************

For those who liked the "Revolutions" topic, here's the next mind-expanding "installment."

A few months ago, a member of the Mars Exploration Rover scientific team contacted me about having a watch made to keep Martian time. It sounded like a neat idea, and the fellow sounded like he needed lots of help, so I decided to see what I could do. In short, we conversed about the details, I volunteered to perform the work, and the watch (which as far as we know, is the first ever created to tell time on a different planet) was completed and presented to its new owner in a ceremony this past June. If I can ever find time, I'm going to attempt to write an article about the project and submit it to the "Bulletin" for publication, but there's no telling when that's going to be!

In any event, the Mars Exploration Rovers are designed to be solar powered, obviously during the daylight hours on Mars, and the problem was to modify a watch designed to keep "mean solar time" on Earth, so that it instead kept "mean solar time" on Mars. The only information I was given from the people at NASA was that there are 88,775.2 mean solar [Earth] seconds in a mean solar Martian day, and the rest was left entirely to me.

While it's easy to assume the necessary modifications would involve gearing, to me, the most feasible approach seemed to be by altering the beat count of the watch. Most pocket watches (including the Hamilton "4992-B" used for the project), are designed to keep "mean solar time" on Earth at a rate of exactly 18,000.0 beats per mean solar hour on Earth; obviously, if a watch runs faster than that, it will gain time, and if it runs slower than that, it will lose time.

The "trick" to making a watch keep "Martian-time" was knowing exactly how much to modify the beat in order to accomplish the desired rate, but deciding just what that rate actually was turned out to be more interesting than I'd originally thought. Of course, simple math reveals that a mean solar day on Mars is 39 minutes and 35.2 seconds longer than a mean solar day on Earth, but that's all I'm going to say at the moment.......

Now, given the information above, what rate is necessary for a standard 18,000 bph mechanical watch to keep correct Martian time?

Again, I encourage everyone to respond by voting!

Steve Maddox
Past President, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas
IHC Charter Member 49

From the 3 votes and 35 page views logged so far, it appears as though this topic isn't nearly as interesting to everyone else as it was to me.

At least the response gives a good indication that a "Bulletin" article would be an additional waste of time, and I'd have spent a number of hours on that, rather than a number of minutes.

For what it's worth, I don't know or care what time it is on Mars either, but for anyone willing to put forth the effort to understand the problem above, the solution will expand one's way of thinking.

===============

SM

To put it another way, consider the following:

If person "A" has 1 dollar more than person "B," then by that very fact, person "B" will have 1 dollar less than person "A."

On the other hand, as strange as it seems.......

If a day on planet "A" is 1 hour longer than a day on planet "B," a day on planet "B" will NOT be 1 hour shorter than a day on planet "A."



WHY?



Understanding THAT is the essence of understanding the "Mars Time" problem.


===================

SM

After much consideration....I have come to the following conclusions...1..Time is an ILLUSION....2...It's different in different parts of the world...therefore...you can't depend on it....3...It's man made...therefore it will eventually break....4....It's passage only concerns humans on planet earth....if we were on Mars...we would not be concerned about this illusion....we would be concerned about ...How the heck are we going to get back to EARTH...Oh Oh......It's TIME for me to check that bird I have roasting in the oven....the TIMER just went off...Happy Holiday

Consider this: the watch hands have to move 24 hour around the clock in a period of time of 24 hour, 39 minutes and 35.2 seconds, that means the beating must be a little.... slower?

Consider two clocks sitting side by side. Both are set to exactly 12:00:00, and are started at precisely the same instant. By the time one clock reads 1:00:00, the other clock reads only 12:59:00. In other words, over a particular interval, the "fast" clock gained exactly 1 minute on the "slow" one (it makes no difference which one is actually "right").

Now, by the time the "slow" clock reaches 1:00:00, what time will be displayed on the "fast" clock? It won't be 1:01:00, as one might initially expect, because that would require both clocks to advance at equal rates over the last measured interval. Since the previous difference had been 1 part in 60, the difference should continue to accumulate at that same rate over the additional interval, and by the time the "slow" clock reached 1:00:00, the "fast" one should show 1:01:01.

Obviously, in order for a timekeeper to display 24 hours of running time in a period of "Earth time" that's longer than that (such as a Martian day), the frequency of its time base will have to be slowed. The problem is in deciding exactly how much it should be slowed, and in the case of the Mars watch, the key comes in understanding exactly what one's trying to accomplish.

