<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why we have leap days</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:57:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-462557</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 01:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-462557</guid>
		<description>Come on people!  The pope fixed it up best he could back then, I say lets start planning on making this whole thing better.  If we can speed up the Earth in it&#039;s orbit slight faster, we can cut off the extra .24 day in a year and synchronize the number of days so it fits to EXACTLY one year in the Earth&#039;s orbit.

That will of course make the Earth slightly closer to the sun - hmm, maybe a bad idea.  How about instead we slow the Earth&#039;s orbit down, so every year is 366 days, and every year has a Feb 29th!  By precisely putting the Earth into it&#039;s correct orbit - we can get rid of this whole nonsense of leap days and years of different lengths.  And - the Earth would be slightly further away from the sun, maybe helping this global warming thing a tiny bit.

If we make the year 372 days long, each month could also be 31 days each, further clearing up this nonsense of months of different lengths.  The Earth would be slightly more away from the sun, thus cooling it off a little more.

So simply moving the Earth in it&#039;s orbit will fix a whole bunch of problems!  Of course, all computer programs would need to be rewritten to know about the new calendar, this would make the Y2K issue look like nothing!

If this all works, then we can start messing with the moon&#039;s orbit, slow it down so each lunar month is also 31 days to match our new calendar.  With a little bit of work, we could also move it in it&#039;s orbit a bit, so the full moon is always on the 1st day of each month.  Tide tables would be greatly simplified, since they&#039;d be the same each month!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on people!  The pope fixed it up best he could back then, I say lets start planning on making this whole thing better.  If we can speed up the Earth in it&#8217;s orbit slight faster, we can cut off the extra .24 day in a year and synchronize the number of days so it fits to EXACTLY one year in the Earth&#8217;s orbit.</p>
<p>That will of course make the Earth slightly closer to the sun &#8211; hmm, maybe a bad idea.  How about instead we slow the Earth&#8217;s orbit down, so every year is 366 days, and every year has a Feb 29th!  By precisely putting the Earth into it&#8217;s correct orbit &#8211; we can get rid of this whole nonsense of leap days and years of different lengths.  And &#8211; the Earth would be slightly further away from the sun, maybe helping this global warming thing a tiny bit.</p>
<p>If we make the year 372 days long, each month could also be 31 days each, further clearing up this nonsense of months of different lengths.  The Earth would be slightly more away from the sun, thus cooling it off a little more.</p>
<p>So simply moving the Earth in it&#8217;s orbit will fix a whole bunch of problems!  Of course, all computer programs would need to be rewritten to know about the new calendar, this would make the Y2K issue look like nothing!</p>
<p>If this all works, then we can start messing with the moon&#8217;s orbit, slow it down so each lunar month is also 31 days to match our new calendar.  With a little bit of work, we could also move it in it&#8217;s orbit a bit, so the full moon is always on the 1st day of each month.  Tide tables would be greatly simplified, since they&#8217;d be the same each month!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: donald hilton</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-453618</link>
		<dc:creator>donald hilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-453618</guid>
		<description>My brother was born on a leap year feb 29th, and he has twins born on a leap year feb 29th exactly 29 minutes apart in a hospital that was completed and opened on feb 29th exactly 29 miles from my brothers house. Now what are the odds of that???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My brother was born on a leap year feb 29th, and he has twins born on a leap year feb 29th exactly 29 minutes apart in a hospital that was completed and opened on feb 29th exactly 29 miles from my brothers house. Now what are the odds of that???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mavis mabry</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-442929</link>
		<dc:creator>Mavis mabry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-442929</guid>
		<description>Question? If we have 7 days in a week and 52 weeks in a year, how can we have 365.25 days in a year.  7 times 52 is 364 not 365.25. We are teaching our students in school wrong. How do we rectify this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question? If we have 7 days in a week and 52 weeks in a year, how can we have 365.25 days in a year.  7 times 52 is 364 not 365.25. We are teaching our students in school wrong. How do we rectify this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-407304</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-407304</guid>
		<description>60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 4 + 864000 = 126230400 / 4/365 /24 / 60/60 = 1.000684931506849. Is this wrong?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 4 + 864000 = 126230400 / 4/365 /24 / 60/60 = 1.000684931506849. Is this wrong?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rum and Reason &#187; Top o’ the orbit to ya! &#124; Bad Astronomy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-394730</link>
		<dc:creator>Rum and Reason &#187; Top o’ the orbit to ya! &#124; Bad Astronomy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-394730</guid>
		<description>[...] aren&#8217;t an even number of days in a year (that pesky extra 0.24 in the 365.24 days per year messes things up), and there are other minor factors as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] aren&#8217;t an even number of days in a year (that pesky extra 0.24 in the 365.24 days per year messes things up), and there are other minor factors as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Строительство,ремонт,отделка</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-232435</link>
		<dc:creator>Строительство,ремонт,отделка</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:19:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-232435</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;www.p-s-l.ru&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Укладка плитки быстро&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="www.p-s-l.ru" rel="nofollow">Укладка плитки быстро</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fodder &#171; Voice of Truth</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-170693</link>
		<dc:creator>Fodder &#171; Voice of Truth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-170693</guid>
		<description>[...] is a very good explanation of why we have leap days, by Phil Plait, author of the Bad Astronomy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is a very good explanation of why we have leap days, by Phil Plait, author of the Bad Astronomy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CuriosButNotGeorge</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-150562</link>
		<dc:creator>CuriosButNotGeorge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-150562</guid>
		<description>So, I understand -I think- about leap years and other calendar systems.  
