Fwd: Àryabhata's oldest exact astronomical constant?

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Shri James Q. Jacobs,

Namaskar!

As you have quoted my online post yourself again, and it

says, " 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! " it is evident that

I was discussing the knowledge of precession--or lack of it--among

the sidhantic astronomers.

Instead of proving or disproving that statement with your counter

arguments, you referred me to your site/article which talks

about " the accuracy " of some astronomical ratios as per Aryabhati!

To give you a correct perspective, I gave a detailed reply that the

fundamental arguments that you were attributing to Aryabhata are

actually from the Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika! And I also

gave you a point by point analysis---that you have quoted yourself---

as to how inaccurate those fundamental arguments are! They are

actually anything but correct, as must be clear to you by now,

irrespective of the fact that you find some " fundamental cosmic

motions " of Aryabhata accurate.

And when I got your response that you would take into account all

these new facts about Aryabhati, I was very glad that at last here

was a real academician who would not jump to conclusions but would

assess all the information! And that response also was posted on

several forums---including hc---without any additions/alterations.

But I am sorry to say that even you have disappointed me on that

count!

Regarding your statement, " " ... 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 have pointed out to you already that these are actually the

fundamental arguments of the Surya Sidhanta of Pancha-sidhantika!

Aryabhata has just lifted them from the same without any due

acknowledgements! Secondly, the duration of a yuga or kalpa of

432000 years or 4320000000 (human) years, in which the number of

solar and luana rotations have been given by the SS/Aryabhati, is

imaginary and arbitrary and cannot stand any astronomical

parameters! You should know that the length of a day, and therefore

a year, at the time of the " Big Bang " was much different from what it

is today, and it will again be much different at the time of the end

of the present " kalpa " if at all there will be any end to it, since

the " Steady State Theory " presumes that there was neither any

beginning nor will there be any end to the cosmos! Even " Big Bang "

cosmologists are not sure as to what type of end the cosmos will

have, nor do they know as to when that end will come. Actually they

too are still unsure whether it will really have an end!

Thirdly, as per your own calculations, Aryabhata's (read Surya

Sidhanta!) " fundamental cosmic motions " was exact for 1604 BCE. That

year is neither here nor there since neither Aryabhata nor the Surya

Sidhanta have given any parameters for such a year. Aryabhata and

the SS and all the later sidhantas have talked of a Kaliyuga which

started in 3102 BCE and that cannot be said to have any link to 1604

BCE! Besides, by different parameters of different durations of year

etc., any other set of calculations will fit the jigsaw puzzle, for a

different year when " the ratio " will be exact!

You are also actually obfuscating the issue by comparing the

durations of year of the Aryabhata/Surya Sidhanta vis-à-vis modern

astronomy without mentioning as to whether the modern solar year you

are talking about is sidereal or tropical! Since it is the former,

it negates your own point that it tallies with the Aryabhati year

etc. because Aryabhata/Surya Sidhanta have talked of a seasonal year

though their calculations yield the duration more than even a

sidereal year!

You must be aware that the duration of a sidereal year is more by

about 20minutes and 24 seconds than a tropical year, and the duration

of the Aryabhata (read Surya Sidhanta) tropical year is more than

even that of the sidereal year by about eight palas i.e. 3.2 seconds

every year! And when transferred to millions of years, that

difference in duration of the two types of years runs into hundreds

of thousands of years, 167556.47 years in a kalpa, to be exact!

As such, how on earth do you presume those calculations to be correct?

Pl., therefore, recheck your own calculations in the light of these

statements.

 

Your statement, " 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. " does not stand any astronomical test since

astronomical parameters are decided on the basis of exact

calculations and not generalizations! !

Would you kindly inform the members of this group as to what you mean

when you say, " Sidereal year is observable " . How do you " observe " it

today and how could Aryabhata (actually the SS) have observed it in

early centuries of the first millennium of Christian era?

You are also unaware that it was Hipparchus of second century BCE who

had discovered precession for the first time! Perhaps you are also

unaware of the fact that as late as second century AD even Ptolemy

gave wrong measure of precession 36 " per year as against about

50 " .2. So it must have been a " communication between civilizations "

of a wrong type of data!

 

< 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.>

 

What type of " name calling " are you referring to? And who is asking

you to wish away the evidence? On the other hand, I am keeping

before you all the facts and figures that you are avoiding yourself,

or at least were unaware about. Regarding Clark's translation, I do

not have that work with me and as such, cannot offer any comments

about the same. I do have, however, the original Aryabhati with the

commentary of K. S. Shukla, published by Indian National Science

Academy, New Delhi.

I can assure you that Prof. Shukla has translated the work in a

highly professional manner, giving all the references and sources for

the conclusions that he has arrived at.

I hope you will put the records straight and not make long and

winding and confusing statements unnecessarily.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

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 ---

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " jyotirved " <jyotirved

wrote:

 

Dr. R. N. Iyengarji,

 

Namaskar!

