On 3/30/21 10:31 AM, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The point is horology is cultural, see non-Western calendars and alternate time keeping methods. Trying to maintain a distinction between the two concepts only furthers the confusion. The inconsistencies you see are the result of one(culture) intervening in the other(horology).
I intend the word “horology” to be taken in this sense:
« The word "horology" means "the art of making clocks and watches". So the intended meaning of the phrase "horological interval" is "what you'd measure with a clock". The implication is "what you'd measure with the best clock that there is (in other words, a caesium clock) but expressed in seconds and multiples thereof (hours, and minutes, but not days).” »
There’s nothing cultural about the size of the caesium unit. It simply emerges from the laws of physics. Maybe you don’t like the word “horology”. I’m open to suggestions for a better term of art.
But I hold fast to the idea that an atomic clock measures time and durations in one way and a calendar measures these in a different way. Seems to me that the whole business of calendars is nicely captured by the term “cultural”.
Maybe I could use the terms “atomic clock time” and “calendar time”.
Which are for practical purposes one and the same, otherwise we would
not have leap seconds as a method of syncing the two.
You can’t write something like this without terms of art to support you.
Thanks again for your helpful insights. I’ll stop now.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
