Fwd: Àryabhata's oldest exact astronomical constant?

January 29, 2009

hinducivilization , " James Q. Jacobs "

<jqjacobs wrote:

Listeros,

I was hoping for a scientific dialogue focused on the evidence I

found, specifically:

" ... Àryabhata wrote that 1,582,237,500 rotations of the Earth equal

57,753,336 lunar orbits. ... This is an extremely accurate ratio for

two fundamental cosmic motions (1,582,237,500 / 57,753,336 =

27.3964693572)... I calculated that Àryabhata's ratio was exact for

1604 BC. "

I encountered the following statement online by A K Kaul:

" Indian astronomers had no knowledge of precession till the

time of Munjala (10th century AD), it cannot be expected by any

stretch of imagination that they were talking of any sidereal year

because a sidereal year is calculated by subtracting annual

precession from the duration of a Tropical Year! "

J Q Jacobs responded:

" I refer you to my 1998 article:

The Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata:

The oldest exact astronomical constant?

http://jqjacobs.net/astro/aryabhata.html "

A K Kaul responded:

I have gone through your article. There are several points that you

have overlooked regarding Aryabhati:

1. The fundamental arguments of Aryabhati are a ditto copy of the

Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika, with the only difference that for

Audayika system, as against Ardharatrika system, he has tampered with

the same to make them zero at the time of supposed sunrise at Ujjain

for February 18, 3102 BCE.

2. Even then the sunrise time is wrong since it was not 6-00 am UMT

(Ujjain Mean Time) on February 18, 3102 BCE.

3. For ardharatrika system, Aryabhata did not make any

aditions/alterations to the fundamental arguments of the Surys

Aidhanta of Pancha-sidhantika. (Pl. see Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra by

S. B. Dikshit)

4. The supposed zero longitudes (mean) of all the planets at midnight

of February 17/18, 3102 BCE or even at 6-00 am UMT on February 18,

3102 BCE are the most monstrous astronomical calculations that could

ever have been done by any one--and no wonder it was done by some

Greek charlatan who called himself Maya, and took the plea that the

constants had been revealed to him by no other than Surya Bhagwan

himself, just to hoodwink God fearing Hindu polulace of India and to

make them astro-buffs! May be Hitler learnt it from Maya to

disseminate astrological misinformation to confuse his opponents!

5. It is beyond imagination that anyone knowing even a bit of

astronomy will give daily mean longitudes for millions of years

without any secular variations! That fact alone is a " testimonial " to

the fact that Maya was anything but an astronomer!

No wonder, the longitudes derived from it or the Surya Sidahnta or

even any later sidhanta, are neither so called sayana nor so called

nirayana, whatever ayanamsha you may utilize!

6. The million dollar question, that has not been answered by you in

your article, though you claim to have answered it--- is: Where has

Aryabhata talked of any sort of Ayanamsha, leave alone precession,

much less a sidereal or even a tropical year?

7. The duration of Aryabhata's year is more than eight palas than even

the sidereal year-- just like that of the Surya Sidhanta, though he

Aryabhata is talking of the phenomena of a tropical year like Makar

Sankranti being another name of Uttarayana and so on!

8. Since he did not, like Maya the mlechha of Surya Sidhanta, know the

difference between the two types of years, he had thus absolutely no

idea about the most important phenomenon viz. precession! Or you can

say that since Aryabhata as well, like Maya the mlechha, had no idea

about precession, that is why he had no idea about the difference

between a tropical and a sidereal year!

(end quote)

J Q Jacobs (that's me, the presumed Christian stooge) had little idea

about how to respond to this polemical, except to first say, " I'm no

friend of Hitler! " ;-)

I posted what I wrote on my web page long ago, hoping for a scientific

contribution, not to start a tribal war!

It seems I should have provided this link first:

The 1,099 Trillion Principle.

How many ancestors do we have?

http://jqjacobs.net/anthro/ancestors.html

If science discourse is possible here, I'll stay a while. Perhaps a

contribution to the online article can evolve from more discourse on

the evidence at hand. With that hope I provided above the evidence

Mr. Kaul left out of the discussion.

