Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The best on Time Zones

Expand Messages
  • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
    No one does it better. No one does is more brief. _http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/_ (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/) hjw
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 3, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      No one does it better.  No one does is more brief.
       
       
      hjw
    • David Settle
      I see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: 1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        I see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: "1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC everywhere on Earth ..."

        In fact, for systems in relative motion (among other things) this is only approximately true. I guess it goes to show how entrenched Newton's idea of absolute time has become, despite not, in fact, being strictly true. People do seem to like the idea of time being the same everywhere, it's such a reassuring way of viewing the world.

        It seems that Minkowski's 1908 comment that 'Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.' seems still to be a long way from becoming "common sense".

        Dave
        --
        David Settle
        ID Admin Infrastructure Services
        Architecture & Engineering
        Deutsche Bank London

        Tel: +44 (0) 20 7545 1824



        hjwoudenberg@...
        Sent by: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com

        04/06/2006 02:07

        Please respond to
        ISO8601@yahoogroups.com

        To
        iso8601@yahoogroups.com, wwdates@yahoogroups.com
        cc
        Subject
        [ISO8601] The best on Time Zones





        No one does it better.  No one does is more brief.
         
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/
         
        hjw


        SPONSORED LINKS
        Computer internet security Computer internet business Computer internet access
        Computer internet help How to format a computer hard drive Computer internet connection



        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






        ---

        This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
        are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
        please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
        unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
        e-mail is strictly forbidden.
      • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
        In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@db.com writes: see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@... writes:
          see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: "1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC everywhere on Earth ..."

          In fact, for systems in relative motion (among other things) this is only approximately true.
          I understand that time is relative, time and space are bent by the force of gravity.
          When I look up into the sky see the light the star Arcturus, it is of 38 years ago.  So today it might not exist.  Is it wrong for me to say their is Arcturus, the sun rose when really the earth turns.
           
          Can you explain mo0re what you think is right and wrong?
           
          hjw
           
        • Tex Texin
          ummm, if it isn t relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            ummm, if it isn't relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?


            From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hjwoudenberg@...
            Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:27 PM
            To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [ISO8601] The best on Time Zones

            In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@... writes:
            see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: "1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC everywhere on Earth ..."

            In fact, for systems in relative motion (among other things) this is only approximately true.
            I understand that time is relative, time and space are bent by the force of gravity.
            When I look up into the sky see the light the star Arcturus, it is of 38 years ago.  So today it might not exist.  Is it wrong for me to say their is Arcturus, the sun rose when really the earth turns.
             
            Can you explain mo0re what you think is right and wrong?
             
            hjw
             
          • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
            In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@yahoo-inc.com writes: ummm, if it isn t relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
              ummm, if it isn't relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?
              I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group.
               
              hjw
            • Tex Texin
              hjw says: I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group. So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                 hjw says:
                 I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group.
                 
                 
                So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group.
                 
                Good I agree.
                The other comment is that the topics are 8601 related.
                 
                tex
              • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
                In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@yahoo-inc.com writes: So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
                  So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group.
                  However, other seems to think differently.
                   
                  hjw
                • Tex Texin
                  OK, I am confused about your point of view. But the discussion is likely boring for the list. Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let s drop it. tex In
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    OK, I am confused about your point of view. But the discussion is likely boring for the list.
                    Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let's drop it.
                    tex
                     

                    In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
                    So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group. 
                     
                    However, other seems to think differently.
                     
                    hjw
                    .
                  • Ted Lyngmo
                    ... Not at all actually :-) Cheers, Ted
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tex Texin wrote:
                      > OK, I am confused about your point of view.
                      > But the discussion is likely boring for the list.

                      Not at all actually :-)

                      Cheers,
                      Ted

                      > Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let's drop it.
                      > tex
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                      > tex@... writes:
                      >
                      > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
                      > realize this is a serious discussion group.
                      >
                      >
                      > However, other seems to think differently.
                      >
                      > hjw
                      > .
                      >
                    • piebaldconsult
                      ... realize ... Serious or not, it s a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C s support of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn t.
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
                        realize
                        > this is a serious discussion group.
                        >
                        > Good I agree.
                        > The other comment is that the topics are 8601 related.

                        Serious or not, it's a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C's support
                        of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn't.
                      • Tex Texin
                        yes, that was my intended sentiment. _____ From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of piebaldconsult Sent: Tuesday, June 06,
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          yes, that was my intended sentiment.


                          From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of piebaldconsult
                          Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:41 AM
                          To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [ISO8601] Re: relativity

                          > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do

                          realize
                          > this is a serious discussion group.
                          >
                          > Good I
                          agree.
                          > The other comment is that the topics are 8601
                          related.

                          Serious or not, it's a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C's support
                          of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn't.

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.