My question is related to this extraction of your text:  &quot;Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary.&quot;
So, how was it decided (arbitrary) that a minute is a 60th of and hour, and a second a 60th of a minute but then they stopped there?
Why did the second not get divided using the sexagesimal system and they used the decimal system instead (10ths, 100ths, 1000ths of a second ... and so on...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I understand -I think- about leap years and other calendar systems.<br />
My question is related to this extraction of your text:  &#8220;Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary.&#8221;<br />
So, how was it decided (arbitrary) that a minute is a 60th of and hour, and a second a 60th of a minute but then they stopped there?<br />
Why did the second not get divided using the sexagesimal system and they used the decimal system instead (10ths, 100ths, 1000ths of a second &#8230; and so on&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Time flies when you&#8217;re having fun! &#124; Fryeburg Academy Physics</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-145485</link>
		<dc:creator>Time flies when you&#8217;re having fun! &#124; Fryeburg Academy Physics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-145485</guid>
		<description>[...] usually every four years, though it&#8217;s really quite a bit more complicated than that.  Click this link for a quite detailed description of leap years that might make your head [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] usually every four years, though it&#8217;s really quite a bit more complicated than that.  Click this link for a quite detailed description of leap years that might make your head [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Take a flying leap second &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-144430</link>
		<dc:creator>Take a flying leap second &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-144430</guid>
		<description>[...] fraction of the year, and we add a day in every fours years to help even it out (though in reality it&#8217;s a LOT more complicated than that). But why do we add a single [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] fraction of the year, and we add a day in every fours years to help even it out (though in reality it&#8217;s a LOT more complicated than that). But why do we add a single [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Happy New Year! &#171; An Open System</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-142583</link>
		<dc:creator>Happy New Year! &#171; An Open System</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-142583</guid>
		<description>[...] Our modern calendar - the Gregorian calendar - was implemented by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. I think most people realize that our year counting begins at the accepted birth-year of Christ. How many people know that the calendar itself was aligned from the Julian system so that Easter would fall at a certain time of the year? To their credit, the First Council of Nicaea used the vernal equinox as their starting point for their arbitrary celebration of the resurrection. They decided that Christ&#8217;s resurrection should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox - which in the Julian calendar was March 21. How random is that? Their decision was based on the date rather than the actual equinox, and the two drifted apart over the centuries. Pope Gregory&#8217;s edicts adjusted the calendar by deleting 10 days so that March 21 lined back up with the equinox. They then justified this mathematically by making the already absurd leap-year algorithm, yet more absurd. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Our modern calendar &#8211; the Gregorian calendar &#8211; was implemented by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. I think most people realize that our year counting begins at the accepted birth-year of Christ. How many people know that the calendar itself was aligned from the Julian system so that Easter would fall at a certain time of the year? To their credit, the First Council of Nicaea used the vernal equinox as their starting point for their arbitrary celebration of the resurrection. They decided that Christ&#8217;s resurrection should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox &#8211; which in the Julian calendar was March 21. How random is that? Their decision was based on the date rather than the actual equinox, and the two drifted apart over the centuries. Pope Gregory&#8217;s edicts adjusted the calendar by deleting 10 days so that March 21 lined back up with the equinox. They then justified this mathematically by making the already absurd leap-year algorithm, yet more absurd. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-4/#comment-139787</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-139787</guid>
		<description>Though India itself is a energetic investment destination (with belongings prices reaching advanced heights), enhanced and else Indians are going abroad to purchase their head trip properties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though India itself is a energetic investment destination (with belongings prices reaching advanced heights), enhanced and else Indians are going abroad to purchase their head trip properties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergey</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-139310</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-139310</guid>
		<description>The Sarah Summer yeast infection cure is an extensively researched programme for curing yeast infections. The cures presented are forceful for curing yeast overgrowth in men, women, babies, and during pregnancy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Sarah Summer yeast infection cure is an extensively researched programme for curing yeast infections. The cures presented are forceful for curing yeast overgrowth in men, women, babies, and during pregnancy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Рустам</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-114128</link>
		<dc:creator>Рустам</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-114128</guid>
		<description>Сайт о Шутках, Юморе и Смешных историях</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Сайт о Шутках, Юморе и Смешных историях</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-114012</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-114012</guid>
		<description>Project about style, footwear, female style. Questions about your style; hair, makeup, Skin and body, fashion and accessories. Questions about your style; hair, makeup, fashion and accessories, Skin and body.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Project about style, footwear, female style. Questions about your style; hair, makeup, Skin and body, fashion and accessories. Questions about your style; hair, makeup, fashion and accessories, Skin and body.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gazza666</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73448</link>
		<dc:creator>gazza666</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:08:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73448</guid>
		<description>As far as I know the ST time was DELIBERATELY chosen to be indecipherable. They were aware that the Einsteinian equations would mean that UTC would prove problematic (to say nothing of the fact that it would seem too Earth centric) so they invented &quot;Stardates&quot; which apparently compensated for the effects of relativity and so forth.

