Big mistake that Lahiri made (pdf upload by Chandra Hari)

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

The URL to the said file is:

Indian%

20Calendar_IJHS March 2006 Paper.pdf

Regards,

Sreenadh

 

, " K Chandra Hari "

<chandrahari81 wrote:

>

>

> 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

> > >

> >

>