[time-nuts] Re: UTC

Mike S mikes at flatsurface.com
Thu Jul 28 19:13:29 EDT 2005

At 06:50 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote...
>mikes at flatsurface.com (Mike S) writes:> 
>> It will break if the system is built on the basis that UTC is within
>> 0.9 seconds of UT1, which is how UTC is currently defined. 
>Seems to be a minor concern.

Personal opinions don't count. To you it's minor, to someone else major. What's your point?

>> The legal system in the US (and many other countries) is based on
>> solar time, so it would break legal timekeeping. 
>Legal time is often based on UTC.

And often not. What's your point?

>> There may be systems dealing with satellite tracking/orbit
>> maintenance which might break. There are astronomical systems which
>> would break. 
>Thats a gliding scale... if system A breaks at DUT1 of 1.0seconds
>B & C might die at 5 and 10 seconds, giving plenty of time to patch
>the systems. System A does seem to live on the edge already, maybe a
>good candidate to patch earlier... 

You are able to assuredly identify which systems will fail, and when? It must be nice to have omniscience.

>> I don't know what else, 
>> but the point is, neither do the people proposing to break UTC with
>> short warning and little consultation.  
>Leapseconds are known with short warning... Maybe the astronomers have
>not been following the lengthy discussions among the real timekeepers of
>today. Whos fault is that?

Leap seconds are known with about 6 months warning. UTC has been well defined for over 30 years. Like it or not, "time" is astronomical, both historically and in actual civil use. ITYM "self-proclaimed timekeepers."

It is up to the organization tasked with a duty to carry out that task responsibly. Failing to notify/seek input from obviously affected parties is irresponsible.

>"Break UTC" - or simplify/improve UTC.

How would UTC be improved? It would be exactly parallel with TAI, which is already available for use.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list