Constants used in equation_of_the_equinoxes_complimentary_terms()
See original GitHub issueIn the calculation of equation_of_the_equinoxes_complimentary_terms()
some of the values used seem to vary from other published sources. The value 715923.2178
appears in the code, but it appears as 1717915923.2178
in SOFA and in other places eg.
http://www.iausofa.org/2010_1201_C/sofa/fal03.c
There are similar variances in the calculation of the other fa
values. Assuming this is intended, should there be code comments added to explain the source of the values and the discrepancies?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:10 (10 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Expressions to implement the IAU 2000 definition of UT1
This paper provides expressions to be used to implement the new definition ... (4) The value of the complementary terms introduced into the...
Read more >SOFA Tools for Earth Attitude
ACTION : Equation of the equinoxes complementary terms, consistent with IAU 2000 resolutions. GIVEN : date1 double. TT as a two-part. . ....
Read more >casa: casacore::Nutation Class Reference - NRAO CASA
Cached derivative of complimentary terms equation of equinoxes. More... Int · lres_p. To be able to use references rather than copies, and also...
Read more >Equinox (celestial coordinates) - Wikipedia
In astronomy, an equinox is either of two places on the celestial sphere at which the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator. Although there...
Read more >SOFA: support function
Transformation from ecliptic coordinates (mean equinox and ecliptic of date) to ICRS RA,Dec, using a long-term precession model. 1) No assumptions are made ......
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
No, I haven’t actually run the two and compared behaviors - I was just trying to understand where the magic numbers came from, and saw that the two implementations used many of the same constants but not identical ones.
Oh, and: the NOVAS guide has an Appendix D that compares SOFA and NOVAS.
https://github.com/brandon-rhodes/python-novas/blob/a40c662493da86da51e9b09361b5415a4fbbbf9e/Cdist/NOVAS_C3.1_Guide.pdf