TheRPGSite

We had a character creation session and tomight I am formally starting my first Traveller Campaign.  I have designed a subsector and was thinking about the concept of time.  Obviously each world would have its own time system that is probably based in length of solar day, time to orbit sun, or some other factors.

I am not using third imperium and no alien sophonts have been revealed at the start of the campaign.

From a Julian calendar Earth point of view I have said we are starting at the equivelant of 2747.  Characters in this campaign will never reach earth, however, as it is too far away.

What do you do for a standardized "star date"?  Simple is good.  Thanks.

IMC, the calendar is the slight holdover from Cradle (Earth, Terra, Tellus- now a preserve and tourist site).

Dates are kept track by day, week, and year. Communications and cargo are kept track at the weekly level (17-2725). Sometimes the month is noted numerically, but that's considered archaic. 13 months, by the way. Names of days are remembered, but spotty. Month names are mostly lost except to historians.

Same as the new Star Trek movies.  Year.Days in that year.  Like 2747.1 would be January 1, 2747.  2747.35 would be February 4, 2747.  So, it would go from 2747.1 to 2741.365 (or 366 if it's a leap year, which it isn't).

My campaign is centered around a lost Terran colony, originally 1 world but those pesky humans have expanded to over half a dozen worlds.  The calendar starts with the founding of the colony as year 0.  Standard year length and day length (for game purposes only) is set to Terran "norm" 360 days, 24 hours no leap year.  When months and weeks are used, weeks are 6 days long, 5 weeks to each month, 60 weeks to the standard year.

Standard Gregorian calendar.  In-game, it's because of long-standing tradition dating back to when humanity was stuck on just one planet.  Out-of-game, it's because I don't see any particular value in requiring the cognitive overhead of everyone remembering how a fictional calendar works.

Quote from: Vic99;951917What do you do for a standardized "star date"?  Simple is good.  Thanks.

Depends on what planet a character is from, and what that planet used for telling time. None of that matters though if your players are not role-players.

Quote from: Celestial;951944Same as the new Star Trek movies.  Year.Days in that year.  Like 2747.1 would be January 1, 2747.  2747.35 would be February 4, 2747.  So, it would go from 2747.1 to 2741.365 (or 366 if it's a leap year, which it isn't).

Thanks for all the input.  I went with this.  Cheers!

Quote from: Vic99;951917We had a character creation session and tomight I am formally starting my first Traveller Campaign.  I have designed a subsector and was thinking about the concept of time.  Obviously each world would have its own time system that is probably based in length of solar day, time to orbit sun, or some other factors.

I am not using third imperium and no alien sophonts have been revealed at the start of the campaign.

From a Julian calendar Earth point of view I have said we are starting at the equivelant of 2747.  Characters in this campaign will never reach earth, however, as it is too far away.

What do you do for a standardized "star date"?  Simple is good.  Thanks.

I know that I am late to the party here, but a time measuring system I always wanted to try was one used by Joan D. Vinge in her Heaven Belt stories. Metric seconds. A kilosecond is 1000 seconds, a megasecond is 1000000 seconds and so on.

I use two calendars. One is the Standard Reference Calendar, the other is the various local calendars. Local calendars are based on planetary solar years, etc. Every computer includes an automatic conversion program that gives the Standard reference dates and times as well as local.

Remember that on Earth before the railways all time was local time. There was no need for "standard" time across time zones.  With interstellar travel being expensive most people only need to concern themselves with local time.

I like the idea of metric seconds, Jeff.

Dave, the local time point is a good one, but since my universe revolves, at least in part, on the PCs, I wanted to be able be consistent as the game progresses.

Time zones for each planet charted for the star sector your using, it's too much work trying to figure out planetary rotation and and orbital patterns of each body in your sector, if time is that relevant in your campaign,  chart each worlds time zone, when you arrive at destination check that planets chart info for time adjustment  , or if you have hours it takes the in question planet to rotate one full rotation such as day equals 36 hour rotation just pick a hour of arrival that fits the best impact for your story and run with it. Charting each planet is most accurate for a Traveller game, but you might discover a better way of doing it.

Never occurred to me to use anything but the regular calendar, but it never mattered as far as I can recall. "We need to deliver this crate in three weeks" was about as much as it mattered.

I remember having a metric clock as a kid back in the 70s. It was just from 1 to 10 and I think it has 100 minutes for every hour (and metric seconds).

