On 2011-12-08 18:50, Steve Allen sent the link:
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/draftTF460-7.html
Thanks. Three new(?) points I find quite revealing
The ITU-R propose to note:
[k] that the IERS provides predictions of the difference
between UT1 and UTC at different delays, which allow
real-time access to UT1, and which will on average
over a two-year period provide a more accurate
knowledge of UT1 than does UTC with leap seconds,
So by abolishing leap seconds, we get a better approximation
of UT1? This better approximation is already available
today, without any help of the ITU. Should we be grateful to
the ITU-R that they don't take it away after they have
taken away leap seconds and DUT1?
The ITU-R propose to recognize:
[6] that celestial navigation is no longer a primary
means of navigation;
thereby suggesting that UTC need no longer be suitable
for celestial navigation. This is sarcastic! Celestial
navigation today is the very last resort when everything
else fails. The time scale disseminated world wide
must remain usable for celestial navigation. And the
ITU-R, as a UN body, should recognize this.
The ITU-R propose to state:
[B] TAI is not physically realized and consequently is not
suitable for time dissemination.
(It appears that this argument has originally been
raised by people from the BIPM.) So what do all these clocks
contributing to TAI measure when TAI is not "physically
realized"? And why is TAI "not suitable for dissemination"
even though TAI - 35 s apparently is? This is all
sheer nonsense.
Michael Deckers.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
