Re: [time-nuts] Re: time-nuts Digest, Vol 12, Issue 15

2005-07-07 Thread Mike S
At 07:11 AM 7/7/2005, Mike S wrote... >To satisfy the pedants out there, UTC is not stepwise (or is time quantum?), >and does not change by integral seconds; it is continuous. It is the _offset_ >from UT1 which is stepwise integral seconds. That should of course read "_offset_ from TAI" (to keep

Re: [time-nuts] Re: time-nuts Digest, Vol 12, Issue 15

2005-07-07 Thread Mike S
At 12:06 AM 7/7/2005, Tom Clark wrote... > It was said > (3) It is called UT1 these days. >Don't be pedantic. The point is that there are organizations which depend upon >a time coordinate system which is closely linked to astronomical time. UTx/xMST >, whatever. > > Wrong! UTC is the s

[time-nuts] Re: time-nuts Digest, Vol 12, Issue 15

2005-07-06 Thread Tom Clark
It was said (3) It is called UT1 these days. Don't be pedantic. The point is that there are organizations which depend upon a time coordinate system which is closely linked to astronomical time. UTx/xMST , whatever. Wrong! UTC is the stepwise (i.e. with leapseconds) a