Tom Van Baak wrote: > It won't bother me one way or another what ITU decides or how UTC evolves > over time,
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the ITU taking action in the absence of consensus. > but I sure hope that astronomers wake up, stop complaining, This is illogical (and borderline insulting). We're supposed to "wake up", but do so without talking about the issues? > and use UT1 and DUT1 for what they were designed for. Rather, Universal Time was designed as a successor to Greenwich Mean Time. UT1 is one realization of UT. UTC is (currently) another. If you require UT to a precision of about a second, DUT1 is not needed at all. Since it was unnecessary, it was not built into large numbers of systems that would now need to be retrofitted. This is non-trivial and will introduce bugs and dependencies on currently non-existent infrastructure. (http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/38_AAS_11-678_Allen.pdf) Meanwhile, those systems that do currently include DUT1 will require a Y2K-like vetting for values that exceed 0.9s. (http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/36_AAS_11-677_Seaman.pdf) It will bother the astronomical community to the tune of many millions of dollars. It will bother the aerospace communities perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars: http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/28_AAS_11-673_Simpson.pdf http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/30_AAS_11-674_Storz.pdf http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/32_AAS_11-675_Malys.pdf Nobody else has been advised to look. Atomic time is already available to be used for what it was designed for. This proposal adds nothing we don't already have, rather it subtracts something we do have. Rob
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
