633:*agreement* to eliminate the leap-second "by 2035" is completely missing!! Is this the "same" as the non-conference of 2023 that was cited? (several times.) Who ever is editing this either needs to do their due duty or step aside. By the way, I understand some of the issues involved in the loosening the coupling of atomic to orbital times (is there enough discussion here about the difference between the (fictitious) point through which the Earth passes to start another year and the (fictitious) point at which (supposedly) all points on the Earth (tectonics aside) "match" their cosmological orientation of previous year? Just a digression.) but it would be useful to understand or at least see a discussion about WHY people don't want the change AND why people DO want the change - both politically and technically. That's sorely lacking -it's called being objective.
433:
487:
466:
1632:
functional replacement of GMT because it tracked UT2, which was similar to UT1 and gave the Earth's orientation as accurately as most users could take advantage of. TAI served the duration role and was used in comparisons between time laboratories. Since 1972 UTC has leap seconds, which makes it more of a compromise: it's good enough for civil time keeping, and can be used for Earth orientation or durations after the appropriate adjustments are made.
311:
252:
580:
555:
391:
222:
424:
1346:
because the two standards have remained linked by the leap second. But GMT is by definition based on earth time. If the leap second disappears and official time diverges from earth time, GMT will be a relic, an historical curiosity--like the
Greenwich Observatory itself, which is now a privately owned museum rather than a working national scientific center.
1535:
as "however" or "nonetheless". That is, I would like to make a clear separation between the claim that UTC is the successor of GMT, and statements about TAI and UT1 filling part of the gap left by GMT. Note that TAI and UT1 both predate the introduction of UTC, so they cannot be its successor in any normal sense.
1483:
None of those quotes mention TAI or UT1. I'm fine with UTC being "the" successor to GMT; but you seem to be going through gyrations to keep your reference to UT1 and TAI somehow involved in the GMT succession. "However" and "Nonetheless" are more-or-less synonyms; but "however" isn't the problem. The
1037:
As a Brit, I'm embarrassed by the BBC's insistence on declaring the time using GMT, and idiosyncratically at that: e.g. "Four Gee Emm Tee" (with the letters pronounced emphatically and smugly). It's imperialistic jingoism; and stupid, because GMT has never been well-defined, and is now not defined at
1029:
TAI and UT1 are mentioned here in a context that suggests they are "effective successors" to GMT. But the language is weak, and lends itself to misinterpretation. "effective successor" is ill-defined, and "complemented by" suggests that UT1 and TAI are also "effective successors", which is misleading
1549:
I respectfully disagree. There is a clear separation indicated by a full stop. "Nonetheless" is an adverb, not a conjunction; it introduces a statement that qualifies the preceding one. The proposed phrasing clearly distinguishes the roles of other standards such as UT1 and TAI without implying they
1516:
All that the second sentence is conveying that while UTC has become the standard replacing GMT in most contexts, there are still applications where other time standards are crucial. The two sentences allow readers unfamiliar with this topic to better understand the role of UTC. I don't think we need
993:
That sentence suffered from over-editing. The "regional" was more about GMT still being used as a term in the UK and several other contexts, but that got tangled up with the more important part about other successors. The "industry-specific" was referring broadly to other standards such as UT1, TAI,
714:
The ITU felt it was best to designate a single abbreviation for use in all languages in order to minimize confusion. For example, in
English the abbreviation for coordinated universal time would be CUT, while in French the abbreviation for "temps universel coordonné" would be TUC. To avoid appearing
1534:
OK, so it's arguably fine to mention in the article that TAI and UT1 have subsumed some of the functionality previously served by GMT. I'm objecting to that mention being part of a specific claim about the successor to GMT, whether as a single sentence, or two sentences joined by a conjunction such
1501:
UT1 is a successor to GMT because before the variability of the rotation of the Earth was understood well enough to measure it, GMT was the only timescale available, so it was used in applications where the actual orientation of the Earth was needed, such as navigation and pointing telescopes. Now,
1345:
The U.S. victory would in turn officially and finally spell the end of the last vestige of empire for the United
Kingdom, which still retains its beloved GMT as the official time standard even as most of the world has anointed UTC. Until now the distinction between the two has been merely semantic,
