[LEAPSECS] draft revision of ITU-R TF.460-6

[Michael Deckers]

   On 2011-12-08 18:50, Steve Allen sent the link:


>  http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/draftTF460-7.html


   Thanks. Three new(?) points I find quite revealing
   The ITU-R propose to note:

   [k] that the IERS provides predictions of the difference
       between UT1 and UTC at different delays, which allow
       real-time access to UT1, and which will on average
       over a two-year period provide a more accurate
       knowledge of UT1 than does UTC with leap seconds,

   So by abolishing leap seconds, we get a better approximation
   of UT1?  This better approximation is already available
   today, without any help of the ITU. Should we be grateful to
   the ITU-R that they don't take it away after they have
   taken away leap seconds and DUT1?

   The ITU-R propose to recognize:

   [6] that celestial navigation is no longer a primary
       means of navigation;

   thereby suggesting that UTC need no longer be suitable
   for celestial navigation. This is sarcastic! Celestial
   navigation today is the very last resort when everything
   else fails. The time scale disseminated world wide
   must remain usable for celestial navigation. And the
   ITU-R, as a UN body, should recognize this.

   The ITU-R propose to state:

   [B]  TAI is not physically realized and consequently is not
        suitable for time dissemination.

   (It appears that this argument has originally been
   raised by people from the BIPM.) So what do all these clocks
   contributing to TAI measure when TAI is not "physically
   realized"? And why is TAI "not suitable for dissemination"
   even though TAI - 35 s apparently is? This is all
   sheer nonsense.

   Michael Deckers.