Talk:Epoch (astronomy) - Wikipedia

Shouldn't be this defined in Terrestrial Time?

Yes, so why not change it now? Nike 06:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it known how long the current epoch will be adhered to? Do we know what will come next? Are these questions relevant; and if not, why not? Can this be clarified in the article? (As may be apparent, I don't have a clue.) -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Usually it's every 50 years, although I'm not certain that this is always the case. The article refers to B1875.0, which is only 25 years before B1900.0. --Nike 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's with all the #s? I've never seen this usage anywhere. #Julian epoch is just bizarre. Also, why are there links to articles which no longer exist?

Although the article only mentions one Julian epoch, I have also seen J1900 and J1950. --Nike 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I get it, those are supposed to be links to sections within the article. You need to use a piped link. That would look like this: [[#J2000.0|J2000.0]] --Nike 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What are Besselian vs. Julian epochs? How do they differ from each other aside from what letter is prefixed to their number? --Haruo 10:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about the article is unclear in explaining this? --Nike 11:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What I want to know is why the phrase "Since the right ascension and declination of stars are constantly changing due to precession..." is repeated verbatim in every section. BIEB!! 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

My guess is that this article is actually a series of stubs that were stitched together in the hope that someone would clear the result up into some coherent whole; sadly, nobody seems to have done so yet, and the result is just a mess... - IMSoP 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page may be mis-titled completely. When speaking of terms such as 'B1950.0' and 'J2000.0', especially in the context of celestial coordinates and precession, you are speaking of EQUINOX, not EPOCH. For example, the EPOCH of observation on a star may be 1991.25, but the coordinates given for its posistion may be specified in EQUINOX J2000.0 (The Hipparcos and Tycho stellar catalogs are a good example of this). Radec 08:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was directed to Epoch by the Template:CometComet Infobox]] on the Comet McNaught article, which states "Epoch: 2454113.2961 (January 20, 2007)". It was not immediately apparent from this article that the stated epoch was in fact a Julian Day, and that I should refer to that article for an explanation of the number 2454113.2691. If a subject expert is revising this article, it would be helpful if they would consider this usage. PaulKishimoto 17:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply