[time-nuts] Why not TAI?
attila at kinali.ch
Wed Aug 10 06:55:37 EDT 2011
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:16:33 +1200
Bruce Griffiths <bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > May i ask what the reason was to stay away from TAI?
> > I mean, it is obvious (for me) that for any application that needs
> > a steady, continious and monotone clock that TAI is one of the best
> > alternatives among all those time standards.
> Strictly TAI, as presently realised, is a paper clock that isn't
> actually available in real time.
If TAI is a paper clock, what else should be used if a strictly monotone
time scale is needed?
And what makes UTC different from TAI to be a "real clock", as UTC is
derived from TAI by adding leap seconds?
Would a reverse definition of TAI (or rather TAI' ) by using UTC without the
leap seconds be a good enough approximation?
I'm quite sure i'm not the first one asking this question, but i couldn't
find an answer, neither with google nor in the time-nuts archives.
The trouble with you, Shev, is you don't say anything until you've saved
up a whole truckload of damned heavy brick arguments and then you dump
them all out and never look at the bleeding body mangled beneath the heap
-- Tirin, The Dispossessed, U. Le Guin
More information about the time-nuts