1362:
A time standard established for
British navigation in the mid-19th century. GMT has now been officially replaced by coordinated universal time, so Big Ben, the BT speaking clock and the BBC radio pips all mark UTC, not GMT as some people think -although the two are usually very close. British law
1268:
There, the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) collects and averages time to produce International Atomic Time, which gives us Coordinated Universal Time. UTC, as its known, is the time; the global standard and successor to Greenwich Mean Time. If you want to know the real time in
632:
The Future section reeks of non-objective content. For instance, it is claimed that the proposed 2001 change is "drastic". I'm sure someone will argue that a yotto-second difference is "huge", but no reasonable person would find 6-7 hrs over 2600 years to be "drastic", imho. Worse yet, the 2022
1631:
MrDemeanor wrote "note that TAI and UT1 both predate the introduction of UTC, so they cannot be its successor in any normal sense." But we're not saying TAI and UT1 are successors of UTC, we're saying they're successors of GMT which satisfy the traditional roles of GMT. Originally, UTC was the
860:, as the CCIR are, apparently, the organization that adopted the English name "Coordinated Universal Time", the French name "Temps Universel Coordonne", and the term "UTC", which is an abbreviation of neither of them, and the ITU-R is the successor to that organization. See the reference from
1173:
The primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time is UTC. It is a 24-h time standard that uses highly precise atomic clocks combined with the Earth's rotation. Timing centers around the globe agreed to keep their time scales synchronized or coordinate and hence, the name
1564:
I revised the article. It seems like everyone agrees the phrasing in the article was not ideal. I'm going to add a source as well, but I want to review the above citations to see if I can cover both sentences with a single citation rather than requiring multiple citations.
1174:
coordinated universal time. It is the successor of
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). The UTC was defined by the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR), a predecessor organization of the ITU-TS, and is maintained by the Bureau International des Poids et Measures (BIPM).
1094:
I think leaving in "effective" is appropriate because it highlights the practical transition from GMT to UTC without necessarily implying a formal or official succession. I'm open to removing it if there's broader support for that, though. It's certainly easily sourced.
1079:
Re. the second proposed sentence: UT1 and TAI do "play a vital role", but not as "effective successors" to GMT. The "however" suggests that the vital role they play is related to UTCs role as the successor to GMT, which isn't true. So just drop the second sentence.
720:
So according to the source, English and French are just examples of possible language issues. One would have to dig through the literature of the
International Telecommunications Union in the 1960s to find what proposals were actually made.
1033:
It's perfectly reasonable to note that GMT was retired (except by the **** Brits) when UTC was introduced; but that sentence is all over the place. I'm afraid I don't have a better sentence to propose, so for now I think it's best to scrap
1649:
I'm OK with @Daniel's latest edit; I think it's now pretty clear. I still think the attempt to wedge UT1 and TAI into a paragraph about the successor to GMT is strained and unnecessary; but it's no longer susceptible to misinterpretation.
1055:
It is the effective successor to
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) in everyday usage and common applications. However, in specialized domains such as scientific research, navigation, and timekeeping, other standards like UT1 and TAI play a vital
1502:
in those applications, UT1 is used as a replacement for GMT. GMT was also used in applications where the durations needed to be found by subtracting a start time from an end time. TAI is more suitable for that purpose than UTC or UT1.
906:
The name of the page ought to be the name of the concept, which is "Coordinated
Universal Time", whether you think that name appropriate. Again, get the ITU-R to change the name, and Knowledge will change the page name to match.
164:
1583:. Normally, citations are not needed in the lead if the body of the article supports the statement. But it might be hard to find which part of the body supports this, so maybe it would be best to add a citation.
1144:
The pips are no longer broadcast from
Greenwich, but from the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Surrey, which uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) - the successor of GMT - for its reading.
977:. It's unclear what this refers to. Maybe Amazon's time-smearing? At least some of the referents should be clear and supported by reliable sources (which would be in the body of the article).