That being said, in the Next Generation era, the second digit of the star date tended to increase by 1 every season, but I don&#039;t think it was ever established that this was canonical.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I know the ST time was DELIBERATELY chosen to be indecipherable. They were aware that the Einsteinian equations would mean that UTC would prove problematic (to say nothing of the fact that it would seem too Earth centric) so they invented &#8220;Stardates&#8221; which apparently compensated for the effects of relativity and so forth.</p>
<p>That being said, in the Next Generation era, the second digit of the star date tended to increase by 1 every season, but I don&#8217;t think it was ever established that this was canonical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drunk Vegan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73447</link>
		<dc:creator>Drunk Vegan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73447</guid>
		<description>&quot;We have two basic units of time: the day and the year. Of all the everyday measurements we use, these are the only two based on concrete physical events: the time it takes for the Earth to spin once on its axis, and the time it takes to go around the Sun. Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary. Convenient, but they are not based on independent, non-arbitrary events.&quot;


The year and the day are not the only two measurements of time based on physical events. A month is also based on a physical event, or was in earlier calendars which used 28 days for one month. Now a month is only based on a lunar day (which is also a lunar year because the Moon&#039;s year and day are both 28 days long. This is due to Earth&#039;s gravity, which tidally locks one side of the moon to always face the Earth.)

