[LEAPSECS] QB213 .R4 2013

[Eric Fort]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Steve Allen <sla at ucolick.org> wrote:

> On Thu 2014-01-16T09:58:52 -0800, Eric Fort hath writ:

>> Maybe it's time for the minders

>> of astronomical periodicity and the minders of atomic periodicity to

>> simply agree to disagree about what "time" is at it's core and simply

>> use the timescale that is appropriate and useful for their own use.

>

> They did.  It was completely clear to the principals at the 1964 IAU

> General Assembly,

> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966IAUTB..12..304M

> They also recognized that it was not clear to everyone else, so they

> published the explanatory note seen on page 16 of the GA resolutions

> http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/IAU1964_French.pdf

>

> In the discussion above it is also clear that the issue was not about

> concept, it was about who gets to say what time scale is used in the

> existing, deployed, operational radio broadcast signals that the many

> national governments run for their own sovereign purposes.

>

> That issue has been visible for the past decade in ITU-R

> Question 236/7

> http://www.itu.int/pub/R-QUE-SG07.236-2001

> where the first question notes that the dichotomy still exists:

>     1) What are the requirements for globally-accepted time scales for

>     use both in navigation/telecommunication systems, and for civil

>     time keeping?

>


If the question of debate is then what timescale gets transmitted  "in
the existing, deployed, operational radio broadcast signals that the
many national governments run for their own sovereign purposes." would
it not make sense to simply have multiple signals available, say GPS
serving the atomic interval users and WWV/WWVB serving the astronomers
and the general public, each of course transmitting it's own selected
timescale (as happens now)?

Eric