have defined.
--
Andy
Nov 1st 2006 | 9:52 am
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
> >
> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about 11:44
on
> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
> >
> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
GMT -
> >*mean* time - ie average.
> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
> even a short distance apart east-west.
Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
noon which varies throughout the year.
--
Andy
news:[email protected]...
> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
> >
> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about 11:44
on
> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
> >
> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
GMT -
> >*mean* time - ie average.
> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
> even a short distance apart east-west.
Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
noon which varies throughout the year.
--
Andy
Nov 1st 2006 | 10:51 am
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
Glad you mentioned that............
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/bristol-time.htm
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
<[email protected]> wrote:
>AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
Glad you mentioned that............
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/bristol-time.htm
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
Nov 1st 2006 | 1:23 pm
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
>> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
>> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
>> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
>> >
>> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about 11:44
>on
>> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
>> >
>> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
>GMT -
>> >*mean* time - ie average.
>> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
>> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
>> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
>> even a short distance apart east-west.
>Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
Well, yeah. And ...?
>AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
Yeah. And...?
>"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
>noon which varies throughout the year.
Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
>> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
>> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
>> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
>> >
>> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about 11:44
>on
>> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
>> >
>> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
>GMT -
>> >*mean* time - ie average.
>> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
>> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
>> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
>> even a short distance apart east-west.
>Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
Well, yeah. And ...?
>AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
Yeah. And...?
>"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
>noon which varies throughout the year.
Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Nov 1st 2006 | 1:32 pm
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:43:28 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> >> >Exactly. For convenience the time in most parts of the world is the same number
>of
>> >> >minutes past the hour, ie it is split into 24 1-hour zones. Within that
>context,
>> >the
>> >> >"correct" time zone for any place should be such that the two definitions of
>noon,
>> >on
>> >> >average, are as close together as possible.
>> >>
>> >> Without the standard time zones "noon" is when the sun passes
>> >> over the local meridian. Solar. Period.
>> >
>> >Yes, which is why I wrote "within that context".
>> So context is critical for determining "correctness".
>Correctness within that context.
>> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
>> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
>> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
>> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
>> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
>> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
>> >
>> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then it
>> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then that
>> >would be correct.
>> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
>> equal to three?
>> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
>> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
Pi, on the other hand, is always the trancendental number
approximated by 3.14159.... in decimal numbering, and, being the
ratio of two lengths, has no units.
>> >If the local jurisdiction said that the earth is the centre of the universe,
>> >then that must be correct too.
>> Mathematically everything can be done as if it were, but it's a
>> bloody mess. A method of telling time is not a physical entity,
>> no different than deciding whether to measure lengths in feet or
>> meters.
>Feet and meters are two completely separate measures with different subunits etc.
But the object being measured remains the same length.
>You
>could define the time of day using alternative measures to hours, minutes and seconds
>with no noon or midnight if you want. But AFAIK nobody does.
There have been attempts, though, to define a ten "hour" day with
100 minutes per hour.
Um. Zulu time uses no noon. When you come right down to it, the
usual clocks have a 12:00 on them, but nothing says "noon". WE,
however, refer to it as "noon".
>> >> >> But as the example of the state of China reveals, this is not always the
>> >> >> case. The westernmost regions are some 60 degrees west from the easternmost
>> >> >> regions in China. Time difference should be some three or four or perhaps
>> >> >> five hours between these regions but it isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Exactly. Hence some of those regions are in the wrong timezone.
>> >>
>> >> Please define your vsion of "wrong" again. I'm having trouble
>> >> following.
>> >
>> >Read the first quoted paragraph at the top of this post.
>> I don't see the part that defines "wrong". I see "correct" in
>> quotes, but that's not the same thing at all.
>"Wrong" is that which is not "correct". "Correct" I have defined.
In context. So I agree, you can have a 'wrong" in a given
context.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> >> >Exactly. For convenience the time in most parts of the world is the same number
>of
>> >> >minutes past the hour, ie it is split into 24 1-hour zones. Within that
>context,
>> >the
>> >> >"correct" time zone for any place should be such that the two definitions of
>noon,
>> >on
>> >> >average, are as close together as possible.
>> >>
>> >> Without the standard time zones "noon" is when the sun passes
>> >> over the local meridian. Solar. Period.
>> >
>> >Yes, which is why I wrote "within that context".
>> So context is critical for determining "correctness".
>Correctness within that context.
>> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
>> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
>> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
>> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
>> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
>> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
>> >
>> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then it
>> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then that
>> >would be correct.
>> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
>> equal to three?
>> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
>> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
Pi, on the other hand, is always the trancendental number
approximated by 3.14159.... in decimal numbering, and, being the
ratio of two lengths, has no units.