994:
GPS time, various leap second smearing time services, etc. I don't think the introduction needs to be exhaustive, but a few examples might help with clarity. (There are other articles like
1611:
I went ahead and removed the discuss tag and cleaned up the introduction a bit more, but I am happy to continue the discussion here, regardless. I'm working on adding that source now.
1719:
158:
1689:
1684:
1385:"Science: Ahead of the times So accurate are atomic clocks, they keep better time than the planets. Dan Falk reports on the leap second that will align the two this New Year: "
1015:
I'll be back later with more on UTC being the effective successor to GMT. A bit more detail on the replacement of GMT with UTC would also be good for the history section.
55:
213:
857:
1709:
1462:(GMT) in everyday usage and common applications. Nonetheless, in specialized domains such as scientific research, navigation, and timekeeping, other standards like
1597:
Thanks for the review. I think more definitely needs to be added to the history section regarding the transition to and adoption of UTC, but one thing at a time.
1484:
problem is that TAI and UT1 are in no way successors to GMT. You seem to want to say that they are, without directly saying that they are (because they are not).
1724:
971:. The claim that there are regional successors is not supported by a reliable source that I can see, and I don't know what time scales are being referred to.
1059:
I don't know whether this rephrasing helps alleviate the original concern so I will still come back with more on the "the effective" assertion later today.
437:
965:. Clearly UTC is the most widely used successor to GMT. But other successors serve critical roles in science, navigation, and timekeeping, especially UT1.
652:
90:
1038:
all. We simply don't say "4 GMT"; we say "4 O'clock GMT", or "4AM GMT" (because GMT was used before 24-hour times-of-day were in wide usage in the UK).
1704:
209:
205:
201:
1415:
1354:"What time is it? Well, no one knows for sure: As the Earth spins slower, methods of telling time diverge. Experts warn this could end in disaster"
1714:
1734:
1384:
662:
527:
1694:
1307:
1239:
1190:
1160:
1131:
949:
I request a word-by-word justification for this change, and that any passages that support it in the main body of the article be identified.
537:
96:
1353:
179:
1252:
UTC is the successor to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and represents the primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time.
832:
374:
337:
146:
634:
332:
1399:
1076:
Re. the first proposed sentence: "effective successor" is weasely; either it is the successor, or it isn't. Just say "the successor".
1435:
In the early 1960s, Greenwich Mean Time was replaced with UTC, which is set not on the Earth's rotation, but on atomic measurements.
586:
560:
1291:...heard all over Europe broadcasting Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, the successor to Greenwich Mean Time or GMT) in Morse Code.
1223:...(UTC). This global standard, the successor to Greenwich Mean Time, steers the world's clocks and silently regulates our lives.
403:
331:
at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
1699:
881:
877:
820:
816:
503:
328:
110:
41:
1729:
1408:
In 1972, UTC replaced GMT because of the earth's changing rotational speed that results in our planet slowing down each year.
1012:(GMT), complemented by specialized time standards such as UT1 and TAI that are vital in science, navigation, and timekeeping.
750:
115:
31:
140:
771:
about the origin of UTC. I eliminated unsourced claims that unnamed, unsourced English and French speakers made proposals.
1517:
to say whether TAI or UT1 are successors. It's enough to say they play a vital role in several areas and we can source it.
409:
85:
827:
we know our Universe is "3D+1", i.e. three distance coordinates plus one time coordinate, therefore UTC literally means
446:
1550:
are successors to UTC. I can find another way to phrase it, but I don't understand how you can be reading it that way.
136:
768:
310:
289:
76:
1320:...UTC (Coordinated Universal Time after a French fudge; it is the successor to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or 'Zulu').
1423:
945:(GMT), although GMT remains in use in some contexts, alongside other regional and industry-specific time standards.
861:
494:
471:
221:
196:
35:
186:
691:
English speakers originally proposed CUT, while French speakers proposed TUC. The compromise that emerged was UTC
293:
1520:
It would also be good for the body of the article to briefly discuss applications where UTC isn't used and why.
232:
1616:
1602:
1570:
1555:
1525:
1474:
1469:
It might also be worth mentioning astronomy parenthetically like "scientific research (especially astronomy)".
