[time-nuts] philosophical question

[Tom Van Baak]

Mark,

Good question. Here are the rules:

1) If all you have is one clock - then that is the true
time, period.

2) If you have two clocks and they always agree, then
that just means you need better measuring tools.

3) If you have two clocks and a good comparator, then
at least you can tell how much they differ, even if you
can't tell which of the two is the better clock.

4) So if you have three clocks and comparators then
not only can you tell how they differ amongst themselves,
but if one is worse than the others, it will be evident.

5) And in the event that two or more clocks appear to
be equally good, then the average of those clocks will
be better than any one.

Make sense?

Follow this thought process and then you realize why
UTC is based on an average of atomic clocks at some
50 labs around the world.

/tvb
http://www.LeapSecond.com


> Time nuts,
>
> Being a recent addition to the list, I'm going to use my one dumb
question* card on an epistemological
> question that's puzzling me.
>
> When you come up with a better measuring device (clock, oscillator, etc.),
how do you know its better?
> Since, presumably, the only other tools available to measure it are not as
good, how can one tell if
> it's better (more precise, more accurate, more consistent, etc.)
>
> I'm probably just suffering from lack of sleep (from worrying about
this...)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Mark
>
> *my old Jr. High shop teacher was fond of saying - usually in reference to
me - "There are no dumb
> questions; only dumb people."