On Thu 2014-01-16T09:58:52 -0800, Eric Fort hath writ: > Maybe it's time for the minders > of astronomical periodicity and the minders of atomic periodicity to > simply agree to disagree about what "time" is at it's core and simply > use the timescale that is appropriate and useful for their own use.
They did. It was completely clear to the principals at the 1964 IAU General Assembly, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966IAUTB..12..304M They also recognized that it was not clear to everyone else, so they published the explanatory note seen on page 16 of the GA resolutions http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/IAU1964_French.pdf In the discussion above it is also clear that the issue was not about concept, it was about who gets to say what time scale is used in the existing, deployed, operational radio broadcast signals that the many national governments run for their own sovereign purposes. That issue has been visible for the past decade in ITU-R Question 236/7 http://www.itu.int/pub/R-QUE-SG07.236-2001 where the first question notes that the dichotomy still exists: 1) What are the requirements for globally-accepted time scales for use both in navigation/telecommunication systems, and for civil time keeping? For reasons not broadcast to the world, many of the national delegations to the 2012 Radiocommunications Assembly did not find the answers given in the draft revision of TF.460 to be satisfactory enough for a vote. -- Steve Allen <[email protected]> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