1446:
1375:
1100:
1064:
1020:
655:
resolution is mentioned, but the date was only in the citation, not the body of the article. I corrected that.
1455:
I'd like to slightly rephrase my previous proposal for a replacement because "However" is too contradictory:
1332:
1232:
Python Tools for Scientists: An Introduction to Using Anaconda, JupyterLab, and Python's Scientific Libraries
836:
1363:
still refers to GMT because a 1997 bill that tried to update it to UTC was never passed. It ran out of time.
638:
322:
120:
807:
is functionally wrong because there simply isn't any coordination going on. UTC is the average time of 57
1259:
1655:
1540:
1492:
1085:
1043:
790:
699:
452:
152:
886:
No, the clocks are worldwide, and run by different national organizations; UTC isn't a US-run project.
786:
695:
390:
912:
869:
808:
648:'234:"Worse yet, the 2022 *agreement* to eliminate the leap-second "by 2035" is completely missing!!"
591:
565:
423:
1612:
1598:
1566:
1551:
1521:
1470:
1459:
1442:
1096:
1060:
1016:
1009:
961:
942:
932:
297:
172:
66:
502:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
288:
is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
1369:
891:
824:
744:
237:
81:
694:
But what about German and Danish people? Why were they not asked? Why only English and French?
1304:
1298:
1236:
1230:
1187:
1181:
1157:
1128:
62:
1151:
1122:
1651:
1637:
1588:
1536:
1507:
1488:
1081:
1039:
982:
776:
758:
726:
674:
251:
234:
908:
264:
260:
486:
465:
1659:
1641:
1620:
1606:
1592:
1574:
1559:
1544:
1529:
1511:
1496:
1478:
1463:
1450:
1104:
1089:
1068:
1047:
1024:
995:
986:
916:
873:
840:
812:
794:
780:
762:
730:
703:
678:
642:
236:
1678:
1124:
It's About Time: From Calendars and Clocks to Moon Cycles and Light Years - A History
740:
1646:
Yeah, sorry; "cannot be its successor" should have been "cannot be GMT's successor".
1203:
UTC is the successor of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and is sometimes still called GMT.
1275:
1209:
1633:
1584:
1503:
978:
772:
754:
722:
670:
579:
554:
397:
1487:
Wouldn't it solve your problem to just skip the mention of TAI and UT1?
658:'234: "Is this the "same" as the non-conference of 2023 that was cited?"
17:
1052:
Breaking it into two sentences for better clarity is always an option:
1183:
Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories
1393:
The result is Coordinated Universal Time, the modern version of GMT.
715:
to favor any particular language, the abbreviation UTC was selected.
853:
669:
is scheduled for 20 November to 15 December 2023 in Dubai, UAE.
499:
666:
417:
246:
238:
26:
1117:
As promised, here are some sources that say "the successor":
904:
and the name of the page ought to be changed to reflect this.
831:
and the name of the page ought to be changed to reflect this.
1269:
real time go to BIPM.org, and check the UTC master clock.
1580:
1300:
Upon a Trailing Edge: Risk, the Heart and the Air Pilot
952:
My issues with the sentence are (some emphasis added):
736:
367:
171:
396:
A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's
735:
I see that phrasing similar to the present phrasing
498:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
341:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
1400:"Why time is a companion, not an enemy of reward"
1030:(TAI in particular isn't even a civil timescale).
1282:. No. v. 17. Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. 1979
1005:aside for the moment, I suggest something like:
589:, a project which is currently considered to be
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1456:
1053:
1006:
939:
712:
1720:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Technology
823:in Washington, DC. Also thanks to Einstein's
185:
8:
1690:Knowledge articles that use British English
1685:Knowledge articles that use Oxford spelling
667:World Radiocommunication Conference of 2023
767:I edited the article and added a quote by
549:
460:
346:
305:
937:modified a sentence in the lead to read
876:clocks) being run and maintained by the
815:clocks) being run and maintained by the
551:
462:
421:
1710:Knowledge vital articles in Technology
1367:
1352:David Adam,Science c. (26 June 2003).
1002:
903:
889:
867:
862:Coordinated Universal Time § Etymology
845:
1156:. Springer International Publishing.
