In message e1uagid-000nir...@stenn.ntp.org, Harlan Stenn writes:
Warner, I think your position is only valid form the point of view that
says a timescale can only be used to count fixed-length seconds.
That is not really what timescales are about.
Timescales, as concept, are for communicating
Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] drawing the battle lines
(Found unsent in my Drafts folder...)
Warner Losh writes:
I think the real reason that UT1 shouldn't be considered a time scale
is that it is based on not an imperfect realization of a fixed length
second, but rather
(Found unsent in my Drafts folder...)
Warner Losh writes:
I think the real reason that UT1 shouldn't be considered a time scale
is that it is based on not an imperfect realization of a fixed length
second, but rather an imperfect realization of a variable (measured by
oscillations of a fixed
On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
True enough, but beside my point. The relationship between UTC and UT1
is piecewise linear between leap seconds, so there are steps in the
first derivative at the joints
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:46:01 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
True enough, but beside my point. The relationship between UTC and UT1
is piecewise linear between leap seconds, so there are steps in the
first derivative at the
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Saying UT1 is unacceptable as a time scale is like saying John
Harrison's descendants should refund the longitude prize.
I think a better analogy is saying 1/10,000 of the distance between a pole
and the equator is not an acceptable standard length.
Tony.
--
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com
Sent by: leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com
03/21/13 02:14 AM
Please respond to
Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
To
Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
cc
Subject
Re: [LEAPSECS] drawing the battle lines
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:45 PM
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
10. the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service
(IERS) provides a means of accessing UT1 in real-time by means of
routinely available predictions of UT1-UTC with precision 100 000
times better that the coarse approximation UT1 = UTC
There's a lot of overlap between timekeepers and astronomers. I'm not sure I
embrace the battle metaphor, but if so this would have to be a civil war.
The fundamental issue remains that atomic time and synodic time are two
different things. Thus the BIPM's implicit attempt to divorce the word
...@leapsecond.com
03/20/13 11:17 AM
Please respond to
Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
To
Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
cc
Subject
Re: [LEAPSECS] drawing the battle lines
On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
The BIPM website has a few new
In message a72f135c-ce3f-48df-bc61-6ab4e68e7...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
There's a lot of overlap between timekeepers and astronomers.
There's a lot of overlap between bioinformatics and ornitology.
Was there any relevant point you were trying to make ?
The fundamental issue remains that
Hi Kevin,
I can understand points 1 through 8, 10, and 11, but . . .
What is gained by point 9 stating that UT1 should not be considered as a time
scale?
Well, then, let's examine the text in question (bold, underline and italics in
original - don't know if French and English are
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
2. a continuous reference time scale corresponds to UTC without leap
second discontinuities;
And also corresponds to UTC with leap seconds. There are no discontinuities.
discontinuities here means irregularity not the a violation of the
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
TAI isn't disseminated.
Well, yes it is. From ITU-R TF.460-6:
E DTAI
The value of the difference TAI – UTC, as disseminated with time signals, shall
be denoted DTAI. DTAI = TAI − UTC may be regarded as a correction to be added
: 03/20/2013 05:35 PM
Subject:Re: [LEAPSECS] drawing the battle lines
Sent by:leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
2. a continuous reference time scale corresponds to UTC
without leap second discontinuities;
And also
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Joseph M Gwinn gw...@raytheon.com wrote:
I would propose that ITU is using continuity and uniformity in their
mathematical definitions, implying that the intent is that at least in
definitional theory, UTC be mathematically continuous with all its
derivatives
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:16:49 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Joseph M Gwinn gw...@raytheon.com wrote:
I would propose that ITU is using continuity and uniformity in their
mathematical definitions, implying that the intent is that at least
in definitional theory, UTC be
So I gotta ask.
What's the problem with doing radar and other similar things in GPS time
and keeping human time in UTC, with leap seconds?
I mean, sure, years ago timestamps were YYMMDDHHMMSS and those
eventually got bigger, and eventually folks started noticing that things
really got
18 matches
Mail list logo
