On 3/30/21 10:31 AM, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com wrote:
>>
>> The point is horology is cultural, see non-Western calendars and alternate time keeping methods. Trying to maintain
adistinction 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
"horologicalinterval" is "what you'd measure with a clock". The implication is "what you'd measure with the best clock
thatthere is (in other words, a caesium clock) but expressed in seconds and multiples thereof (hours, and minutes, but
notdays).” »
>
> There’s nothing cultural about the size of the caesium unit. It simply emerges from the laws of physics. Maybe you
don’tlike 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
ina 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@aklaver.com