As odd as it might at first appear, the goal of making a Martian timekeeper lose 39 minutes and 35.2 seconds per [Earth] day, is not correct! The loss isn't supposed to occur over 24:00:00.0 [Earth] hours, it's supposed to occur over 24:39:35.2 [Earth] hours, which is a period of an additional 39:35.2 minutes during which the rate differential would continue to accumulate.

The problem is complicated by the fact that two different intervals of time are both referred to as "days." In one case, a "day" is an "Earth day," which is 24:00:00.0 hours of "our" time. On the other side of the equation, however, a "day" is a "Martian day," which is a longer interval, equivalent to 24:39:35.2 hours of "our" time.

A similar situation would occur with the "dollars" problem above, if we referred to two different monetary units as "dollars." Such a scenario would unfold as follows:

If person "A" has 1 [US] dollar more than person "B," it doesn't necessarily mean that person "B" will have 1 [Canadian] dollar less than person "A."

Although the monetary units were all described as "dollars," their actual values are not equal, and such is the case with "days," when one refers to days on Earth, and days on Mars.

Keeping the units straight, and deciding upon the correct goal, should lead one to discover the true answer to the problem.

=======================

SM

Steve Maddox
Past President, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas
IHC Charter Member 49

Well...I calculate 1849.832....however....I don't think there is a correct answer until we find out exactly what the GRAVITATIONAL PULL is on Mars...I think I remmber it being LESS than that on earth...if it is DIFFERENT than the MASS or WEIGHT of the balance assembly will also have to be changed...What do you think?

Tonyzee,
If weight were a factor, then being on Mars rather than Earth would make a difference, as weight is dependant on the strenghth of the gravitational field it is measured in. However, mass, which is NOT the same thing, is an intrinsic property of matter, and remains the same on Earth, Mars or intergalactic space. It is the mass, not weight, of the balance that determines how fast it will rotate, so a watch will run at the same rate in outer space as it will on earth, not counting differences in atmospheric conditions.

Ed Ueberall
NAWCC 49688
IHC Member 34
The Escapement

Steve,

I know your question is about changing a current watch to work on Mars solar time, but I wonder why not make a new clock completely? I would devide the mars day into 10 parts, then devide those parts into 10, etc. Sort of a decimal clock.

Still thinking about an answer before I vote.

Andy

Member of Chapters 168 and 185.

Andy -- The "decimal time" idea you're considering is something that the French attempted to adopt about 200 years ago. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people found it difficult to understand, and the idea was abandoned within a few years. Today, decimal time watches are collectors' items, and they're still as difficult to comprehend on a meaningful level as always.

The idea of creating a "new" watch for Martian time, however, is not off the mark. Actually, the necessary modification to a standard "Earth time" watch, converts it to run at a rate of 18,000.0 beats per Martian hour, rather than that amount per Earth hour. The reason for the apparently "odd" beat count is that all timing instruments available to us here are calculated in "Earth time." If we had a timing machine that was designed to operate on Martian time, the beat count of our Martian watch would be 18,000 bph, and the beat count of a watch calibrated to keep correct time on Earth would appear equally "strange" by that standard.

The escapement of a watch is inexorably linked to the gear train, which for most pocket watches, means that 18,000 ticks of the escapement will advance the hands exactly 1 hour. It's no different with the Mars watch; 18,000 ticks of the escapement will still cause the hands to advance 1 hour, it's just that the actual period of time measured and referred to as an "hour" will be different (longer) when calibrated for Martian time.

Tony -- The watch in question isn't designed to operate on Mars, it's designed to operate on Earth, but to tell what time it is on Mars. Obviously, NASA has a computerized mission control clock that tells the exact time on Mars to a ridiculously precise degree, but that clock doesn't do the scientists any good when they're at home on the couch, or driving to work in their cars.

In any event, the rate of a watch is determined by the relationship between the strength of the hairspring and the "moment of inertia" of the balance wheel, not the weight, or really even the mass of the wheel. Increasing the mass of a balance wheel at the perimeter (such as is accomplished by adding screws or timing washers) will slow the rate, but so will moving the meantime screws outward, which does not change the mass.