NOW, addressing this statement by Mr. Kaul (who decided that this

forum was to be where he would reply to me):

" it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that they were

talking of any sidereal year because a sidereal year is calculated by

subtracting annual precession from the duration of a Tropical Year! "

Sidereal year (= solar orbits) is observable. A civilization doing

astronomy for a period of time can arrive at this obvious fact by

accumulating data from continuous counts. Civilizations were doing

astronomy for long periods before Àryabhata's exact ratio, and there

was communication between civilizations.

Name calling will not make the evidence go away. However, it would be

useful if those who know Sanskrit commented on the original text in

relation to Clark's translation, as a starting point.

James Q. Jacobs

PS.

Please crop your posts!

FYI, I'm a member of the one human family.

--- End forwarded message ---

January 30, 2009

Dear Sreenadhji,Please look at the following statement of Kaul:Quote

"Indian astronomers had no knowledge of precession till the time of Munjala (10th century AD), it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that they were talking of any sidereal year because a sidereal year is calculated by subtracting annual precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"UnquoteWe say that to test whether the rice is cooked or not, we have to test

only a single rice grain from the cooker and not all the rice that is

being cooked. The above-quoted piece is sufficient to assess Kaul. Only and ignorant and unthinking person can make this above-quoted statement and it will require an imbecilic person to believe in that. Kaul does not know that the ancient astronomers observed the positions of the grahas and nakshatras with their naked eye day in and day out and there is no question of any ayanamsha in the Nirayana system. Kaul is an incorrigible person with a self-assumed licence-holder to call anybody as charlatan but he does not know asto how many people could be considering him as the greatest charlatan. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:Sreenadh <sreesog Fwd: Àryabhata's oldest exact astronomical

constant? Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 5:41 AM

hinducivilization, "James Q. Jacobs"

<jqjacobs@.. .> wrote:

Listeros,

I was hoping for a scientific dialogue focused on the evidence I

found, specifically:

"... Àryabhata wrote that 1,582,237,500 rotations of the Earth equal

57,753,336 lunar orbits. ... This is an extremely accurate ratio for

two fundamental cosmic motions (1,582,237,500 / 57,753,336 =

27.3964693572) ... I calculated that Àryabhata's ratio was exact for

1604 BC."

I encountered the following statement online by A K Kaul:

"Indian astronomers had no knowledge of precession till the

time of Munjala (10th century AD), it cannot be expected by any

stretch of imagination that they were talking of any sidereal year

because a sidereal year is calculated by subtracting annual

precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"

J Q Jacobs responded:

"I refer you to my 1998 article:

The Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata:

The oldest exact astronomical constant?

http://jqjacobs. net/astro/ aryabhata. html"

A K Kaul responded:

I have gone through your article. There are several points that you

have overlooked regarding Aryabhati:

1. The fundamental arguments of Aryabhati are a ditto copy of the

Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika, with the only difference that for

Audayika system, as against Ardharatrika system, he has tampered with

the same to make them zero at the time of supposed sunrise at Ujjain

for February 18, 3102 BCE.

2. Even then the sunrise time is wrong since it was not 6-00 am UMT

(Ujjain Mean Time) on February 18, 3102 BCE.

3. For ardharatrika system, Aryabhata did not make any

aditions/alteration s to the fundamental arguments of the Surys

Aidhanta of Pancha-sidhantika. (Pl. see Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra by

S. B. Dikshit)

4. The supposed zero longitudes (mean) of all the planets at midnight

of February 17/18, 3102 BCE or even at 6-00 am UMT on February 18,

3102 BCE are the most monstrous astronomical calculations that could

ever have been done by any one--and no wonder it was done by some

Greek charlatan who called himself Maya, and took the plea that the

constants had been revealed to him by no other than Surya Bhagwan

himself, just to hoodwink God fearing Hindu polulace of India and to

make them astro-buffs! May be Hitler learnt it from Maya to

disseminate astrological misinformation to confuse his opponents!

5. It is beyond imagination that anyone knowing even a bit of

astronomy will give daily mean longitudes for millions of years

without any secular variations! That fact alone is a "testimonial" to

the fact that Maya was anything but an astronomer!

No wonder, the longitudes derived from it or the Surya Sidahnta or

even any later sidhanta, are neither so called sayana nor so called

nirayana, whatever ayanamsha you may utilize!

6. The million dollar question, that has not been answered by you in

your article, though you claim to have answered it--- is: Where has

Aryabhata talked of any sort of Ayanamsha, leave alone precession,

much less a sidereal or even a tropical year?