661:That's a different organization, the
296:, this should not be changed without
7:
1725:B-Class vital articles in Technology
585:This article is within the scope of
492:This article is within the scope of
1416:"Loss of GMT gives Britain the pip"
451:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
1331:Stacey, Michelle (December 2006).
25:
1458:It is the effective successor to
1008:It is the effective successor to
941:It is the effective successor to
601:Knowledge:WikiProject Measurement
1705:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
1420:The Times & The Sunday Times
1258:Usborne, Simon (13 March 2015).
852:Feel free to report that to the
785:Thanks Jc. It looks better now.
604:Template:WikiProject Measurement
578:
553:
485:
464:
431:
422:
389:
309:
250:
220:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
1153:NextGen Network Synchronization
1073:It is clearer as two sentences.
709:The cited source from NIST says
532:This article has been rated as
1715:B-Class level-4 vital articles
1414:Leake, Jonathan (2011-10-02).
1383:Falk, Dan (27 December 1998).
1276:"Time and Frequency Standards"
894:we know our Universe is "3D+1"
868:UTC is the average time of 57
327:nominee, but did not meet the
1:
1735:High-importance Time articles
1660:11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
1621:05:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
795:12:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
781:15:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
763:14:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
731:14:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
704:13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
506:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
1695:Former good article nominees
1642:19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1607:20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1593:19:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1575:19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1560:18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1545:12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
1530:20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1512:15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1497:15:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1479:04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1451:04:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1327:Other words, but same idea:
1105:20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1090:15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
1069:22:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1048:21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1025:19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
987:17:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
892:General Theory of Relativity
825:General Theory of Relativity
679:23:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
643:22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
917:13:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
841:12:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1751:
1466:and TAI play a vital role.
890:Also thanks to Einstein's
848:Universal Coordinated Time
805:Universal Coordinated Time
538:project's importance scale
512:Knowledge:WikiProject Time
335:. Editors may also seek a
317:Coordinated Universal Time
36:Coordinated Universal Time
1333:"Clash of the Time Lords"
829:Universal Time Coordinate
573:
531:
515:Template:WikiProject Time
480:
459:
349:
345:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
1186:. Universal Publishers.
1150:Chowdhury, D.D. (2021).
998:for an exhaustive list.)
689:The article states that
1579:I'm satisfied with the
960:effective successor to
856:, the successor to the
587:WikiProject Measurement
1700:B-Class vital articles
1581:edit by Danisl Quinlan
1468:
1058:
1014:
947:
878:U.S. Naval Observatory
817:U.S. Naval Observatory
717:
86:avoid personal attacks
1730:B-Class Time articles
1214:. IPC Magazines. 1997
850:is functionally wrong
438:level-4 vital article
329:good article criteria
214:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
1404:The Transcontinental
1374:: CS1 maint: year (
1229:Vaughan, L. (2023).
607:Measurement articles
375:Good article nominee
294:relevant style guide
290:varieties of English
116:No original research
1460:Greenwich Mean Time
1406:. 10 January 2021.
1280:Popular Electronics
1235:. No Starch Press.
1010:Greenwich Mean Time
962:Greenwich Mean Time
943:Greenwich Mean Time
929:On 7 February 2024
753:) in October 2011.
292:. According to the
1180:Kelly, A. (2005).
1127:. Michael O'Mara.
1121:Evers, L. (2013).
925:Successor to what?
884:in Washington, DC.
447:content assessment
350:Article milestones
97:dispute resolution
58:
1337:Harper's Magazine
1309:978-1-78462-472-9
1241:978-1-7185-0267-3
1192:978-1-58112-437-8
1162:978-3-030-71179-5
1133:978-1-78243-087-2
975:industry-specific
623:
622:
619:
618:
615:
614:
548:
547:
544:
543:
416:
415:
410:December 21, 2004
384:
383:
368:November 14, 2011
304:
303:
245:
244:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
1742:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1422:. Archived from
1410:
1395:
1379:
1373:
1365:
1348:
1322:
1317:
1316:
1297:Joy, M. (2015).
