Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:28:04 +0100
References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <lsati1FireqU1@mid.individual.net> <1811b1bbc2b0581a$4009$1258271$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <EQHypnRrrfm9KIsfn1hoIuNDvWw@jntp> <vjrvi5$1or3g$1@dont-email.me> <q2T1xxfs2anW3avnE-Mbv6h_TtQ@jntp> <vk6it0$2j18$1@dont-email.me> <y6NFsdinreqq-hxcRLvq7hZ4gpc@jntp> <vk92ht$kijv$1@dont-email.me> <HQFxpJvcwIpLhNIeMKqLNQ292YE@jntp> <vk9qtr$p308$1@dont-email.me> <6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp> <vkrfq7$vgn7$1@dont-email.me> <67740ddb$0$16835$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <4jbdP.16697$511.1492@fx08.ams4> <1816a53d50abf5b5$33939$1308629$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <6775c175$0$29741$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Jan 2025 23:28:05 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1735770485 news-2.free.fr 29741 213.10.137.58:52061
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 2608

> Paul B. Andersen:
> > Den 31.12.2024 16:29, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >> Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
> >>> in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
> >>> frame of reference (ECI-frame).
> >>
> >> You keep repeating this mistake.
> >> TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> > 
> > I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
> > in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).

Right of course, but silly, if you rephrase it in this way.
They are the same time, by definition.
(up to a defined offset of a whole number of seconds)
So no frame comes into it.
Your original formulation is still wrong.
Perhaps you should have a look at BIPM bulletin CCTF/09-27,
or some other source on the definition of TAI.
Summary: TAI is the (best possible) realisation of the SI second,
on the rotating geoid, at mean sea level, [1]

Jan

[1] Where 'mean sea level' is nowadays understood as: 
at some fixed conventional value of the Newtonian potential.
(which I would have to look up again)

For prokary: wikipedia is not sufficiently clear on this point.