michael.deckers via LEAPSECS wrote:
UT1 is a timescale that ticks 1 SI second when the Earth Rotation Angle
increases by exactly (2 rad)/86 636.546 949 141 027 072,
Which it rarely does for any length of time.
On the contrary, the fixed angular speed d(ERA)/d(UT1) is a
defining
Warner Losh wrote:
Users can only get UTC(foo) or a signal derived from UTC(foo) (e.g.,
traceable to NIST) and never UTC itself. Of course they can get to a
putative TAI(foo) trivially (I say putative, because as far as I know, no
lab generates TAI synchronized signals for reasons you go into).
Brooks Harris wrote:
The discussion attempts to resolve the question about what the
TAI/UTC relationship was *before* 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z and how this
is related to POSIX and represented by 8601.
The actual historical relationship between TAI and UTC prior to 1972
is defined by the well-known
As a break from the polemics of leap seconds, here is an interesting item
recently broadcast by NPR:
http://news.mpbn.net/post/new-clock-may-end-time-we-know-it
-
| Richard B. LangleyE-mail:
Of course Brooks Harris is free to define proleptic UTC any way he pleases
within the confines of a document he has control over, including a post to
this mailing list. But I think the term proleptic UTC, outside the
confines of a document that gives it a proprietary definition, could mean a
Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-11-04 09:04 AM, Zefram wrote:
POSIX is irrelevant to this,
I don't think so. 1588/PTP references POSIX and (POSIX) algorithms
many times, first in the main definition of the PTP Epoch -
The note 1 that you quote doesn't make POSIX relevant to the definition
of the PTP
On 2014-11-04 11:53 AM, Gerard Ashton wrote:
Of course Brooks Harris is free to define proleptic UTC any way he pleases
within the confines of a document he has control over, including a post to
this mailing list. But I think the term proleptic UTC, outside the
confines of a document that gives
Brooks Harris wrote:
To call it UTC seems a bit of a stretch to me,
but there's no generally accepted name for what Zefram calls
rubber-seconds era of UTC. Everybody has seized the name, and
attempted to give it some meaning other than what I, at least,
consider to be its
On Tue 2014-11-04T20:27:53 +, Zefram hath writ:
The name Coordinated Universal Time and initialism UTC are used
in the IAU 1967 resolutions, referring to the rubber-seconds system.
And that resolution explicitly refers to the content of the new CCIR
Recommendation 374-1 which uses the
On 2014-11-04 12:34, Zefram wrote:
UT1 always ticks a second for that ERA increase, but Warner's point
is that the second of UT1 isn't an *SI* second. The time taken for
that ERA increase, and hence the duration of a UT1 second, very rarely
exactly matches an SI second. The second of UT1
On 2014-11-04 03:35 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2014-11-04T20:27:53 +, Zefram hath writ:
The name Coordinated Universal Time and initialism UTC are used
in the IAU 1967 resolutions, referring to the rubber-seconds system.
And that resolution explicitly refers to the content of the new
I wrote:
It sounds as though Annex B may contain actual errors, in such things
as the interpretation of POSIX time_t. Good job it's not normative.
I've now seen the actual text of Annex B (thanks to an unattributable
benefactor). Here is my review of it. Overall it's mostly correct,
but poorly
LEAPSECS leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com wrote on 11/04/2014 02:45:09
PM:
From: Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com
To: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Date: 11/04/2014 02:45 PM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] the big artillery
Sent by: LEAPSECS leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com
On 2014-11-04 11:53 AM,
On Tue 2014-11-04T21:52:05 +, Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS hath writ:
Then which unit would that be? When the IERS compute a difference
TAI - UT1, how do they do it? Do they convert the UT1 reading in
any way before they subtract? Or, if they don't, what is the unit
of the
On 2014-11-04 03:27 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
To call it UTC seems a bit of a stretch to me,
but there's no generally accepted name for what Zefram calls
rubber-seconds era of UTC. Everybody has seized the name, and
attempted to give it some meaning other than
On 2014-11-04 04:59 PM, Zefram wrote:
I wrote:
It sounds as though Annex B may contain actual errors, in such things
as the interpretation of POSIX time_t. Good job it's not normative.
I've now seen the actual text of Annex B (thanks to an unattributable
benefactor). Here is my review of it.
16 matches
Mail list logo
