Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe pushing for lunar time zone

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 406 posts

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#91

Post by libraryatnight »

esperent wrote: post #4

For some reason I thought this was going to be about an alternative to daylight savings time and any suggestion of abolishing that always gets my interest. It's not though, it's about giving the moon its own time zone. Which is about that least exciting moon based news I've ever heard although I'm sure there's interesting technical challenges (which I sincerely hope I never have to deal with).

I can't wait to have to take into consideration the timezone of the moon people when I schedule my zoom meetings in the future. /s

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#93

Post by bonzini »

Aerroon wrote: post #32
rascul wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. And the math needs to be done either way, if you're trying to determine a relation to when the sun is at its peak for your area vs their area.

The math would've been a lot easier if GMT+0 had been somewhere in the Pacific ocean. Going from +1 to -7 is a lot more troublesome for most people than from +11 to +19.

Well, it would just move the issue to Europe wouldn't it? If Europe became a -10ish time zone, they would be the one having to go from +11 to +19.

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#94

Post by jamesrom »

midoridensha wrote: post #54
gffrd wrote: post #2

> A joint international effort is now being launched towards achieving this Just pin it to GMT and call it good.

As the article noted, clocks lose 56us per day on the Moon, relative to the Earth.

So the moon gets a leap second every 50 years. Why does that prevent you from using UTC?

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#95

Post by thaumasiotes »

wolverine876 wrote: post #22
gffrd wrote: post #2

> A joint international effort is now being launched towards achieving this Just pin it to GMT and call it good.

They mean local lunar time, for coordination between actors on the moon. Lunar day length and even, due to gravity, second length differ from Earth (i.e., time moves at a different speed).

> They mean local lunar time, for coordination between actors on the moon. Lunar day length and even, due to gravity, second length differ from Earth (i.e., time moves at a different speed).

These two sentences aren't related to each other. Time moves at a different speed on the moon than it does on Earth. But that only affects interactions between the Earth and the moon. Two actors that are both on the moon are both on the moon; their Earth-based clocks will work without adjustment if their goal is to coordinate with each other.

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#96

Post by jamesrom »

wolverine876 wrote: post #22
gffrd wrote: post #2

> A joint international effort is now being launched towards achieving this Just pin it to GMT and call it good.

They mean local lunar time, for coordination between actors on the moon. Lunar day length and even, due to gravity, second length differ from Earth (i.e., time moves at a different speed).

Doesn't sound like a compelling reason against UTC. Add a leap second every 50 years for relativity.

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#97

Post by midoridensha »

Aerroon wrote: post #32
rascul wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. And the math needs to be done either way, if you're trying to determine a relation to when the sun is at its peak for your area vs their area.

The math would've been a lot easier if GMT+0 had been somewhere in the Pacific ocean. Going from +1 to -7 is a lot more troublesome for most people than from +11 to +19.

Yeah, it would be nice if they made GMT the same as the international date line.

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#98

Post by Zr40 »

Taywee wrote: post #39
rascul wrote: post #8

I would be happy if we got rid of timezones, got rid of daylight savings time, and got rid of 12 hour clocks.

With timezones: * I want to call my friend in Germany. What time is it for her? I guess I'm UTC-7 and she's UTC+1, so she's 8 hours ahead of me. I know that everybody around the world typically wakes up between 6 and 9 AM and goes to sleep between 8 PM and midnight, and she's an early bird, so she should be awake. * They said the meeting was going to be at 8 o'clock, but they are in a different time zone, did they me…

> With timezones:

> * I want to call my friend in Germany. What time is it for her? I guess I'm UTC-7 and she's UTC+1, so she's 8 hours ahead of me. I know that everybody around the world typically wakes up between 6 and 9 AM and goes to sleep between 8 PM and midnight, and she's an early bird, so she should be awake.

> Without timezones:

> * I want to call my friend in Germany. It's the same time here as there. It rises at 13:00 here, but she's a quarter of the way way around the world. I have to look up their typical waking hours. She's an early bird, so is she on the early side of that, likely. What time does the sun rise there? How much does that change over the seasons?

This is actually the same thing. In both cases you have to know or look up that there's an 8 hour difference between the two of you.

The bits about the seasons and being an early bird apply equally to both cases, so it's not really relevant to the comparison.

Re: Europe pushing for lunar time zone

#100

Post by thaumasiotes »

doctor_eval wrote: post #79
Daz1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why needlessly complicate things? Use GMT + 0, earth days, and earth weeks. Why introduce all this unnecessary confusion? There is no practical need to measure local time on the moon. >Earth clocks and moon clocks don’t run at the same time, due to relativity. I'm sure the 1/3000th of a millisecond per year won't be a problem

> I'm sure the 1/3000th of a millisecond per year won't be a problem But that’s several orders of magnitude incorrect. FTA: > Clocks run faster on the moon than on Earth, gaining about 56 microseconds each day Unless my maths is wrong isn’t it actually 200 milliseconds per year? It’s not a lot of time, sure. But it seems important to people like scientists. Which, not coincidentally, is probably the most ”practical”…

> Unless my maths is wrong isn’t it actually 200 milliseconds per year?

20, not 200.

Post reply on HN