7. The duration of Aryabhata's year is more than eight palas than even

the sidereal year-- just like that of the Surya Sidhanta, though he

Aryabhata is talking of the phenomena of a tropical year like Makar

Sankranti being another name of Uttarayana and so on!

8. Since he did not, like Maya the mlechha of Surya Sidhanta, know the

difference between the two types of years, he had thus absolutely no

idea about the most important phenomenon viz. precession! Or you can

say that since Aryabhata as well, like Maya the mlechha, had no idea

about precession, that is why he had no idea about the difference

between a tropical and a sidereal year!

(end quote)

J Q Jacobs (that's me, the presumed Christian stooge) had little idea

about how to respond to this polemical, except to first say, "I'm no

friend of Hitler!" ;-)

I posted what I wrote on my web page long ago, hoping for a scientific

contribution, not to start a tribal war!

It seems I should have provided this link first:

The 1,099 Trillion Principle.

How many ancestors do we have?

http://jqjacobs. net/anthro/ ancestors. html

If science discourse is possible here, I'll stay a while. Perhaps a

contribution to the online article can evolve from more discourse on

the evidence at hand. With that hope I provided above the evidence

Mr. Kaul left out of the discussion.

NOW, addressing this statement by Mr. Kaul (who decided that this

forum was to be where he would reply to me):

"it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that they were

talking of any sidereal year because a sidereal year is calculated by

subtracting annual precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"

Sidereal year (= solar orbits) is observable. A civilization doing

astronomy for a period of time can arrive at this obvious fact by

accumulating data from continuous counts. Civilizations were doing

astronomy for long periods before Àryabhata's exact ratio, and there

was communication between civilizations.

Name calling will not make the evidence go away. However, it would be

useful if those who know Sanskrit commented on the original text in

relation to Clark's translation, as a starting point.

James Q. Jacobs

PS.

Please crop your posts!

FYI, I'm a member of the one human family.