The strength of the hairspring and the "moment of inertia" of the balance wheel are the essential factors, and as Ed suggests above, relatively modest changes in gravity would not affect the rate of a watch to any appreciable degree. Obviously, if exposed to sufficient G forces, the pivots of the balance staff would break, and the rate would be reduced to 0. Alternatively, in a gravity-free environment, positional errors which are always caused by gravitational forces, would be reduced to zero, which would actually be a benefit to mechanical timekeeping!

For what it's worth, those who arrive at a figure and attempt to "check" their math by calculating it into a 24 hour Earth day, will encounter a problem. Again, the object is NOT to make the watch lose 39:35.2 in 24:00:00.0 hours, it's to make it lose that amount in 24:39:35.2 Earth hours, which means that it's loss over just 24:00:00.0 Earth hours will be less.

====================

SM

OK...So...this watch is NOT going to Mars...whew....I'm glad I'm not going either...This watch is staying here on Earth so that these folks at NASA
can.....go play golf...whip out this watch...and see what time it is on Mars....do I have this correct now??...also...when I add timing washers to a Balance wheel...I'm NOT making it heaver?...
I'm...changing the "moment of inertia"...Please explain???...If I make something HEAVIER...don't I change how much FORCE it will take to move that object?

Steve, and everyone else.

I did find this question interesting, and still do. I was one of the first three responding, and therefore, one of the eight who have ventured forth with an answer thus far.

I have just double checked my math and my thinking and still think I have the right answer. However, I await your revelation and discussion to see if I am indeed correct.

And, you are right. Thinking about this helps expand one's understanding of how we measure time.

Thanks for your input.

Mike

Steve,I'm sure I can come up with the correct answer after a few more shared bottles of wine(we had our Thanksgiving today),but I'm just too #%*& tired to try! O.K.,we'll try tomorrow!

Sam Williamson
NAWCC 154312
IHC Charter Member 14
Member Chapters 96 and 185

Tony -- Perhaps the following definition will be of some assistance:

"'Moment of Inertia' (Physics) -- A measure of the resistance of a body to angular acceleration, equal to the sum of the products of each particle of a rotating body multiplied by the squares of the distances of the particles from the axis of rotation."

As noted in one of my previous replies above, the rate of an oscillating balance wheel is determined by the relationship between the strength of the hairspring and the moment of inertia of the balance wheel. The moment of inertia can be altered in three ways: (1) by changing the mass of the wheel, (2) by changing the distribution of the mass in relation to the staff, or (3) by some combination of # 1 and # 2.

When adding timing washers, the mass of a balance wheel IS increased, but since the washers have a thickness which causes the heads of the screws to tighten slightly further away from the rim (and thus, away from the center of rotation), timing washers affect the rate by # 3 above, which is a combination of # 1 and # 2 . If ONLY the meantime screws are adjusted, the rate is affected by only # 2 above, which is by changing the distribution of the mass, without adding or removing mass.

Perhaps the following excerpt from a note sent to me by the recipient of the Mars watch (the leader of the scientific team) will help explain how it's being used:

"Starting [a few weeks ago], we will be running a 5-sol Operations Readiness Test. This test, like all of the ORTs we will conduct between now and landing, will be run on Mars time. The point of an ORT is to allow us to rehearse all of the operations processes that we'll use once the rovers are on Mars. We have a total of nine ORTs planned between now and landing, some of them as long as 10 sols. I will use the watch for all of them. We of course have computers that enable us to keep Mars time in a highly accurate -- though much less interesting and charming -- way. I'll compare the watch to what the computers tell us, and let you know in detail how the watch performs. I will tell you, however, that on the sols where I'm the one running the Science Operations Working Group, 'official' Mars time is going to be what
my watch says, no matter what the computers say. "

In a similar note, another scientist on the team (the fellow who commissioned the watch) wrote the following:

"I was out at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California last month for more rover training exercises. This was the first so-called Operational Readiness Test that was conducted on Mars time. For most of us, the switch to Mars time was a pain - all of our activities were set to occur at particular Mars times, and we were provided with tables that showed on a sol-by-sol basis what a particular Mars time converted to in Earth time so that we could be sure to be at the right meetings, etc. Then there was [the team leader], who had his Mars-time 4992B with him in his pocket on a chain he got for it. He didn't need any tables, and I saw him reaching for the watch to see where we were in the schedule many, many times (although I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was gratuitous just because he likes looking at the watch!). Anyway, it was nice to see it being used for a very practical purpose."