>> >If the local jurisdiction said that the earth is the centre of the universe,
>> >then that must be correct too.
>> Mathematically everything can be done as if it were, but it's a
>> bloody mess. A method of telling time is not a physical entity,
>> no different than deciding whether to measure lengths in feet or
>> meters.
>Feet and meters are two completely separate measures with different subunits etc.
But the object being measured remains the same length.
>You
>could define the time of day using alternative measures to hours, minutes and seconds
>with no noon or midnight if you want. But AFAIK nobody does.
There have been attempts, though, to define a ten "hour" day with
100 minutes per hour.
Um. Zulu time uses no noon. When you come right down to it, the
usual clocks have a 12:00 on them, but nothing says "noon". WE,
however, refer to it as "noon".
>> >> >> But as the example of the state of China reveals, this is not always the
>> >> >> case. The westernmost regions are some 60 degrees west from the easternmost
>> >> >> regions in China. Time difference should be some three or four or perhaps
>> >> >> five hours between these regions but it isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Exactly. Hence some of those regions are in the wrong timezone.
>> >>
>> >> Please define your vsion of "wrong" again. I'm having trouble
>> >> following.
>> >
>> >Read the first quoted paragraph at the top of this post.
>> I don't see the part that defines "wrong". I see "correct" in
>> quotes, but that's not the same thing at all.
>"Wrong" is that which is not "correct". "Correct" I have defined.
In context. So I agree, you can have a 'wrong" in a given
context.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Nov 2nd 2006 | 1:12 am
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:nmlik2lrl0v3r9lmfprtjom3q9lge7tqoo@4ax. com...
>>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones
>>*is*
>>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
That's right. Some experts say that too many different sort of codes for
time have been introduced (mostly for some special purposes). Some
codification should take place they say or perhaps downright re-construction
for the general purpose time. Many parishes in Finland used to follow their
own unique time. In the USA two trains of two different operators might have
stood at the same station in the same time on different tracks. And yet the
time typically wasn't the same for the two trains.
viestissä:nmlik2lrl0v3r9lmfprtjom3q9lge7tqoo@4ax. com...
>>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones
>>*is*
>>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
That's right. Some experts say that too many different sort of codes for
time have been introduced (mostly for some special purposes). Some
codification should take place they say or perhaps downright re-construction
for the general purpose time. Many parishes in Finland used to follow their
own unique time. In the USA two trains of two different operators might have
stood at the same station in the same time on different tracks. And yet the
time typically wasn't the same for the two trains.
Nov 2nd 2006 | 3:52 am
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:12:46 +0200, "Markku Grönroos"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
>viestissä:nmlik2lrl0v3r9lmfprtjom3q9lge7tqoo@4ax .com...
>>>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones
>>>*is*
>>>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
>> No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
>> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
>> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
>> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
>> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
>> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
>That's right. Some experts say that too many different sort of codes for
>time have been introduced (mostly for some special purposes). Some
>codification should take place they say or perhaps downright re-construction
>for the general purpose time. Many parishes in Finland used to follow their
>own unique time. In the USA two trains of two different operators might have
>stood at the same station in the same time on different tracks. And yet the
>time typically wasn't the same for the two trains.
It was the coming of the railway to the UK that brought
standardisation of time - hitherto evrywhere maintained its own local
time according to the sun.
When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
her generation.
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
>viestissä:nmlik2lrl0v3r9lmfprtjom3q9lge7tqoo@4ax .com...
>>>The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones
>>>*is*
>>>mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
>> No. It's arithmetical. Pi is mathematical.
>> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
>> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
>> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
>> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
>> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
>That's right. Some experts say that too many different sort of codes for
>time have been introduced (mostly for some special purposes). Some
>codification should take place they say or perhaps downright re-construction
>for the general purpose time. Many parishes in Finland used to follow their
>own unique time. In the USA two trains of two different operators might have
>stood at the same station in the same time on different tracks. And yet the
>time typically wasn't the same for the two trains.
It was the coming of the railway to the UK that brought
standardisation of time - hitherto evrywhere maintained its own local
time according to the sun.
When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
her generation.
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
Nov 2nd 2006 | 3:57 am
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:52:19 +0000, Keith Anderson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
>the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
>obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
>her generation.
a variation on
... the station clock stopped at ten to three
and is there honey still for tea?
Honey is off, dear.
--
Martin
wrote:
>When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
>the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
>obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
>her generation.
a variation on
... the station clock stopped at ten to three
and is there honey still for tea?
Honey is off, dear.
--
Martin
Nov 2nd 2006 | 4:12 am
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:57:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>a variation on
>... the station clock stopped at ten to three
>and is there honey still for tea?
>Honey is off, dear.
Wrong kind of pollen?
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
>a variation on
>... the station clock stopped at ten to three
>and is there honey still for tea?
>Honey is off, dear.
Wrong kind of pollen?
Keith, Bristol, UK
Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com
A spamtrap - but I'll get your mail
Nov 2nd 2006 | 4:17 am
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:52:19 +0000, Keith Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It was the coming of the railway to the UK that brought
>standardisation of time - hitherto evrywhere maintained its own local
>time according to the sun.
>When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
>the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
>obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
>her generation.
Similarly for the USA: the railroads promoted time
standardization. In fact, they, too, adopted a standard "railroad
time", but subsequently got the federal government to create
legal standard time. "Railroad time" wasn't "legal" time,
although many communities adopted it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It was the coming of the railway to the UK that brought
>standardisation of time - hitherto evrywhere maintained its own local
>time according to the sun.
>When I was a young 'un in the 1950s I would ask my grandmother what
>the time was - and she'd say "Ten past eleven railway time", so
>obviously the memory of the reason for standardisation lingered on to
>her generation.
Similarly for the USA: the railroads promoted time
standardization. In fact, they, too, adopted a standard "railroad
time", but subsequently got the federal government to create
legal standard time. "Railroad time" wasn't "legal" time,
although many communities adopted it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Nov 2nd 2006 | 4:34 am
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:12:01 +0000, Keith Anderson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:57:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>a variation on
>>... the station clock stopped at ten to three
>>and is there honey still for tea?
>>Honey is off, dear.
>Wrong kind of pollen?
or it's a seller's market.
--
Martin
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:57:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>a variation on
>>... the station clock stopped at ten to three
>>and is there honey still for tea?
>>Honey is off, dear.
>Wrong kind of pollen?
or it's a seller's market.
--
Martin
Nov 2nd 2006 | 4:54 am
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
> >> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
> >> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
> >> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
> >> >
> >> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about
11:44
> >on
> >> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
> >> >
> >> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
> >GMT -
> >> >*mean* time - ie average.
> >>
> >> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
> >> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
> >> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
> >> even a short distance apart east-west.
> >
> >Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
> Well, yeah. And ...?
> >
> >AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
> Yeah. And...?
> >"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
> >noon which varies throughout the year.
> Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
Kin hell, is it that hard?
We were discussing why solar noon is 16 minutes early at the Greenwich observatory.
You wrote "This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of course."
It isn't. It's a consequence of mean time.
--
Andy
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
> >> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
> >> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
> >> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
> >> >
> >> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about
11:44
> >on
> >> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
> >> >
> >> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
> >GMT -
> >> >*mean* time - ie average.
> >>
> >> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
> >> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
> >> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
> >> even a short distance apart east-west.
> >
> >Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
> Well, yeah. And ...?
> >
> >AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
> Yeah. And...?
> >"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
> >noon which varies throughout the year.
> Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
Kin hell, is it that hard?
We were discussing why solar noon is 16 minutes early at the Greenwich observatory.
You wrote "This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of course."
It isn't. It's a consequence of mean time.
--
Andy
Nov 2nd 2006 | 5:18 am
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
> >> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
> >> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
> >> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
> >> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
> >> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
> >> >
> >> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then
it
> >> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then
that
> >> >would be correct.
> >>
> >> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
> >> equal to three?
> >>
> >> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
> >> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
> >
> >The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
> >mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> No. It's arithmetical.
Oh dear. Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, therefore it's mathematical.
> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
> Pi, on the other hand, is always the trancendental number
> approximated by 3.14159.... in decimal numbering, and, being the
> ratio of two lengths, has no units.
You don't understand the similarity. You can't write the value of Pi exactly because
you have to approximate it, by rounding it off to n decimal places. You have to
choose how to approximate Pi by choosing the number of decimal places to which to
express it.
It's the same with time. Most of the world has chosen to approximate time by having
hour wide time zones. Within the context of that approximation, the correct time zone
for any place is as I have already defined it.
Exactly as within the context of accuracy to 3 decimal places, Pi is 3.142. Not 3.141
or 3.143 - these are simply wrong.
--
Andy
news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Originally, the time sones were picked so as to be more or less
> >> >> equally extended to the east and the west of longitudes evenly
> >> >> divisible by 15, with due consideration to local geography and
> >> >> politics. Under standard time, the "correct" time is whatever the
> >> >> local jurisdiction has chosen to mke it within some of the
> >> >> parameters of standard time treaties.