--- End forwarded message ---

January 30, 2009

Dear Sunil Bhattachrjya ji, The following single proof is good enough to prove that the Ancient Indian Astronomers of even BC 1100 knew well about precession. URL: Sreenadh%20OG/Adbhuta_Samhita_and_the_Period_of_Som_.pdf But for those who don't want to follow the logical path, for people with a different agenda (like Kaul) - nothing is enough; they are interested only in the pedestrian approach and in mis-quoting, mis-interpreting available data. Such people are distructive pests and not costuctive minds with a creative respectable outlook. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > Please look at the following statement of Kaul:> > Quote> > > > "Indian astronomers had no knowledge of precession till the time of Munjala (10th century AD), it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that they were talking of any sidereal year because a sidereal year is calculated by subtracting annual precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"> > Unquote> > We say that to test whether the rice is cooked or not, we have to test> only a single rice grain from the cooker and not all the rice that is> being cooked. The above-quoted piece is sufficient to assess Kaul. Only and ignorant and unthinking person can make this above-quoted statement and it will require an imbecilic person to believe in that. Kaul does not know that the ancient astronomers observed the positions of the grahas and nakshatras with their naked eye day in and day out and there is no question of any ayanamsha in the Nirayana system. Kaul is an incorrigible person with a self-assumed licence-holder to call anybody as charlatan but he does not know asto how many people could be considering him as the greatest charlatan. > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Sreenadh sreesog wrote:> Sreenadh sreesog Fwd: Àryabhata's oldest exact astronomical constant?> > Thursday, January 29, 2009, 5:41 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hinducivilization, "James Q. Jacobs"> > jqjacobs@ .> wrote:> > > > Listeros,> > > > I was hoping for a scientific dialogue focused on the evidence I> > found, specifically:> > > > "... Àryabhata wrote that 1,582,237,500 rotations of the Earth equal> > 57,753,336 lunar orbits. ... This is an extremely accurate ratio for> > two fundamental cosmic motions (1,582,237,500 / 57,753,336 => > 27.3964693572) ... I calculated that Àryabhata's ratio was exact for> > 1604 BC."> > > > I encountered the following statement online by A K Kaul:> > > > "Indian astronomers had no knowledge of precession till the> > time of Munjala (10th century AD), it cannot be expected by any> > stretch of imagination that they were talking of any sidereal year> > because a sidereal year is calculated by subtracting annual> > precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"> > > > J Q Jacobs responded:> > > > "I refer you to my 1998 article:> > The Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata:> > The oldest exact astronomical constant?> > http://jqjacobs. net/astro/ aryabhata. html"> > > > A K Kaul responded:> > > > I have gone through your article. There are several points that you> > have overlooked regarding Aryabhati:> > > > 1. The fundamental arguments of Aryabhati are a ditto copy of the> > Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika, with the only difference that for> > Audayika system, as against Ardharatrika system, he has tampered with> > the same to make them zero at the time of supposed sunrise at Ujjain> > for February 18, 3102 BCE.> > > > 2. Even then the sunrise time is wrong since it was not 6-00 am UMT> > (Ujjain Mean Time) on February 18, 3102 BCE.> > > > 3. For ardharatrika system, Aryabhata did not make any> > aditions/alteration s to the fundamental arguments of the Surys> > Aidhanta of Pancha-sidhantika. (Pl. see Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra by> > S. B. Dikshit)> > > > 4. The supposed zero longitudes (mean) of all the planets at midnight> > of February 17/18, 3102 BCE or even at 6-00 am UMT on February 18,> > 3102 BCE are the most monstrous astronomical calculations that could> > ever have been done by any one--and no wonder it was done by some> > Greek charlatan who called himself Maya, and took the plea that the> > constants had been revealed to him by no other than Surya Bhagwan> > himself, just to hoodwink God fearing Hindu polulace of India and to> > make them astro-buffs! May be Hitler learnt it from Maya to> > disseminate astrological misinformation to confuse his opponents!> > > > 5. It is beyond imagination that anyone knowing even a bit of> > astronomy will give daily mean longitudes for millions of years> > without any secular variations! That fact alone is a "testimonial" to> > the fact that Maya was anything but an astronomer!> > No wonder, the longitudes derived from it or the Surya Sidahnta or> > even any later sidhanta, are neither so called sayana nor so called> > nirayana, whatever ayanamsha you may utilize!> > > > 6. The million dollar question, that has not been answered by you in> > your article, though you claim to have answered it--- is: Where has> > Aryabhata talked of any sort of Ayanamsha, leave alone precession,> > much less a sidereal or even a tropical year?> > > > 7. The duration of Aryabhata's year is more than eight palas than even> > the sidereal year-- just like that of the Surya Sidhanta, though he> > Aryabhata is talking of the phenomena of a tropical year like Makar> > Sankranti being another name of Uttarayana and so on!> > > > 8. Since he did not, like Maya the mlechha of Surya Sidhanta, know the> > difference between the two types of years, he had thus absolutely no> > idea about the most important phenomenon viz. precession! Or you can> > say that since Aryabhata as well, like Maya the mlechha, had no idea> > about precession, that is why he had no idea about the difference> > between a tropical and a sidereal year!> > > > (end quote)> > > > J Q Jacobs (that's me, the presumed Christian stooge) had little idea> > about how to respond to this polemical, except to first say, "I'm no> > friend of Hitler!" ;-)> > > > I posted what I wrote on my web page long ago, hoping for a scientific> > contribution, not to start a tribal war!> > > > It seems I should have provided this link first:> > The 1,099 Trillion Principle.> > How many ancestors do we have?> > http://jqjacobs. net/anthro/ ancestors. html> > > > If science discourse is possible here, I'll stay a while. Perhaps a> > contribution to the online article can evolve from more discourse on> > the evidence at hand. With that hope I provided above the evidence> > Mr. Kaul left out of the discussion.> > > > NOW, addressing this statement by Mr. Kaul (who decided that this> > forum was to be where he would reply to me):> > > > "it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that they were> > talking of any sidereal year because a sidereal year is calculated by> > subtracting annual precession from the duration of a Tropical Year!"> > > > Sidereal year (= solar orbits) is observable. A civilization doing> > astronomy for a period of time can arrive at this obvious fact by> > accumulating data from continuous counts. Civilizations were doing> > astronomy for long periods before Àryabhata's exact ratio, and there> > was communication between civilizations.> > > > Name calling will not make the evidence go away. However, it would be> > useful if those who know Sanskrit commented on the original text in> > relation to Clark's translation, as a starting point.> > > > James Q. Jacobs> > > > PS.> > Please crop your posts!> > FYI, I'm a member of the one human family.> > > > --- End forwarded message --->