1293:
1288:
1287:
1271:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1176:
1170:
1169:
1146:
1141:
1140:
936:
609:
608:
605:
602:
599:
582:
575:
574:
569:
557:
550:
520:
519:
516:
513:
510:
495:WikiProject Time
489:
482:
481:
476:
468:
461:
444:
435:
434:
427:
426:
418:
393:
370:
347:
313:
306:
257:This article is
254:
247:
239:
225:
224:
215:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1675:
1674:
1429:
1427:
1413:
1398:
1389:The Independent
1382:
1366:
1351:
1343:(1879): 46–56.
1330:
1314:
1312:
1310:
1296:
1285:
1283:
1274:
1264:The Independent
1257:
1246:
1244:
1242:
1228:
1217:
1215:
1208:
1197:
1195:
1193:
1179:
1167:
1165:
1163:
1149:
1138:
1136:
1134:
1120:
930:
927:
769:Dennis McCarthy
687:
630:
606:
603:
600:
597:
596:
563:
534:High-importance
517:
514:
511:
508:
507:
475:High‑importance
474:
445:on Knowledge's
442:
432:
366:
298:broad consensus
265:Oxford spelling
261:British English
241:
240:
235:
212:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1748:
1746:
1738:
1737:
1732:
1727:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1707:
1702:
1697:
1692:
1687:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1647:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1613:Daniel Quinlan
1609:
1599:Daniel Quinlan
1567:Daniel Quinlan
1552:Daniel Quinlan
1522:Daniel Quinlan
1518:
1514:
1485:
1481:
1471:Daniel Quinlan
1443:Daniel Quinlan
1440:
1439:
1438:
1411:
1396:
1380:
1349:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1308:
1294:
1272:
1255:
1240:
1226:
1206:
1191:
1177:
1161:
1147:
1132:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1097:Daniel Quinlan
1077:
1074:
1061:Daniel Quinlan
1035:
1031:
1017:Daniel Quinlan
999:
996:time standards
990:
989:
972:
969:other regional
966:
933:Daniel Quinlan
926:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
901:
887:
874:hydrogen maser
865:
813:hydrogen maser
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
737:was introduced
733:
718:
710:
693:
686:
683:
682:
681:
659:
656:
649:
629:
626:
621:
620:
617:
616:
613:
612:
610:
583:
571:
570:
558:
546:
545:
542:
541:
530:
524:
523:
521:
504:the discussion
490:
478:
477:
469:
457:
456:
450:
428:
414:
413:
404:On this day...
394:
386:
385:
382:
381:
378:
371:
363:
362:
359:
356:
352:
351:
343:
342:
314:
302:
301:
255:
243:
242:
233:
231:
230:
227:
226:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1747:
1736:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1723:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1436:
1426:on 2022-11-04
1425:
1421:
1417:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1371:
1364:
1360:. pp. 9-1.9.
1359:
1355:
1350:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1326:
1321:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1295:
1292:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1227:
1224:
1213:
1212:
1211:New Scientist
1207:
1204:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1178:
1175:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1148:
1145:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1119:
1118:
1116:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1011:
1004:
1003:the effective
1000:
997:
992:
991:
988:
984:
980:
976:
973:
970:
967:
964:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
950:
946:
944:
938:
934:
924:
918:
914:
910:
905:
902:
899:
895:
893:
888:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
863:
859:
855:
851:
849:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
833:190.31.50.211
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
732:
728:
724:
719:
716:
711:
708:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:
654:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
627:
625:
611:
594:
593:
588:
584:
581:
577:
576:
572:
567:
562:
559:
556:
552:
539:
535:
529:
526:
525:
522:
518:Time articles
505:
501:
497:
496:
491:
488:
484:
483:
479:
473:
470:
467:
463:
458:
454:
448:
440:
439:
429:
425:
420:
419:
411:
407:
405:
399:
395:
392:
388:
387:
379:
377:
376:
372:
369:
365:
364:
360:
357:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
339:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:good articles
318:
315:
312:
308:
307:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
262:
256:
253:
249:
248:
229:
228:
223:
219:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1457:
1434:
1428:. Retrieved
1424:the original
1419:
1407:
1403:
1392:
1388:
1361:
1358:The Guardian
1357:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1319:
1313:. Retrieved
1299:
1290:
1284:. Retrieved
1279:
1267:
1263:
1260:"About time"
1251:
1245:. Retrieved
1231:
1222:
1216:. Retrieved
1210:
1202:
1196:. Retrieved
1182:
1172:
1166:. Retrieved
1152:
1143:
1137:. Retrieved
1123:
1054:
1007:
974:
968:
957:
956:
951:
948:
940:
928:
897:
896:That's from
882:time service
847:
828:
821:time service
804:
747:
713:
690:
688:
635:71.30.94.234
631:
624:
590:
533:
493:
453:WikiProjects
436:
401:
373:
338:reassessment
336:
321:
320:
316:
285:
284:; note that
281:
278:organization
277:
273:
269:
258:
217:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
1652:MrDemeanour
1537:MrDemeanour
1489:MrDemeanour
1303:. Matador.
