[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 48, Issue 13

Michael Deckers michael.deckers at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 17 16:50:03 EST 2010

On 2010-12-16 17:57, Dave Finkleman opined:

> I learn something with every exchange. Thanks. This is what is in ISO

> 31-1, which is now ISO 80000-3

> "time, time interval

> duration t

> second s

[a lot of lines of Physics 101 elided]

Well, I assume you knew these facts long before ISO 31 became
deprecated. Standards often have to state the obvious, just in
case. If you want beefy stuff, look into ITU-R TF.1010
-- which also is 13 years old but regretfully not well-known.

Anyway, in my humble opinion, the real issue, as far as the
possible redefinition of UTC is concerned, is not the depth
of one's insight into the physics of spacetime -- the
clarification needed concerns the concepts (or the terminology,
if you prefer), and the design goals, as Rob Seaman is
continually pointing out with much more eloquence than
I can convey in my scribblings.

To put it in provocative terms: we (eg, the people on this list)
do not agree on what a world-wide civil time scale should
accomplish. I think we do not even agree on what a quantifiable
time scale really is.

Michael Deckers.

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list