But in my space games, I just use Earth dates unless they are on the planet for a long time (where I figure out the local time system)

Here is the current definition of a second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second) as a unit of time. That definition could change based on the world that is using it, and what radioactive isotopes they have to make atomic clocks with. A society centred on a specific planet or system will likely use some time system derived from the main world. Or maybe if they wanted something that could work on a galactic scale, maybe they could measure some cosmic background radiation from the galactic core which is constant. That way, you can keep time relative to the heart of the galaxy even when space travel creates a time dilation. I mean, you probably have to stop the ship and point the antenna for a while to sync the clock, but it could work anywhere.

The idea of metric time is pretty neat. That could certainly be handy for a starfaring society which doesn't base their time on one specific world. Things like hours and days and weeks and months might have little meaning to someone who lives on a ship or on a station most of the time. For a society which is not tied to the rotation and/or orbital cycles of a planet, a metric approach would make a lot of sense. They might even decide a second is arbitrarily defined as 10 billion periods of transitional radiation of Cesium 133 making it 1.08782776 Earth Seconds. They might have something like 60 kiloseconds of activity and 30 kiloseconds of sleep per 90 kilosecond cycle (27.195694 Earth Hours or 25 local hours based on a 10 billion period Cesium 133 second). A six day "week" would be around 540 kiloseconds. So maybe for the sake of math and being metric we could clean it up. Make the Activity Cycle/Day 100 kiloseconds, with work cycles of 10-30 kiloseconds, 30 kiloseconds required for natural sleep, and the other 40 kiloseconds for doing whatever. That's around 27.77 Earth hours. A five day "week" would be 500 kiloseconds (5.79 Earth Days). You could bring it up to a "fortnight" of 10 Activity Periods which would be 1 Megasecond. An Earth Month would be about 2.59 Megaseconds and an Earth Year is about 31.54 Megaseconds. So really you can pick units you like that work out to nice even numbers. Maybe your "Month" of 30 Activity Periods is 3 Megaseconds and maybe your "year" is 30 Ms. Map out durations of important things and then maybe go from there.

Quote from: nDervish;952104Standard Gregorian calendar.  In-game, it's because of long-standing tradition dating back to when humanity was stuck on just one planet.  Out-of-game, it's because I don't see any particular value in requiring the cognitive overhead of everyone remembering how a fictional calendar works.

That's pretty much the direction I lean.

I use ddd-yyyy for interstellar dates. Local timekeeping varies, of course, but rarely matters enough to spell it out.

I just make shit up.

Quote from: Vic99;952429I like the idea of metric seconds, Jeff.

A second is metric. It's an S.I. unit, and it specifically represents the amount of time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. It's a universal measurement.

Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961558A second is metric. It's an S.I. unit, and it specifically represents the amount of time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. It's a universal measurement.

Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds.

Scientists routinely use those other metrics when they are pertinent or convenient to their research questions, but I think we understand the point. A second is an International System of Units Base Unit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit) of measurement, and one that could be communicated to another species across space, who would not need a Sol/Terran reference point to be able to understand.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961590Scientists routinely use those other metrics when they are pertinent or convenient to their research questions

Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct. There are only seven S.I. base measurements that are useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions). These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

Scientific reports must use these measurements (or derivations like ms^-1, etc) and not any other. All scientific equations and formula, used internationally are based upon these measurements only. You cannot use minutes or hours or any other unit for Time other than Seconds and if other values are referenced, then they have to be converted. The same is true of kilometres (must be metres), grams (must be kg), celsius (must be K, although technically C is a derivative of Kelvin), or many others. These values may be metric, but they aren't S.I. Very big numbers are represented in scientific notation e.g. 7.2 x 10⁶s, etc.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

I was going to remark on why this is Kilograms and not Grams, because I thought it would be odd expressing something as 5 millikilograms instead of 5 grams, but then I looked up the mass of a grain of salt and completely forgot about Scientific Notation and lo and behold Kilograms everywhere. Neat. I learned something today.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct. There are only seven S.I. base measurements that are useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions). These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

Scientific reports must use these measurements (or derivations like ms^-1, etc) and not any other. All scientific equations and formula, used internationally are based upon these measurements only. You cannot use minutes or hours or any other unit for Time other than Seconds and if other values are referenced, then they have to be converted.

Sorry to be a pedant, but I work with research publications at an academic library, and it took me only a few moments to find an article (DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-00618-6) recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports which contains the text

Quote from: Characterization of ATP7A missense mutants suggests a correlation between intracellular trafficking and severity of Menkes diseaseTo test whether proteasomal degradation is either fully or only  partly responsible for the reduced accumulation of G860VC and G1255RC,  we treated the fibroblasts with the proteasome inhibitor Bortezomib for 20 hours, and determined the ATP7A protein content by WB.

