The same issue we have for rotating clocks on board of GPSes and differently rotating clocks on the Earth's surface?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Bob Camp <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Pulsars are an "interesting clock". That by no means equates to them being > a better clock than an ion standard or possibly a neutron standard. If you > look at ADEV numbers, there's pretty much no way a pulsar will be anywhere > near the level a good atomic clock can deliver over useful time spans. > > For long time spans you get into a "what indeed is time?" issue. Atomic > clocks have been more stable than the earth's rotation for quite a while. > We correct things to allow for the earth as a result. If you are going to > do that for atomic clocks - the same issues get into a pulsar source "as > delivered" on earth's surface. Weather you pick it up in space and relay it > or not, you still have the math issues of getting it to the surface. > > Bob > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Tom Knox wrote: > > > > > If pulsars are natures best clocks, I wonder how practical it would be > to use satellites to receive and rebroadcast a highly accurate timing > signal based on their signals? > > > > Thomas Knox > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
