On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mike S <mi...@flatsurface.com> wrote:
> You're citing a internal letter, from one BIPM group to another, asking > them to bring something before the ITU. It's not normative, it's not > informational, it's just correspondence. > That doesn't make any sense. When the ITU decides *not* do to something it's equally informative as when they decide to do something. Just to be clear you're saying everyone, including the CCTF (previously cited) and the ITU, that says UTC is discontinuous is wrong? For those wonder that "internal letter" from CCTF to BIPM notes that "The UTC system as defined today is a *stepped* atomic time scale" [emphasis mine] which is quoting the ITU and can also be found at < http://www.itu.int/net/newsroom/wrc/2012/reports/atomic_time.aspx> which discusses why the ITU continues to leave UTC stepped. "UTC is a discontinuous time scale composed from segments that are linear transformations of atomic time, the discontinuities being arranged so that UTC approximated UT2 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UT2> until the end of 1971, and UT1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UT1> thereafter." _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
