Tony Finch dot at dotat.at wrote > No that is not correct, or at least it's nowhere near as simple as that. > The atomic second was matched to the second of ephemeris time, and that > was based on Newcomb's tables of the sun, which in effect used the average > length of the second from the 1800s. > http://ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html
Last fall we held a meeting to consider how UTC might be changed and what the implications of leaps seconds were. The proceedings fill 400 pages of a book. For the sound bite version (only 3 pictures) of leap seconds http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/amsci.html For a view of the international legal mess caused by leap seconds http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/epochtime.html For a blow-by-blow review of the international bureaucratic regulatory situation for leap seconds see http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html For a worked example that could alleviate the disagreement between POSIX and leap seconds, and which might break the international stalemate http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/right+gps.html In there are also links to those 400 pages of the book, but I suggest that this forum is not the best place to rehash this information. -- Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