I agree; I'm glad those guys are finding the watch to be of practical use, although I haven't yet received any reports on how well it's doing. For what it's worth, an essentially identical 4992-B that I "fine-tuned" and set to coordinated universal time on June 27 of this year (just after I completed the Mars watch), has now gained a total of about 21 seconds. That's an average error of about 0.14 seconds per day, but except for a trip to the National Convention in Charlotte, this particular watch has spent the majority of its time lying in one position (dial-up) on my desk.

-----------------------

Mike -- Of the first three votes that were recorded above, one was correct, and I suspect from your reply that it was probably yours. In order not to "spoil the fun" for Tony, Sam, Andy, and anyone else who may still be figuring, I'm going to wait a few more days before announcing the answer, but if you want it before then, feel free to e-mail me privately, and I'll be happy to send it to you!

====================

SM

You guys keep this up and I'm going to need to get Bill Hansen involved here.

We need an icon for pulling hair out.

Good thinking here and interesting reading for sure.

Aaron

NASA....interesting way to spend taxpayer's money......ah...at the risk of being impolite...
what did it cost me to have this watch "retimed"?

Steve,
I also have the rigth answer... until you say it otherwise... (my math was very simple just a couple of operations)

Well, with all due respect to everyone's intellectual prowess....I still think the watch will have to go to MARS so it's accuracy can be VALIDATED...Here's why....BTW...this is only MY Opinion...it's based on common sense not any scientific fact....MARS is a considerable distance from Earth...when someone on Earth THINKS about what time it is on Mars....one merely looks at their "Mars" watch and observes the time...but that observation is incorrect...because of the distance...that observed time has already passed on Mars...Here on Earth ..when we obseve the time on our most accurate timekeepers...there is also a very slight error involved...the time for our BRAIN to process what we see creates a slight error...also....the fact that we are rotating with the Earth keeps this error very small....since we are not standing on Mars with our Mars watch in hand....and the distance between both planets....a greater error results...
Look at it this way...where do you aim your rifle when shooting a moving target?....does the speed and distance of the target have any consideration to your success at hitting the target?....we now know that what we observe from distant stars today...has actually happened millions of years ago...if this is true...then what we think Mars time is at this moment...as observed on Earth ...has...in fact...PASSED.

Tony,

If a watch is coordinated with Martian time, so long as correct calculations have been made as to exactly what time it IS on Mars when the watch is set, then the watch will remain coordinated with Martian time regardless of where it is in space; the time shown by the watch and the actual time on Mars will be synchronized.

"Problems" creep in with the communication "lag" due to the distance between Earth and Mars (which varies tremendously). Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to make a mechanical timekeeper take into account the communications lag, and it's something the scientists are going to have to deal with by means of their computerized programs at work. One day, they may have to send commands to the rovers 7 minutes and 21 seconds prior to the time they expect them to be received, while a few months later, they may have to send commands 13 minutes and 12 seconds earlier. All that will be have to be coordinated at mission control, but it won't have anything to do with the daily schedules of the scientists.

For what it's worth, none of the planets in our solar system make perfectly circular orbits around the sun, although the orbital path of the Earth is relatively close. The orbital path of Mars is eccentric by millions of miles, and that too will affect the apparent solar time on Mars over the course of a Martian year. Again, however, there isn't any practical way to deal with that in a mechanical timekeeper, which is the reason the Mars watch will keep "mean solar Martian time." It's also the reason conventional clocks and watches on Earth keep "mean solar [Earth] time," rather than "apparent solar time," which is what's displayed by a sundial.

To get a better idea about the Mars Exploration Rover project, as well as how the orbital paths of Mars and Earth compare, check out the following web site:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spiritrightnow.html

For a better idea of how our solar system works in general, see:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/solar.html

=====================

SM

Oops! I failed to notice Tony's question above until just now! It says:

"At the risk of being impolite...what did it cost me to have this watch 'retimed?'"

As noted in my initial message above, "I volunteered to perform the work," and I did so at my own expense because I thought it was an interesting project. A number of members of the scientific team made small personal contributions, which at my suggestion, were used to purchase a nice Hamilton 4992-B on eBay. I wasn't involved in any way with the purchase (except to recommend a Hamilton 4992-B model), but I cleaned and oiled the watch, installed a new balance staff and mainspring, performed the necessary modifications, and returned the watch free of charge.

