Guest guest Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Respected Learned Persons, I think that Mr Lahiri had made a big mistake in calculating the year of corrospondance of tropical and sideral Zodiacs. The date provided by Mr Lahiri is Equinox of 285 AD but this is wrong. Actually the difference between the two zodiacs is currently about 24 days as per the greorian calendar which corrospondes to roughly 24*72= 1728 years that is roughly 285 AD. But it seems to me that Mr. Lahiri had forgot the 11 days reforms to the Calendar held in 1584. If we take into account these 11 days of reforms than the current difference between the two zodiacs will be of 35 days according to Lahiri. This will amount roughly to 35*72 = 2520 years hence bringing the corrospondance year of the two zodiacs as around 513 BC. So it seems that time where the two zodiacs meet is somewhere around 513 BC meets at Vernal equinox. Pls mention your views. Yours Faithfully Ajay Katesaria Dhanbad ______________________________\ ____ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make your homepage. http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Dear Ajay ji, The first thing to understand is - calculations done by scholars will never be ROUGH, as you puts it as per your understanding. Therefore before making such statements do the adequate study, and speak based on facts, instead of assumptions. For example let us consider your " Actually the difference between the two zodiacs is currently about 24 days as per the Gregorian calendar which corresponds to roughly 24*72= 1728 years that is roughly 285 AD. " Note the following points - * No knowledgeable person in the field will start their calculations with a statement like 'the difference between the two zodiacs is currently about 24 days'. The will start with EXACT degree difference between Vernal equinox and point opposite Chitra star (as far as Chitra paksha is concerned) ONLY. * Second comes calculation of time duration necessary for this much precession movement of the vernal equinox point. Note that the same too is not that simple as you vaguely puts it (as 'approx' 1 degree in 72 years). Considering even the following point, you can locate one of your possible mistake in approach - " The precession of equinox is approximately 50 sec per year. But there is continuous change in precession speed. According to modern science precession speed of AD.285 is 49.9049 and of AD.2100 is 50.3132. It means that there is a change of 0.0222226 sec in 100 years " Therefore know that Lahari come to some clear-cut calculations based on our scientfic understanding at that time (Note that the scientists like Bhaba were in the Calendar Reform Committee), even though they might have neglected some minute points - and used some averaging. Thus as per the calculations Lahari followed (of course that was never based on 'Gregorian Calendar days' as you puts it) the calculations were accurate. But the problems that came into picture later as - * Lahari used some averaging in precession speed. * Some minute astronomical fluctuations (like mutation etc) may not have been considered. * Even the star spica (chitra) is not fixed and has a very minor movement. Since lahari used 'averaging in precession speed' the the zero year calculation will not be exactly accurate - even though very very close to it. Later the Rashriya Panjanga people, instead of doing the calculations put forward by Lahari again based on the modified scientific understanding about precession speed and other factors, started adopting AD.285 as the zero ayanamsa year and started basing all their further calculations on this number. This ultimately gave rise to 2 Ayanamsas! 1) The Lahari Ayanamsa which treats AD.285 as zero Ayanamsa year (Now followed by Rashtreeya Panjanga). The Aswinyadi as per this system is no more the point opposite to Chitra - but only opposite an imaginary point in sky! 2) The True Chitra Paksha Ayanamsa which treats Aswinyadi as the exact opposite point of Chitra star. (The zero Ayanamsa year as per this system is no more AD.285)! If someone is following the scientific temper of Lahari, then it is good to consider the 'True Chitra Paksha Ayanamsa' and discard the first which is already baseless. I hope you are getting the gist of the issues, and complexities involved. The fundamental flaw in your argument might also have been clear to you by now. Note: I am neither a supporter of Lahari Ayanamsa nor true chitra paksha Ayanamsa. But when the argument is against chitra paksha and AD. 285, I believe I should put it in the right perspective. To state it clearly - NO SUCH FLAW AS POINTED OUT BY YOU IS INVOLVED IN THE CALCULATIONS OF LAHARI. But some others related to accuracy which are NOT mentioned by you are present, which later caused two ayanamsas. Hope this helps. Love, Sreenadh , ajay katesaria <ajay_dhanbad wrote: > > Respected Learned Persons, > I think that Mr Lahiri had made a big mistake in > calculating the year of corrospondance of tropical and > sideral Zodiacs. The date provided by Mr Lahiri is > Equinox of 285 AD but this is wrong. Actually the > difference between the two zodiacs is currently about > 24 days as per the greorian calendar which > corrospondes to roughly 24*72= 1728 years that is > roughly 285 AD. But it seems to me that Mr. Lahiri had > forgot the 11 days reforms to the Calendar held in > 1584. > If we take into account these 11 days of reforms than > the current difference between the two zodiacs will be > of 35 days according to Lahiri. This will amount > roughly to 35*72 = 2520 years hence bringing the > corrospondance year of the two zodiacs as around 513 > BC. So it seems that time where the two zodiacs meet > is somewhere around 513 BC meets at Vernal equinox. > Pls mention your views. > > Yours Faithfully > Ajay Katesaria > Dhanbad > > > > ______________________________\ ____ > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > Make your homepage. > http://www./r/hs > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Dear friends, I have uploaded the paper 'Polar Longitudes of Suryasiddhanta.. " which explains the mistake of the Calendar Reform Committee, in the files section. Saha-Lahiri analysis had some basic mistake as they were unaware of certain details of the Indian astronomical tradition. Paper added may kindly be studied in detail. chandra hari , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Ajay ji, > The first thing to understand is - calculations done by scholars will > never be ROUGH, as you puts it as per your understanding. Therefore > before making such statements do the adequate study, and speak based > on facts, instead of assumptions. > For example let us consider your " Actually the difference between the > two zodiacs is currently about 24 days as per the Gregorian calendar > which corresponds to roughly 24*72= 1728 years that is roughly 285 > AD. " Note the following points - > * No knowledgeable person in the field will start their calculations > with a statement like 'the difference between the two zodiacs is > currently about 24 days'. The will start with EXACT degree difference > between Vernal equinox and point opposite Chitra star (as far as > Chitra paksha is concerned) ONLY. > * Second comes calculation of time duration necessary for this much > precession movement of the vernal equinox point. Note that the same > too is not that simple as you vaguely puts it (as 'approx' 1 degree in > 72 years). Considering even the following point, you can locate one of > your possible mistake in approach - " The precession of equinox is > approximately 50 sec per year. But there is continuous change in > precession speed. According to modern science precession speed of > AD.285 is 49.9049 and of AD.2100 is 50.3132. It means that there is a > change of 0.0222226 sec in 100 years " > Therefore know that Lahari come to some clear-cut calculations based > on our scientfic understanding at that time (Note that the scientists > like Bhaba were in the Calendar Reform Committee), even though they > might have neglected some minute points - and used some averaging. > Thus as per the calculations Lahari followed (of course that was never > based on 'Gregorian Calendar days' as you puts it) the calculations > were accurate. > But the problems that came into picture later as - > * Lahari used some averaging in precession speed. > * Some minute astronomical fluctuations (like mutation etc) may not > have been considered. > * Even the star spica (chitra) is not fixed and has a very minor > movement. > Since lahari used 'averaging in precession speed' the the zero year > calculation will not be exactly accurate - even though very very close > to it. Later the Rashriya Panjanga people, instead of doing the > calculations put forward by Lahari again based on the modified > scientific understanding about precession speed and other factors, > started adopting AD.285 as the zero ayanamsa year and started basing > all their further calculations on this number. This ultimately gave > rise to 2 Ayanamsas! > 1) The Lahari Ayanamsa which treats AD.285 as zero Ayanamsa year > (Now followed by Rashtreeya Panjanga). The Aswinyadi as per this > system is no more the point opposite to Chitra - but only opposite an > imaginary point in sky! > 2) The True Chitra Paksha Ayanamsa which treats Aswinyadi as the > exact opposite point of Chitra star. (The zero Ayanamsa year as per > this system is no more AD.285)! > If someone is following the scientific temper of Lahari, then it is > good to consider the 'True Chitra Paksha Ayanamsa' and discard the > first which is already baseless. > I hope you are getting the gist of the issues, and complexities > involved. The fundamental flaw in your argument might also have been > clear to you by now. > Note: I am neither a supporter of Lahari Ayanamsa nor true chitra > paksha Ayanamsa. But when the argument is against chitra paksha and > AD. 285, I believe I should put it in the right perspective. To state > it clearly - > NO SUCH FLAW AS POINTED OUT BY YOU IS INVOLVED IN THE CALCULATIONS > OF LAHARI. > But some others related to accuracy which are NOT mentioned by you > are present, which later caused two ayanamsas. > Hope this helps. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , ajay katesaria > ajay_dhanbad@ wrote: > > > > Respected Learned Persons, > > I think that Mr Lahiri had made a big mistake in > > calculating the year of corrospondance of tropical and > > sideral Zodiacs. The date provided by Mr Lahiri is > > Equinox of 285 AD but this is wrong. Actually the > > difference between the two zodiacs is currently about > > 24 days as per the greorian calendar which > > corrospondes to roughly 24*72= 1728 years that is > > roughly 285 AD. But it seems to me that Mr. Lahiri had > > forgot the 11 days reforms to the Calendar held in > > 1584. > > If we take into account these 11 days of reforms than > > the current difference between the two zodiacs will be > > of 35 days according to Lahiri. This will amount > > roughly to 35*72 = 2520 years hence bringing the > > corrospondance year of the two zodiacs as around 513 > > BC. So it seems that time where the two zodiacs meet > > is somewhere around 513 BC meets at Vernal equinox. > > Pls mention your views. > > > > Yours Faithfully > > Ajay Katesaria > > Dhanbad > > > > > > > > > ______________________\ ____________ > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > > Make your homepage. > > http://www./r/hs > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Mr Shreenadh, I have never claimed to be a very knowledgeable person as you nor I have tried to comptete with you. I am a knoledge hungry person and aged only 25 years and am only putting my views for consideration. I am a businessman with interest in astrology and not a learned pundit as you are. I express true thanks to Mr Chandra Hari for his knowledge delivered but sir pls consider my view once seriously. As it seems that the difference of lahiri and tropical ayamsha is currently 23.57.30 which I am again using as 24 days for the sake of convieneance(as a difference of 0.171% is not material in exposing a difference of about 32%). My only inquiry is that if we take the gregorian calendar reform than the difference between the Lahiri and Tropical ayamsha come to around 35 degrees. (24 days current and 11 days georgian reform). According to such corresponding year of the two zodiacs will be 505 BC as per Lahiri Constant and 460 BC as per the fastest constant advocated by you of 2100. Pls forgive ifthere is a difference of 5-10 years in calculation which is immeterial (as I not a learned expert as you are). I am quite sure that this difference has not been accounted by lahiri. Forgive me if I am wrong or I have raised wrong topic. But pls explain that how can there be difference about 35 days in 1722 years(2007- 285=1722) according to the current scientific data available for precession. The difference of days is 24 current and 11 shortened in 1584 AD i.e.24+11= 35. Yours knowledge Hungry Student Ajay Katesaria, Dhanbad. Ph- 9334003430. ______________________________\ ____ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make your homepage. http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Dear Ajay ji, ==> > I have never claimed to be a very knowledgeable > person as you nor I have tried to compete with you. I > am a knowledge hungry person and aged only 25 years and > am only putting my views for consideration. I am a > businessman with interest in astrology and not a > learned pundit as you are. <== I appreciate your interest in studying and accumulating knowledge. But you are totally wrong in judging that I am a knowledgeable person or scholar. I am just an individual interested in astrology working as software quality assurance engineer of 36 years of age. I am NOT an astronomer or mathematician as well. The proper individual to answer your queries would be Chandra Hari and NOT me. So direct your questions towards him, and if you gets an answer from his - good. I don't think I can help you out all those maths - I am very poor in it. Love, Sreenadh , ajay katesaria <ajay_dhanbad wrote: > > Mr Shreenadh, > I have never claimed to be a very knowledgeable > person as you nor I have tried to comptete with you. I > am a knoledge hungry person and aged only 25 years and > am only putting my views for consideration. I am a > businessman with interest in astrology and not a > learned pundit as you are. I express true thanks to Mr > Chandra Hari for his knowledge delivered but sir pls > consider my view once seriously. > As it seems that the difference of lahiri and > tropical ayamsha is currently 23.57.30 which I am > again using as 24 days for the sake of convieneance(as > a difference of 0.171% is not material in exposing a > difference of about 32%). My only inquiry is that if > we take the gregorian calendar reform than the > difference between the Lahiri and Tropical ayamsha > come to around 35 degrees. (24 days current and 11 > days georgian reform). > According to such corresponding year of the two > zodiacs will be 505 BC as per Lahiri Constant and 460 > BC as per the fastest constant advocated by you of > 2100. Pls forgive ifthere is a difference of 5-10 > years in calculation which is immeterial (as I not a > learned expert as you are). I am quite sure that this > difference has not been accounted by lahiri. > Forgive me if I am wrong or I have raised wrong > topic. But pls explain that how can there be > difference about 35 days in 1722 years(2007- 285=1722) > according to the current scientific data available > for precession. The difference of days is 24 current > and 11 shortened in 1584 AD i.e.24+11= 35. > > Yours knowledge Hungry Student > Ajay Katesaria, Dhanbad. Ph- 9334003430. > > > ____________________ ______________ > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > Make your homepage. > http://www./r/hs > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.