[LEAPSECS] Synchronization requirement

[Gerard Ashton]

I consider the matter of whether for civil time-keeping purposes,
GMT is, or is not, UTC, is unresolved until the highest court in
the UK rules on a case where the difference is important. Courts
sometimes pay more attention to conduct than words, and I gather
that most clocks in the UK are set according to radio clocks
and then used for civil time-keeping. That course of conduct
might establish UTC as the basis of civil time, notwithstanding
any words written in any law.

Gerry Ashton

-----Original Message-----
From: leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com
[mailto:leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Clive D.W. Feather
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:12 PM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Synchronization requirement


Gerard Ashton said:

> This would make the current

> civil time definitions inadequate, because at least one country,

> the UK, specifies Greenwich Mean Time as their basis of civil time

> and failed to address proposals to clarify whether this means

> UT1 or UTC.


You fail to understand what they are. Greenwich Mean Time is a very clearly
specified thing - it is solar mean time at Greenwich. You can debate
whether it means UT0, UT1, or UT2, but it is clearly not UTC. And I don't
believe the choice of 0, 1, or 2 is significant.

[Query: I'm not clear what the maximum difference is between UT0 measured
at Greenwich and UT1, but as I understand it |UT1-UT2| < 0.04s. Is that
right?]

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS - a Cable and Wireless business
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs