Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:37:49.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues of Time for Reference Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2017

P. K. Seidelmann
P. K. Seidelmann*
Affiliation:
U.S. Naval Observatory 3450 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20392-5420

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

At the International Astronomical Union General Assembly in 1991 the terminologies Geocentric Coordinate Time (TCG) and Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB) were introduced as the time coordinates of four dimensional geocentric and barycentric coordinate systems, respectively. The reasons for these time-like arguments and their applications will be discussed. The relationships between the different time-like arguments will be discussed along with their applications and relationships to the astronomical constants.

Since these time-like arguments have secular differences, there are new issues to be resolved. These new issues include the definition of the epoch J2000.0, relationship between mean and apparent sidereal time, the time-like argument for specifying constants, the definition and future use of ephemeris time, delta T values and the transition to, or future use of, TCG, TCB and TDB.

Type
Celestial Reference Frame
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 156: Developments in Astrometry and their Impacts on Astrophysics , 1993 , pp. 357 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer 

References

Aoki, S., and Kinoshita, H., (1983) “Note on the Relation Between the Equinox and Guinot's Non-rotating Origin,” Celest. Mech. 29, 335–360.Google Scholar
Bretagnon, P., and Simon, J.L., (1991) private communication.Google Scholar
Chapront-Touze, M. and Chapront, J. (1988) “ELP 2000-85; a Semi-analytical Lunar Ephemeris Adequate for Historical Times” Astron. Astrophys. 190, 342–352.Google Scholar
Comite International des Poids et Measures (1957), Proces Verbaux des Seances, deuxieme serie 25, 75–79.Google Scholar
Gontier, A.M. and Capitaine, N. (1991) “High Accuracy Equation of Equinoxes and VLBI Astrometric Modelling” Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 19, Cornwell, T.J. and Perley, R.A. eds, pp 342–345.Google Scholar
Guinot, B. and Seidelmann, P.K. (1988) “Time Scales: their history, definition and interpretation” Astron. Astrophys 194, 304–308.Google Scholar
Hughes, J.A., Smith, C.A., and Kaplan, G.H., (1991) IAU Proceedings of the 127th Colloquium of the IAU, Reference Systems, U S Naval Observatory, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Newcomb, S. (1895) “Tables of the Motion of the Earth on its axis Around the Sun,” Astron Papers Amer Ephem VI, I.Google Scholar
Seidelmann, P.K. and Fukushima, T. (1992) “Why New Time Scales?” Astron. Astrophys. in press.Google Scholar
Stephenson, F.R. and Morrison, L.V. (1984) “Long-term Changes in the Rotation of the Earth: 700 BC to AD 1980” Phil Trans R. Soc London A 313, 47–70.Google Scholar
Woolard, E.W., and Clemence, G.M. (1966) Spherical Astronomy, Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
(1977) Proceedings of the Sixteenth General Assembly, Transactions of the IAU, XVI, B. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht.Google Scholar
(1992) Proceedings of the Twenty-First General Assembly, Transactions of the IAU, XXI B Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar