|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: Dynamic time (was)Re: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
From: Tony (anthonys@XXX.XXX)
Date: Mon Jan 03 2000 - 17:59:11 EST
Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
>
[much snipped]
>
> Perhaps you (Tony) would care to expand on Terrestrial
> Dynamic Time. At least I will read it if you do.
Sorry. This is so esoteric in fineness that I cannot restate
from recollection other than it is a minor trim to UT1 which
assures by year workabiity of NO algorithms, including those
once published as "Almanac for Computers". It generally has to
do with achieving 1-arc second accuracy of computations.
Really, I should have not mentioned it at all!
The subject matter is covered in the Astronomical Almanac and
further in "other publications", particularly by Seidleman.
Try http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/ and search on dynamic time
and dynamical time for more authoritative information.
Happy New Year to you and all!
Tony
|