On 12 Aug 2010, at 21:25, Michael Deckers <michael.deck...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I fear that the matter is less simple. The proposal keeps the > name UTC for the newly defined timescale. (And unfortunately, > there is precedent with essential changes in definitions of well > established time scales: GMT.)
AIUI the UT* terms disambiguate the various meanings of GMT (ish). Perhaps the name UTC will be superseded in a similar way, becoming ambiguous and replaced by new terms. > So that, absurdly, those people > who continue to use UTC in the established sense could not keep > the well-established name for it -- they would have to find a > new name to avoid ambiguity (eg, UTL for UT with leap seconds). UTC cannot exist without a recognised authority who determines when leap seconds occur. If that authority stops adding leap seconds and breaks the |DUT1| < 0.9s guarantee I doubt anyone will take over the job. It would probably be easier to switch over to using the GPS time scale and ephemeris. GMT was also tied to a particular maintenance regime and stopped being a precise timescale when it was no longer being maintained. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
