NavList:

Dear Herbert,

OK ! Now, I see what you meant when initially writing in :

[NavList 13106] Re: UT1 vs. mean time in old almanacs

From: 666---org Date: 26 May 2010 06:02

QUOTE

On the occasion of introducing Lacaille's solar tables into the CT in 1760, Lalande remarked that the neglect of perturbations could hitherto have introduced errors up to 40" in the longitude of the sun. Was he wrong?

UNQUOTE

I initially mis-understood your question just hereabove, and from your very last post in :

[NavList 13108] Re: UT1 vs. mean time in old almanacs From: 666---org
Date: 26 May 2010 16:54

I now can see that we are in full agreement on Lalande's remark.

Indeed Lalande was right : neglecting [ all planetary ] perturbations could introduce errors up to 40" in the Sun's position as seen from the Earth. This value of 40" can be easily checked nowadays through taking a look at the perturbations given in the VSOP87 [R,L,B]series and even also from the most celebrated Tables of the SUN by M. Simon E. Newcomb in "A.P. for the A.E.N.A." VOL VI, 1898, pp. 13, 14, 15 and 16 which are given as [log10(R),L,B]

Best Regards

Antoine M. "Kermit" Couëtte
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------