PDA

View Full Version : Are we wrong on time?

synthetic
11-11-2010, 10:05 AM
I was thinking of a report back a while back that we are losing seconds in a day and what not. Could we be completely wrong on the system of time? Some principles are based of religion.... I am thinking it should be metric or binary. What is with the varying days in a month...., the idea of weeks, hours... leap years..., etc, with all these random numbers.

Binary determinations...

there is an established micro unit of time, be it seconds, which should be based of an orbit of an electron of a certain element.

There are a certain amount of seconds in a "day" ... 100,000?

Day is phase **** like binary, night and day

Seasons, there are two... cold period of majority of darkness, warm period with majority of it being light.

Maybe we can keep months, say a period of 40 days/nights (based of bible?), but there are only 10, in a non leap year (lets include this for a second)
there are 5 in a leap year.
The magic number is 4, based on 2^2...
maybe a 10 day period can be a week, of which there are 4 in a month.

There shall be 400 days in a non leap year. The leap year is he third year. So three years = 1000 days.

Well that is my system anyways... anyone know of an attempt to 'metric-cize' time?

secondhandloser
11-11-2010, 10:20 AM
do you understand at all what time is based on?

JoshSP1985
11-11-2010, 10:47 AM
do you understand at all what time is based on?

Has something to do with that there sunrise and sunset

synthetic
11-11-2010, 11:10 AM
The SI base unit for time is the SI second. From the second, larger units such as the minute, hour and day are defined, though they are "non-SI" units because they do not use the decimal system, and also because of the occasional need for a leap second. They are, however, officially accepted for use with the International System. There are no fixed ratios between seconds and months or years as months and years have significant variations in length.[25]

The official SI definition of the second is as follows:[25][26]

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

At its 1997 meeting, the CIPM affirmed that this definition refers to a caesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 K.[25] Previous to 1967, the second was defined as:

the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.

Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is the basis for modern civil time. Since January 1, 1972, it has been defined to follow TAI with an exact offset of an integer number of seconds, changing only when a leap second is added to keep clock time synchronized with the rotation of the Earth. In TAI and UTC systems, the duration of a second is constant, as it is defined by the unchanging transition period of the caesium atom.

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is an older standard, adopted starting with British railroads in 1847. Using telescopes instead of atomic clocks, GMT was calibrated to the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich in the UK. Universal Time (UT) is the modern term for the international telescope-based system, adopted to replace "Greenwich Mean Time" in 1928 by the International Astronomical Union. Observations at the Greenwich Observatory itself ceased in 1954, though the location is still used as the basis for the coordinate system. Because the rotational period of Earth is not perfectly constant, the duration of a second would vary if calibrated to a telescope-based standard like GMT or UT - in which a second was defined as a fraction of a day or year. The terms "GMT" and "Greenwich Mean Time" are sometimes used informally to refer to UT or UTC.

i guess the element we chose is wrong....

or the fact we are continuing are calendars off of non standardized time from before..