I will say, however, that the work on the watch was completed shortly before the National Convention in Charlotte last summer, and the fellow who commissioned the watch lives in Knoxville, which is a convenient "midway" point between Little Rock and Charlotte. When I mentioned that I would be passing through Knoxville on my way to Charlotte and offered to take the fellow and his wife out to dinner, he graciously invited my wife and I to spend the night at their home, and we gratefully accepted.

Instead of us taking them to dinner, however, they treated my wife and I to a fabulous meal, and afterwards, we had several wonderful hours of conversation about watches.

In any event, Tony, as far as I know, the project didn't cost you anything, but if knowledge is of any value to you, you have just as much potential to benefit from it as anyone else.

===================

SM

Steve Maddox
Past President, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas
IHC Charter Member 49

I'm delighted you provided NASA your expertise free of charge....let's hope their project get's off the groung and lands safe and sound...I have 2 more questions..then I'm taped-out as far as this topic is concerned....If our 24 hour day differs from Mars by some 39 min...WHAT YEAR IS IT ON MARS?...Let's see.....39x365xHmm...How long has it been since we have been keeping track of ............"time"???

Tony,

The twin Mars Exploration Rovers "got off the ground" last summer, and have been traversing the space between Earth and Mars for several months now. As noted in one of the links above, the first one is scheduled to land on January 3, 2004, and the second on January 24, 2004.

"What year is it on Mars?"

I have no idea, but I'm sure scientists have probably assigned it one.

Unfortunately, people on Earth can't even decide what year it is HERE, let alone what year it is on another planet! The calendar year used by most of the Western world is the Gregorian calendar, which was adopted in 1582 AD, as reckoned by the Julian calendar it replaced. Not everyone, however, uses the Gregorian calendar, so the question of "What year is it on Earth," actually has a number of possible answers. At this particular point in the Gregorian year 2003, it is:

Chinese year: 20:78
Coptic year: 1719
Ethiopian year: 1996
Jewish year: 5763
Indian year: 1924
Islamic year: 1423
Masonic year: 5003

In any event, Martian years are longer than Earth years, just like Martian days are longer than Earth days. It takes approximately 687 Earth days for Mars to orbit the Sun, which means that a Martian year is approximately 1.88 times as long as an Earth year. If we arbitrarily chose to begin Martian years at the same time as our own Gregorian years, it would now be the year 1065 on Mars.

"How long [have people] been keeping track of time?"

People have been keeping track of time since the beginning of recorded history, and they were probably doing it for a long time before that. Ancient Babylonians devised a primitive lunar calendar, but the Egyptians appear to have been the first to adopt a relatively accurate solar calendar.

Egyptians noted that at regular intervals, Sirius (the "Dog Star") reappeared in the eastern sky just before sunrise after several months of invisibility, and that the annual flood of the Nile occurred shortly thereafter. They used that combination of events to create a calendar year composed of 365 days, but they made no provision for "leap years" to account for the extra 1/4 day in solar years, and their calendars eventually drifted into error. According to the famed Egyptologist J. H. Breasted, the earliest known Egyptian calendar corresponds to the year 4236 BC of the Gregorian calendar, which would be about 6,240 years ago.

As for my work on the Mars watch, I didn't do it for NASA, I did it because I thought it was worth doing (which is the same reason I spend time answering questions and posting messages here). In the words of one renowned philosopher: "What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others remains and is immortal."

===================

SM

An interesting note for Andy.........

"Two recently proposed calendars have received considerable support, and would greatly simplify the present calendar. In each, months and years would begin on the same day of the week every year, and all months would contain the same or nearly the same number of days. The 'Fixed Calendar,' also called the 'Thirteen-Month Calendar,' would provide 13 months exactly four weeks long. The extra month, 'Sol,' would come before July. A year day placed at the end of the year would belong to no week or month. Every four years, a leap-year day would be added just before July 1. The 'World Calendar' would have 12 months of 30 or 31 days, a year day at the end of each year, and a leap-year day before July 1 every four years."

Yeah, right! That sure sounds "simple" to me.........

NOT!!!

When people become accustomed to an arbitrary system, it's difficult to persuade them to adopt a different one. That's the reason we're still typing on "qwerty" keyboards, and buying gasoline by the gallon, rather than the liter. In each case, the old systems aren't really "wrong," they're just more "arbitrary" than others.....
maybe.