Note that the duration of treatment is specified as "20 hours" rather than "72 kiloseconds" or "7.2 x 10⁴s".  "Days", "months", and "years" also appear in the full text of the article.  None are converted to seconds and a quick scan through the article turned up no references to times in seconds at all (although I could have missed it).

Did you perhaps mean to say that seconds are the only unit time allowed for use in formulas rather than the only unit "useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions)"?

Quote from: nDervish;961688Sorry to be a pedant, but I work with research publications at an academic library, and it took me only a few moments to find an article (DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-00618-6) recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports which contains the text

Note that the duration of treatment is specified as "20 hours" rather than "72 kiloseconds" or "7.2 x 10⁴s".  "Days", "months", and "years" also appear in the full text of the article.  None are converted to seconds and a quick scan through the article turned up no references to times in seconds at all (although I could have missed it).

Did you perhaps mean to say that seconds are the only unit time allowed for use in formulas rather than the only unit "useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions)"?

Yes I did, and I also pointed out why. The S.I. measurements are required for interactions with formula and equations. This particular article clearly involves no reference to such things, and indeed is a medical text. Life sciences and medical reports frequently make no reference to physical sciences. When they do, they are required to use S.I. measurements.

You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam? You aren't being pedantic, by the way. You are being snarky (and I do note the irony in pointing that out to you).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct.

It most certainly is, and at this point, I think I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with a reference to this requirement, who makes it, and what enforcement power they have over the overall scientific community.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961690Yes I did, and I also pointed out why. The S.I. measurements are required for interactions with formula and equations. This particular article clearly involves no reference to such things, and indeed is a medical text. Life sciences and medical reports frequently make no reference to physical sciences. When they do, they are required to use S.I. measurements.

You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam? You aren't being pedantic, by the way. You are being snarky (and I do note the irony in pointing that out to you).

I don't know about nDervish, but I absolutely have completed scientific reports, published peer reviewed articles, and passed scientific exams, and you'd better believe when we are reporting on things like annual checkup compliance, etc., we measure things in years, and not seconds. Are you certain you are not talking about the narrow subset of science in which you work?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961692It most certainly is, and at this point, I think I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with a reference to this requirement, who makes it, and what enforcement power they have over the overall scientific community.

""SI" stands for "System International" and is the set of physical units agreed upon by international convention. The SI units are sometimes also known as MKS units, where MKS stands for "meter, kilogram, and second." In 1939, the CCE recommended the adoption of a system of units based on the meter, kilogram, second, and ampere. This proposal was approved by the Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) in 1946. Following an international inquiry by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), which began in 1948, in 1954 the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) approved the introduction of the ampere, kelvin, and candela as base units for electric current, thermodynamic temperature, and luminous intensity, respectively.

The name International System of Units (SI) was given to the system by the 11th CGPM in 1960. At the 14th CGPM in 1971, the current version of the SI was completed by adding the mole as base unit for amount of substance, bringing the total number of base units to seven." Dana Romero, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SI.html

"The International System of Units was established in 1960 by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM— see Preface). Universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), it is the modern metric system of measurement used throughout the world." http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf


List of member states of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) - http://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/member-states/

"Only units of the SI and those units recognized for use with the SI are used to express the values of quantities. Equivalent values in other units are given in parentheses following values in acceptable units only when deemed necessary for the intended audience." http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

"When you are trying numerical problems always make sure that you use the SI unit of each quantity given - this guarantees that the quantity you are calculating will be in its SI unit.

The kilogram is the SI unit for mass - do not change kilograms to grams." Physics exam requirements, BBC bitesize. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/physics/units/units/revision/1/

"The international system (SI) of units, prefixes, and symbols should be used for all physical quantities" International Astronomical Union https://www.iau.org/publications/proceedings_rules/units/

http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/joceah/joceah_authguide.pdf

"c) The paper must be clearly presented, written in good scientific English, and conform to journal .... All figure axes must be labelled, including units where applicable. ..... The nature of the revisions required will be explained in the report. ..... Use SI units and those additional units which are recognized for use in astronomy, ..." Oxford University instructions for https://academic.oup.com/mnras/pages/General_Instructions

"Writing a Technical Paper or Brief ... It is of the greatest importance that all technical, scientific, and mathematical information contained in the paper be checked with the utmost care. SI Units. It is ASME policy that SI units of measurement be included in all papers. .." Oxford University Press, New York

QuoteI don't know about nDervish, but I absolutely have completed scientific reports, published peer reviewed articles, and passed scientific exams, and you'd better believe when we are reporting on things like annual checkup compliance, etc., we measure things in years, and not seconds. Are you certain you are not talking about the narrow subset of science in which you work?