Something just occurred to me to wonder about: does anyone know what the Star Trek system of time measurement is based on? Never did figure that out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We have two basic units of time: the day and the year. Of all the everyday measurements we use, these are the only two based on concrete physical events: the time it takes for the Earth to spin once on its axis, and the time it takes to go around the Sun. Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary. Convenient, but they are not based on independent, non-arbitrary events.&#8221;</p>
<p>The year and the day are not the only two measurements of time based on physical events. A month is also based on a physical event, or was in earlier calendars which used 28 days for one month. Now a month is only based on a lunar day (which is also a lunar year because the Moon&#8217;s year and day are both 28 days long. This is due to Earth&#8217;s gravity, which tidally locks one side of the moon to always face the Earth.)</p>
<p>Something just occurred to me to wonder about: does anyone know what the Star Trek system of time measurement is based on? Never did figure that out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Numbers Guy : Leap-Year Moms' Leap-Year Babies Are No Great Surprise</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73446</link>
		<dc:creator>The Numbers Guy : Leap-Year Moms' Leap-Year Babies Are No Great Surprise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73446</guid>
		<description>[...] on the math behind leap years, and why in about 3,000 years our calendar will be out of whack, see this astronomer&#8217;s blog. Since we haven&#8217;t skipped a leap year since 1900, and won&#8217;t again until 2100, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on the math behind leap years, and why in about 3,000 years our calendar will be out of whack, see this astronomer&#8217;s blog. Since we haven&#8217;t skipped a leap year since 1900, and won&#8217;t again until 2100, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drew terry</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73445</link>
		<dc:creator>drew terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73445</guid>
		<description>It seems to me what is arbitrary is the blind faith in the &quot;year&quot; equal to exactly how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun; so what does it matter?

Besides planting and harvesting, and taxes, does it really matter how long is a year?

If the day equal to 24 hours is arbitrary, and if the 1 hour equal to 60 minutes is arbitrary, then is it also arbitrary that 3600 seconds = 60 minutes while 86400 seconds equal 24 hours?

Think about what did numbers mean and for what were they used? They measured circles long before there was a clock on the wall or 24 hours to the day or 3600 seconds to 1 hour; these are all terms of navigation.

3x2=6; 6x4=24; 24x3=72;

72/2=36; 72/3=24; 3/2=36/24;

384-24=360; 360/10=36

If you think the metric system would be easier for time, consider these simple math functions as base-10 logarithmic functions:

60-24=3.6e1
36/24=1.5
36-24=1.2e1
12/36=3.3333333333e-1
3/36=8.3333333333e-2
3/12=2.5e-1
1/4/12=2.0833333333e-2
1/6/12=1.3888888889e-2

Now here they are as fractions:
60-24=36
36/24=3/2
36-24=12
12/36=1/3
3/36=1/12
3/12=1/4
1/4/12=1/48
1/6/12=1/72

Anything but arbitrary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me what is arbitrary is the blind faith in the &#8220;year&#8221; equal to exactly how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun; so what does it matter?</p>
<p>Besides planting and harvesting, and taxes, does it really matter how long is a year?</p>
<p>If the day equal to 24 hours is arbitrary, and if the 1 hour equal to 60 minutes is arbitrary, then is it also arbitrary that 3600 seconds = 60 minutes while 86400 seconds equal 24 hours?</p>
<p>Think about what did numbers mean and for what were they used? They measured circles long before there was a clock on the wall or 24 hours to the day or 3600 seconds to 1 hour; these are all terms of navigation.</p>
<p>3&#215;2=6; 6&#215;4=24; 24&#215;3=72;</p>
<p>72/2=36; 72/3=24; 3/2=36/24;</p>
<p>384-24=360; 360/10=36</p>
<p>If you think the metric system would be easier for time, consider these simple math functions as base-10 logarithmic functions:</p>
<p>60-24=3.6e1<br />
36/24=1.5<br />
36-24=1.2e1<br />
12/36=3.3333333333e-1<br />
3/36=8.3333333333e-2<br />
3/12=2.5e-1<br />
1/4/12=2.0833333333e-2<br />
1/6/12=1.3888888889e-2</p>
<p>Now here they are as fractions:<br />
60-24=36<br />
36/24=3/2<br />
36-24=12<br />
12/36=1/3<br />
3/36=1/12<br />
3/12=1/4<br />
1/4/12=1/48<br />
1/6/12=1/72</p>
<p>Anything but arbitrary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bay of Fundie &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Our &#8220;Designed&#8221; Solar System</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73444</link>
		<dc:creator>Bay of Fundie &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Our &#8220;Designed&#8221; Solar System</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73444</guid>
		<description>[...] leap years? Why are the rules for calculating the leap years so convoluted? Phil Plait explains in torturous detail here all about leap years. The bottom line is that the year is 365.242190419 days long. What sort of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] leap years? Why are the rules for calculating the leap years so convoluted? Phil Plait explains in torturous detail here all about leap years. The bottom line is that the year is 365.242190419 days long. What sort of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Enok</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73443</link>
		<dc:creator>Enok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73443</guid>
		<description>&quot;What physical phenomenon takes exactly one second? What physical phemonena might possibly take exactly one second?&quot;