1082:MrDemeanour
1040:MrDemeanour
900:relativity.
787:Konijnewolf
696:Konijnewolf
598:Measurement
561:Measurement
333:renominated
259:written in
159:free images
42:not a forum
1679:Categories
1430:2024-02-08
1315:2024-02-08
1286:2024-02-08
1247:2024-02-08
1218:2024-02-08
1198:2024-02-08
1168:2024-02-08
1139:2024-02-08
909:Guy Harris
408:column on
380:Not listed
1370:cite news
1266:. p. 41.
846:The name
803:The name
685:Etymology
441:is rated
398:Main Page
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
1001:Putting
751:contribs
741:Looie496
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
18:Talk:UTC
898:special
872:and 24
870:caesium
811:and 24
809:caesium
592:defunct
566:defunct
536:on the
443:B-class
400:in the
358:Process
282:analyse
274:realize
218:30 days
165:WP refs
153:scholar
1634:Jc3s5h
1585:Jc3s5h
1504:Jc3s5h
979:Jc3s5h
773:Jc3s5h
755:Jc3s5h
723:Jc3s5h
671:Jc3s5h
665:. The
628:Future
449:scale.
361:Result
319:was a
270:colour
137:Google
1056:role.
854:ITU-R
430:This
263:with
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1656:talk
1638:talk
1617:talk
1603:talk
1589:talk
1571:talk
1556:talk
1541:talk
1526:talk
1508:talk
1493:talk
1475:talk
1447:talk
1376:link
1305:ISBN
1237:ISBN
1188:ISBN
1158:ISBN
1129:ISBN
1101:talk
1086:talk
1065:talk
1044:talk
1021:talk
983:talk
913:talk
858:CCIR
837:talk
791:talk
777:talk
759:talk
745:talk
727:talk
700:talk
675:talk
653:CGPM
651:The
639:talk
528:High
509:Time
500:Time
472:Time
355:Date
286:-ize
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
1464:UT1
1341:313
1034:it.
958:the
880:'s
819:'s
739:by
663:ITU
187:TWL
1681::
1658:)
1640:)
1619:)
1605:)
1591:)
1573:)
1558:)
1543:)
1528:)
1510:)
1495:)
1477:)
1449:)
1433:.
1418:.
1402:.
1391:.
1387:.
1372:}}
1368:{{
1356:.
1339:.
1335:.
1318:.
1289:.
1278:.
1262:.
1250:.
1221:.
1201:.
1171:.
1142:.
1103:)
1088:)
1067:)
1046:)
1023:)
985:)
915:)
839:)
793:)
779:)
761:)
729:)
702:)
677:)
641:)
280:,
276:,
272:,
216::
208:,
204:,
167:)
65:;
1654:(
1636:(
1615:(
1601:(
1587:(
1569:(
1554:(
1539:(
1524:(
1506:(
1491:(
1473:(
1445:(
1378:)
1099:(
1084:(
1063:(
1042:(
1019:(
981:(
935::
931:@
911:(
864:.
835:(
789:(
775:(
757:(
748:·
743:(
725:(
698:(
673:(
637:(
595:.
568:)
564:(
540:.
455::
412:.
406:"
402:"
300:.
268:(
210:3
206:2
202:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