Physical sciences and S.I. measurements are anything but a narrow field in Science. If you are using scientific formula and equations, you apply S.I. measurements if you want it to be recognised internationally. If you chose not to in even a basic school exam for Physics, you would fail the paper. This is a requirement set by international academic institutions who set the standards for those exams, and it continues through those institutions. The same is true in Chemistry and other sciences wherever scientific formula and/or calculus are used. In life and social sciences, where statistical analysis is more prevalent over calculus, the requirements are less emphasised.

Look, my only issue here is that you're trying to say that "SI units only" is a universal requirement that applies to all scientific publications, when there are clearly some scientific publications to which that requirement does not apply, such as those in the life and social sciences.  If that requirement doesn't apply to life sciences, then either the rule isn't universal to all scientific publications or you're making a covert claim that life sciences aren't really science.

Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961690You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam?

I started in a physics major, before switching to computer science.  (I work as a programmer and sysadmin, not a librarian.)  So, yes, I've done work in the physical sciences, albeit only at an undergraduate level.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961693Physical sciences and S.I. measurements are anything but a narrow field in Science.

Any single field within science is a narrow field in science.

 

QuoteIf you are using scientific formula and equations, you apply S.I. measurements if you want it to be recognised internationally. If you chose not to in even a basic school exam for Physics, you would fail the paper.

For Physics, which is not the whole of science.

QuoteThis is a requirement set by international academic institutions who set the standards for those exams, and it continues through those institutions. The same is true in Chemistry and other sciences wherever scientific formula and/or calculus are used. In life and social sciences, where statistical analysis is more prevalent over calculus, the requirements are less emphasised.

And I hope you recognize that life and social sciences are part of science.

Quote from: nDervish;961698Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Pretty sure that's what we're looking at.

For personal record keeping, standard Gregorian Calendar. For players, often the standard Gregorian Calendar, just for communication's sake. I might sprinkle a name or two in order to remind them to drop their expectations and be present. But I have more than a few players who would just get lost or jolted out of being present trying to reconcile the jargon. It's a "know thy audience" sorta thing.

Quote from: nDervish[/QUOTELook, my only issue here is that you're trying to say that "SI units only" is a universal requirement that applies to all scientific publications, when there are clearly some scientific publications to which that requirement does not apply, such as those in the life and social sciences. If that requirement doesn't apply to life sciences, then either the rule isn't universal to all scientific publications or you're making a covert claim that life sciences aren't really science.

Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Pretty sure that's what we're looking at.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961704Any single field within science is a narrow field in science.

I am talking about "The Physical Sciences'. That is not a 'narrow field', especially when all science is underpinned by Physics, which is considered to be 'the fundamental science'. Without physical science underpinning them, there would be no life or social sciences. Biology is applied chemistry, which in turn is applied physics.

As Earnest Rutherford said (and I am paraphrasing, although it's a famous quote) "That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting. Physics is the only real science."

Moreover, in the context of space travel which is what we are talking about with Traveller, then it is absolutely about physical science that we are talking about with measurement.

Beyond that, anybody who had studied a Physical science to any degree, or even a biological degree, would know that the S.I. system of measurement and the calculations thereof is pretty much the first thing you learn about. Both of you are acting like an indignant Year 11 class.

EDIT: I have also confirmed with two other teachers in my department, that any experimental data in Chemistry or Biological Sciences that utilises any formulaic calculation requires SI measurements for academic submission. They both have PhDs.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961735Beyond that, anybody who had studied a Physical science to any degree, or even a biological degree, would know that the S.I. system of measurement and the calculations thereof is pretty much the first thing you learn about. Both of you are acting like an indignant Year 11 class.

Any time someone has to resort to an argument along the lines of 'no you're the one being immature,' it's pretty clear how the discussion has gone. And that the person making said statement is likely the only person who thinks it is the opposing side who has shown a lack of maturity.

I won't even dignify the attempts at defining which science is the most important science. The very discussion diminishes us all. If any one science was focused upon exclusively by society to the exclusion of others, we would be in trouble. They all are important in answering the questions they study, and pretending on is more important, purer, better or the like almost completely misses the point of the advancement of knowledge. I used the term narrow field of science to reference physics as a subset of a larger set of knowledge. If you found the term narrow insulting, that genuinely was not my intention. However, given that you have (purposefully or otherwise) given the backhanded implication that sciences other than physics aren't really science, and those of us who have published peer reviewed articles that used measurements other than in seconds as somehow having done shoddy work, I think it's a little late for you to put on the mantle of an aggrieved party.

