Warner Losh wrote: > The conflicting definitions I've seen >have been from one of the time scientists that helped to setup TAI when he was >at NBS(later NIST) who strenuously instructed me that they weren't equivalent >and >was quite patient with my stupid questions about "why not".
Intriguing. I'd really like to learn more about this. >> Anyway, this isn't about the notation, it's about the concept. > >The concept I'd agree with you. But without a realization of the time scale, it >doesn't actually exist. My claim is that UTC(k)+DTAI (which I've been referring to as "TAI(k)") *is* a realisation of TAI. It's available in real time: as available as UTC(k) is, in contexts where DTAI is readily available. Its accuracy and other qualities are traceable to k, and are by construction identical to those qualities of UTC(k). > I know that I'm being picky here about the difference >between realizing TAI directly and deriving it from some realization of UTC. I don't see what difference you're basing this distinction on. The realisations of UTC and TAI seem equally direct. > But if you zoom in far enough, you'll see there's a lot more >chaos than that going on, and that TAI and UTC(k) aren't quite the same thing >when you get to the nanosecond level or beyond. Red herring. Once again, you're bringing in the nanosecond-level UTC(k)-UTC difference as if it's a difference between TAI and UTC. I never claimed that canonical TAI was available in real time; I never claimed an equivalence between UTC(k) and TAI. The nanosecond-level tracking error UTC(k)-UTC needs to be considered, if nanosecond precision matters, regardless of whether you're using TAI or UTC at the seconds level. -zefram _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