A heartbeat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;What physical phenomenon takes exactly one second? What physical phemonena might possibly take exactly one second?&#8221;</p>
<p>A heartbeat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Geek Review &#187; Leap Year Math</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73442</link>
		<dc:creator>The Geek Review &#187; Leap Year Math</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73442</guid>
		<description>[...] Was surfing around and found this over at the Bad Astronomy Blog. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Was surfing around and found this over at the Bad Astronomy Blog. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 29. Februar &#171; alltagswahnsinn</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73441</link>
		<dc:creator>29. Februar &#171; alltagswahnsinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73441</guid>
		<description>[...] wir überhaupt Schaltjahre und -tage haben, beschreibt unser Bad Astronomer ausführlichst, bitte Taschenrechner zücken und brav [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] wir überhaupt Schaltjahre und -tage haben, beschreibt unser Bad Astronomer ausführlichst, bitte Taschenrechner zücken und brav [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B Fenerty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73440</link>
		<dc:creator>B Fenerty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73440</guid>
		<description>Nigel asked: [...] What physical phenomena might possibly take exactly one second?

How about the time it took Welles to say &quot;rosebud&quot;?

If so, we then have the OWRSS, the Orson Welles Rosebud Standard Second! I bet Phil you subconsciously had this very thing in mind when you mentioned his famous quote at the top!

Sliding along, the above are what leaped into my thoughts on this burning question. Got to run now, there are only so many OWRSS in a busy day, so will just close by asking: any second opinions?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nigel asked: [...] What physical phenomena might possibly take exactly one second?</p>
<p>How about the time it took Welles to say &#8220;rosebud&#8221;?</p>
<p>If so, we then have the OWRSS, the Orson Welles Rosebud Standard Second! I bet Phil you subconsciously had this very thing in mind when you mentioned his famous quote at the top!</p>
<p>Sliding along, the above are what leaped into my thoughts on this burning question. Got to run now, there are only so many OWRSS in a busy day, so will just close by asking: any second opinions?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why real science is better in school than faux science &#171; Millard Fillmore&#8217;s Bathtub</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/comment-page-3/#comment-73439</link>
		<dc:creator>Why real science is better in school than faux science &#171; Millard Fillmore&#8217;s Bathtub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/why-we-have-leap-days/#comment-73439</guid>
		<description>[...] Phil Plait at the misnamed (for this post) Bad Astronomy explains in glorious mathematical detail how leap year calculations work, and why we need wait around for more than three millennia to lobby for another calendar correction. Phil is really a remarkable story teller, for an astronomer: We have two basic units of time: the day and the year. Of all the everyday measurements we use, these are the only two based on concrete physical events: the time it takes for the Earth to spin once on its axis, and the time it takes to go around the Sun. Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary. Convenient, but they are not based on independent, non-arbitrary events. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Phil Plait at the misnamed (for this post) Bad Astronomy explains in glorious mathematical detail how leap year calculations work, and why we need wait around for more than three millennia to lobby for another calendar correction. Phil is really a remarkable story teller, for an astronomer: We have two basic units of time: the day and the year. Of all the everyday measurements we use, these are the only two based on concrete physical events: the time it takes for the Earth to spin once on its axis, and the time it takes to go around the Sun. Every other unit of time we use (second, hour, week, month) is rather arbitrary. Convenient, but they are not based on independent, non-arbitrary events. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-02-14 17:07:55 -->
