The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Mike Barnes on 24 Feb 2010 12:35 PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz>: >Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK >> >>> I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >>> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] >> >> I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. > >I agree, it wouldn't. I just didn't want to sound like some kind >of an extremist. 28 was mentioned by some other posters. >That would do me rather well. Yes, 28, that would be perfect. Four extra hours in a day, but about twelve fewer years in a life. Are you sure? -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: Mike Barnes on 24 Feb 2010 12:00 "benlizro(a)ihug.co.nz" <benlizro(a)ihug.co.nz>: >On Feb 24, 11:43�am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>I get totally confused >> when someone describes a time zone as being "ahead of" or "behind" >> another. It can be either, depending on one's viewpoint. > >Discussion on sci.lang during the Beijing Olympics: > >[...] > >Ross: >We are earlier in arriving at a given time, but on the other hand, if >you ask "What time is it?", it is four hours later here than there. That's it in a nutshell. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: R H Draney on 24 Feb 2010 12:37 Chuck Riggs filted: > >On 23 Feb 2010 17:41:22 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> >wrote: > >>Robert Bannister filted: >>> >>>The eternal rift between morning and evening people. I get very ratty >>>when politicians force me to get up in the dark more often than need be, >>>whereas I think dinner is best eaten when it is dark outside. >> >>Quite right...I had breakfast yesterday at noon, and dinner at midnight....r > >Scrambled eggs and coffee at noon, is lunch just the same, IMO. The >transition, the uncrossable barrier, is around ten. Uncrossable?...pah!...I often cross it in my sleep!...r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
From: Mike Barnes on 24 Feb 2010 13:22 Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com>: >Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> writes: > >> Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: > >>>Here's the original purpose of DST. In certain higher >>>latitudes (including most of the UK), the length of the >>>daylight at the summer solstice was around 16 hours. With >>>the period of daylight centered at noon GMT, this would make >>>the sun rise at around 4AM, before most people awake. And >>>so we set the clock forward in the spring. The reason we set >>>it back in autumn is because if we didn't, the sun wouldn't >>>rise at the winter solstice until around 9AM, after most >>>people need to be at work or school. >>> >>>In other words, the only way to avoid _both_ objectionable >>>sunrise times (4AM and 9AM) is to have a biannual clock shift. >> >> Here those extreme sunrise times would be 3:40 and 9:20. I can see >> the objection to 9:20, but what's the objection to 3:40? > >You don't have to get up with the chickens, do you? But I believe >that the main objection was that people had to spend money on light in >the evening when there were hours of daylight just going to waste >before they got up. Messing with the clocks seems like overkill. ISTM it would be simpler to leave the clocks as they were and for anyone trying to minimise their lighting costs to go to bed an hour earlier. The same goes for anyone who has to get up with the chickens or whose life is otherwise locked to solar time. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: sjdevnull on 24 Feb 2010 13:23
On Feb 24, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing > >> has most kids riding the bus to school anyway > > > Court-ordered busing never affected a substantial fraction of US > > school children (it peaked at below 5%, IIRC) and since 1980 or so has > > been very limited. Post-2000, it's headed toward extinction. > > Why are you assuming that kids don't use busses? I'm not assuming that. I've re-read the above to figure out why you'd think that, but I'm stumped. |