However, let's do some rudimentary life sciences (not really) and do an autopsy--of this conversation. In post #18, you made the claim that "Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds." I called out the limitations of that broad sweeping statement in #19 in what I feel was a perfectly reasonable and respectful way. At that point, you could have regrouped, looked at what you said, thought for a minute, and responded with something along the lines of "whoops, misspoke. I was speaking in generalities and with a bent towards physics, which is my field and pertinent to the discussion at hand." And we would have moved on, no harm, no foul. We really would. And probably defer to your expertise in physics and/or SI usage in physics (I know I have questions*). Instead, you doubled (and now tripled) down on an unsupportable position to no one's benefit. Certainly not yours.

I think nDervish got it in one. You misspoke, accidentally made a statement about measurement metric standard in published science that you wanted to make about a specific subset of that larger topic. That statement is true in that subset (and in fact pretty well known even to laypeople. I'm no physicist, but I know that planetary motion is measured in m/s, not AU/year or something), but obviously incorrect within the greater whole that is science (an anthropologist does not describe his study of a 1300 year old social practice as being 1.439 x 10^8 seconds old, as the first example outside my own field that came to mind). You are, as he put it, "now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place." You've placed yourself in a position of looking ridiculous when all you had to do was say "my bad" and moved on and this whole thing would have been over in moments with your dignity intact.

I am fascinated by the number of people here who, when finding themselves in a hole, seem to have to keep digging when it is absolutely not necessary. I don't know why. I've been wrong here (genuinely wrong, not accidentally said something wrong), and the world didn't end and everyone here didn't turn on me or eat me alive. Heck, in a semi-recent thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36065-Hygine-and-sanitation-in-world-building)on medieval hygiene, I made two mistakes, people said 'defuq?' and I said 'yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there.' and then we moved on. I would really suggest this course of action, to you and anyone else.

But please, if you would prefer, ignore said advice and tell us more about how we're the ones acting like an indignant Year 11 class. I'm sure you'll convince others that such is the case.



*Such as, if the non-S.I. units are listed in part of a name, should they be converted (ex. "and was cooled with a Honeywell 1800 BTU Compressive Cooler")?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961878Any time someone has to resort to an argument along the lines of 'no you're the one being immature,' it's pretty clear how the discussion has gone. And that the person making said statement is likely the only person who thinks it is the opposing side who has shown a lack of maturity.

Y'see, I *know* what I am talking about. Its my job to know this. What you are demonstrating on this thread is that you haven't studied science academically.

QuoteI won't even dignify the attempts at defining which science is the most important science.  They all are important in answering the...etc

I don't care whether you want to take issue with the whole body of science on the matter - but that, again, is what it is you are doing at this point. Again, if you don't know these things or these quotes, then it begs the question as to what you have studied in science. Physics is the fundamental science that underpins chemistry, biology and all the rest. The quotes from Rutherford (AKA the "Grandfather of Chemistry") merely puts into a statement that fact. Without physics, you have no explanation of any biological processes like photosynthesis, respiration, digestion, osmosis, microbiology, neurology, palaeontology or anything else. They are all rooted in Physical calculation, and academically all calculations are done in SI measurements. That is not a point of pomposity. It is a fact.  

And just because you are demonstrably acting indignantly, it doesn't change any of that. They are facts.

QuoteBut please, if you would prefer, ignore said advice and tell us more about how we're the ones acting like an indignant Year 11 class. I'm sure you'll convince others that such is the case.

If the cap fits, wear it. If you had studied any science degree, you would know about the requirements for S.I. measurement in science academia from your own experience - and you wouldn't be continuing to argue indignantly against these points.

And if we are going to go right back to my original statement - which you took issue with - here it is again:

QuoteA second is metric. It's an S.I. unit, and it specifically represents the amount of time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. It's a universal measurement.

Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds.

Are you still challenging this point?

Weren't we supposed to be talking about how different GMs choose to measure dates in Traveller?

Quote from: Dumarest;961956Weren't we supposed to be talking about how different GMs choose to measure dates in Traveller?

We were. The point was raised about 'metric time' using exponentials of seconds. I pointed out that seconds were the standardised S.I. time measurement used in science. This was challenged, and here we now are.