===================

SM

BINGO.....we don't know what year it is on Earth
nor on Mars....yet.....we know what time it is on each planet?....Man has come up with a system to keep track of "TIME"...in order to make life more orderly...for....all of us ..including NASA....although..Why can't we agree to EXACTLY what time it is?....like I said...TIME IS AN ILLUSION...Steve...I'm delighted we have folks like you around to help NASA with their project..it's like fixing old watches...even those that have very little $$$$ value....as a matter of fact...it sometimes cost more $$ to fix the watch...MUCH more than what it is really worth...It's a challenge...it's fun...However..using taxpayers $$$ for someone elses folly???....IMO...we should stop exploring space and put that money into finding a suitable 'Prime Mover"...to overcome the forces of gravity....ROCKET FUEL! ....is very dangerous...and....the fuel economy stinks...Tesla once said...we are surrounded by energy...all we have to do is find it ..and...use it appropriately....as far as the time keeping ability of NASA's Mar's mechanical timekeeper....may I suggest this..have your NASA contact take that watch and put it into their zero gravity chamber for a 24 hour wind...do you think it will still keep good Martian time?.....Oh heck...I thought I was done with this subject...Yea...I know....I was a real pain-in-the-butt in school too...I drove most of my teachers nuts....Sorry about that.

All this info that has been supplied is very interesting and challenges one to look for more.
Steve, were did you learn about the various calendars?, I would like to read more about them..
Thanks for your time and knowledge.
Carlos Flores

"The old systems aren't really wrong, they're just more arbitrary than others."

I seem to recall that at least early on, geocentric cosmology lost its eminence to heliocentric largely because the latter was simpler, more elegant, more consistent with what became understood later on as Occam’s Razor, the Law of Parsimony.

If you folks want more info on this subject...Yea...I know...You're not as crazy as some folks....just use your search engine and type in...."martian time"...be advised...there is a lot of "junk" info out there on the internet...Tony C

Tony writes: "Have your NASA contact take that watch and put it into their zero gravity chamber for a 24 hour wind...do you think it will still keep good Martian time?"

Actually, I don't think anyone has ever created a "zero gravity chamber" on Earth. It can be achieved for short durations in airplanes, but not for more than a few moments. It would be much more practical to have someone take the watch into orbit on a space shuttle, or test it on the International Space Station, but the result wouldn't be much different than here on Earth.

All kinds of mechanical watches have been successfully used in space for decades. One notable example is the Omega "Speedmaster Professional," which is known today as the "moon watch." Those were the first watches approved by NASA for space flight, and they were the first to be worn on the surface of the moon. In more recent times, the Swiss firm "Sinn" has been supplying watches to the Russian cosmonauts, and curiously enough, those models are self-winding!

One wouldn't initially think a self-winding watch would wind itself in a zero-gravity environment, but apparently, sufficient motion is developed by the inertia of the rotor to wind independently of the forces of gravity. In any event, mechanical watches have been proven to keep essentially the same time in space as they do on Earth.


Carlos -- The info about the various calendars came the "World Book Encyclopedia," and from the following web site: http://www.chesco.com/~nicks/ except for the "Masonic year," which I happened to know off the top of my head.

Dog -- When I said: "The old systems aren't really wrong, they're just more arbitrary than others," I was really referring only to the two older systems mentioned immediately before that statement -- the "querty keyboard" and the "English" system of measurements, not to ALL "old systems" in general. Sorry I wasn't more clear!

=====================

SM

“Dog -- When I said: "The old systems aren't really wrong, they're just more arbitrary than others," I was really referring only to the two older systems mentioned immediately before that statement -- the "querty keyboard" and the "English" system of measurements, not to ALL "old systems" in general. Sorry I wasn't more clear!”

Steve I think you were also referring to certain old calendar systems. And I think you were quite clear, and quite right! Made me want to – playfully! – add the cosmologic systems to the list!

Ok Steve...I really don't understand much of this but what time is it on the Sun? Zero O'Clock?

"Trekies" might remember "Star Date" from the personal logs. I think the writers thought about it and still wonder how that worked.

How do you think we should tell time when we leave this solar system and how important will the planet to planet time be?

I think a "Universal" standard should be set but how would one do that?

I just can't see "Scotty" whipping out his 4992b and saying, "It looks like is running a little fast."

Geo
NAWCC #78594
Local Chapter #76