> >> >
> >> >If you want to define whatever the local jurisdiction says as "correct", then
it
> >> >obviously is by definition. If the local jurisdiction said that 2+2=5, then
that
> >> >would be correct.
> >>
> >> Or the Indiana legislsture could have passed a law making pi
> >> equal to three?
> >>
> >> If you don't understand the difference between establishing a
> >> method of telling time and mathematics, we're probably done here.
> >
> >The method of telling time within the context of 24 worldwide time zones *is*
> >mathematical, just as the value of Pi is.
> No. It's arithmetical.
Oh dear. Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, therefore it's mathematical.
> You really don't understand the difference, do you? Braking the
> world up into 24 time zones is an arbitrary act; the simple fact
> is that telling time doesn't actually require times zones, but
> they do make coordination a lot simpler. The world did pretty
> well without time zones until the last half of the 19th centruy.
> Pi, on the other hand, is always the trancendental number
> approximated by 3.14159.... in decimal numbering, and, being the
> ratio of two lengths, has no units.
You don't understand the similarity. You can't write the value of Pi exactly because
you have to approximate it, by rounding it off to n decimal places. You have to
choose how to approximate Pi by choosing the number of decimal places to which to
express it.
It's the same with time. Most of the world has chosen to approximate time by having
hour wide time zones. Within the context of that approximation, the correct time zone
for any place is as I have already defined it.
Exactly as within the context of accuracy to 3 decimal places, Pi is 3.142. Not 3.141
or 3.143 - these are simply wrong.
--
Andy
Nov 2nd 2006 | 5:22 am
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
"Andy Pandy" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[email protected]...
> It's the same with time. Most of the world has chosen to approximate time
> by having
> hour wide time zones. Within the context of that approximation, the
> correct time zone
> for any place is as I have already defined it.
To choose it differently, doesn't mean it went wrong. For instance we cannot
say decently that Spain lies in the wrong time zone because it is CET.
viestissä:[email protected]...
> It's the same with time. Most of the world has chosen to approximate time
> by having
> hour wide time zones. Within the context of that approximation, the
> correct time zone
> for any place is as I have already defined it.
To choose it differently, doesn't mean it went wrong. For instance we cannot
say decently that Spain lies in the wrong time zone because it is CET.
Nov 2nd 2006 | 5:25 am
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: British time.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:54:18 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected].. .
>> >> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
>> >> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
>> >> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
>> >> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about
>11:44
>> >on
>> >> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
>> >> >
>> >> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
>> >GMT -
>> >> >*mean* time - ie average.
>> >>
>> >> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
>> >> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
>> >> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
>> >> even a short distance apart east-west.
>> >
>> >Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
>> Well, yeah. And ...?
>> >
>> >AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
>> Yeah. And...?
>> >"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
>> >noon which varies throughout the year.
>> Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
>Kin hell, is it that hard?
>We were discussing why solar noon is 16 minutes early at the Greenwich observatory.
Maybe you were.
>You wrote "This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of course."
>It isn't. It's a consequence of mean time.
12:00 GMT *is* standard time. But it is standardized to mean noon
on the Greenwich meridian.
I think I'm looking at the same Wikipedia article you did.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:52:39 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected].. .
>> >> >> Even at the Greenwich observatory, noon (on the clock) is not noon.
>> >> >> http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/
>> >> >> Relative to local mean time, the sun is 16 minutes 26 seconds fast.
>> >> >> ( In other words, the Equation of Time is -16:26 )
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, because the solar day varies in length. Solar noon in currently about
>11:44
>> >on
>> >> >the Greenwich meridian. In February solar noon will be about 12:15.
>> >> >
>> >> >On average, solar noon on the Greenwich meridian is at 12:00 GMT. Note the M in
>> >GMT -
>> >> >*mean* time - ie average.
>> >>
>> >> This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of
>> >> course. Previously, noon was that moment the sun passed over the
>> >> local meridian so that noon was at a different time for towns
>> >> even a short distance apart east-west.
>> >
>> >Mean time is a different issue to standard time.
>> Well, yeah. And ...?
>> >
>> >AIUI "standard time" means that Bristol has the same time as London.
>> Yeah. And...?
>> >"Mean time" means all days are averaged in length, rather than solar noon to solar
>> >noon which varies throughout the year.
>> Yeah. And ...? What has that to do with what I said?
>Kin hell, is it that hard?
>We were discussing why solar noon is 16 minutes early at the Greenwich observatory.
Maybe you were.
>You wrote "This is a consequence of having instituted standard time, of course."
>It isn't. It's a consequence of mean time.
12:00 GMT *is* standard time. But it is standardized to mean noon
on the Greenwich meridian.
I think I'm looking at the same Wikipedia article you did.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
