Yes, I have verified the result. The same instant as displayed in the
Date/Time window produces the same sky no matter which Delta T model is
used (but I didn't try them all).
And, yes, I definitely believe we should propose that Stellarium should
use UT as its user timescale.
Cheers,
Frank
On 17/07/15 05:33, Victor Reijs wrote:
> Did you verify Frank? Let me know. In some way I think keeping the UT the same after a change in DeltaT formula is more intuitive then keeping the TT the same. So perhaps we should propose that (when you agree that the implementation itself is correct).
> Let me know.
>
> Indeed DeltaT and location are bounded: as a DeltaT means a more (or
> less) turned-earth and thus a different location of the band of
> visibility. On my web pages I gave some ideas on the influence:
> http://www.archaeocosmology.org/eng/skyprog.htm#events
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Victor
>
Hi Victor,
Yes, I have verified the result. The same instant as displayed in the
Date/Time window produces the same sky no matter which Delta T model is
used (but I didn't try them all).
And, yes, I definitely believe we should propose that Stellarium should
use UT as its user timescale.
Cheers,
Frank
On 17/07/15 05:33, Victor Reijs wrote: www.archaeocosm ology.org/ eng/skyprog. htm#events
> Did you verify Frank? Let me know. In some way I think keeping the UT the same after a change in DeltaT formula is more intuitive then keeping the TT the same. So perhaps we should propose that (when you agree that the implementation itself is correct).
> Let me know.
>
> Indeed DeltaT and location are bounded: as a DeltaT means a more (or
> less) turned-earth and thus a different location of the band of
> visibility. On my web pages I gave some ideas on the influence:
> http://
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Victor
>