 

<I don't think Jacobs is wasting the time of the members any more

than what

wastage is thrust upon the Group by Pandit Kaul! Knowing one's

science is

different from having scientific temper. For communicative

discussion the

latter is essential, one should have an open mind to listen to others

also.>

 

 

 

Shri Jacob's statement is , " ... 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. "

 

 

 

These rotations and lunar orbits etc. are supposed to be over a

period of

4,320,000 solar years.

 

 

 

Aryabhata's " Savana days " for the same period are 1,577,917,500.

 

 

 

As per page 231 (Hindi version) of Dikshit's Bharatiya Jyotisha

Shastra, the

rotations of earth as per the Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika are

1,582,237,800 and the number of lunar orbits as per the same

Panchasidhantika is also exactly 57,753,336 in a Mahayuga of 4,320,000

years. The number of " Savana days " as per that SS is 1,577,917,800.

Same

is the case with the current Surya Sidhanta!

 

Thus Aryabhata has increased the number of rotations of Earth by 300

and

also the number of Savana days by 300 over that of the SS. This is a

simple

manipulation of figures which are as correct or wrong as the

rotations etc.

of the SS are. The ratio for " fundamental cosmic motions " of SS comes

to

27.3964745517038, which maybe exact for an earlier era than 1604

BC.

 

Surprisingly, the number of revolutions of the sun is 43,200,000 and

that of

moon 57,753,336 in the Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika, the

current Surya

Sidhanta, Aryabhati and most of the other sidhantas, including

Vateshwara

Sidhanta of 10th century AD! Thus Aryabhata and most of his

successors have

circumnavigated around the old Surya Sidhanta!

 

As such, what Shri James is doing is proving the accuracy of the

ratio of

the Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika for 1604 BCE on the shoulders

of

Aryabhati!

 

 

 

As is common knowledge by now, Surya Sidhanta is actually a work by

some

Greek astrologer, who masqueraded as Maya at the fag end of the last

Satya-yuga (sic!). It means he claims to be the same Maya who was the

father-in-law of the famous rakshasa king Ravana as per all the

Ramayanas!

The same Maya also claimed that the number of planetary orbits etc.

was

revealed to him by none other than Surya Bhagwan ---and not that he

had got

them from some other source or had done some spadework himself!!

 

I am afraid I do not have a " scientific temper " to stomach such

lies! And

this I had pointed out to Shri James in no uncertain terms, as to how

the

Hindus had been taken for a ride by Maya the mlechha, and the

incalculable

damage that Maya has done to the Vedic culture. I wonder if pointing

out

such unpleasant facts is wasting precious time of some members who

have a

scientific temper to listen to others!

 

Surprisingly, Aryabhata is silent as to wherefrom he got the

fundamental

arguments, though they are a ditto copy of that of the SS for his

ardharatrika system.

 

Secondly, the most important point which cannot be ignored in the

name of

scientific temper is that it is only sidhantic astronomy, based on

the Surya

Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika, that talks of orbital elements in terms

of

billions of years, which has been later followed by other sidhantas

including Aryabhati! Anybody with even the basic knowledge of

planetary

astronomy should know that no orbital elements can be presumed to be

correct

for more than ten thousand years plus or minus at the most, even if

they are

given by none other the real Maya viz. the father-in-law of Ravana,

not to

speak of some fake Maya, especially when the rate of motion is

without any

secular variations for billions of years!

 

If those orbital elements are said to be correct for billions of

years,

that just is not astronomy but a phantasmagoria that someone wants us

to

pursue to prove his or her astronomical prowess, on the shoulders

of " cosmic

ratio " .

 

 

 

Now your second point " Knowledge of the phenomenon of precession is

not same

as knowing the value of the constant accurately. The first part was

known

since Vedic times, in a qualitative sense. Shifting of the nakshatras

for

the equinox is in effect precession. So also with the concepts of

sidereal

and tropical years "

 

Equinoxes can shift from one nakshatra to another as in the Vedas like

Krittika to Bharni and so on. It can also shift from one Greek

constellation to another like constellation Aries to constellation

Pisces

and then to constellation Aquarius and so on. It, however, cannot

shift

from one astrological sign (Mesha etc. Rashis) to another astrological

rashi, whether that rashi is so called sayana or nirayana! If

someone says

that the equinox shifted from Aries to Pisces in 57 BC, all he is

doing is

vindicating the Greek constellations, because if the rashis he is

talking

about are sayana, the VE is always conjunct with the name-sake " First

point

of Aries " then as it is on a Sayana Mesha Sankranti that the Vishuva

takes

place year after year right from the advent of Greco-Chaldean

astrology-cum-astronomy!

 

If it is said that the Vernal equinox shifted from one nirayana rashi

to

another, that is an impossibility since there were no nirayana rashis

even

in India, not to speak of some other country, in the hoary past! If

for the

sake of argument, we accept that it was some nirayana Mesha Rashis

from

which the equinox shifted to nirayna Mina Rashi, then we have to

decide the

starting and ending points of those nirayana rashis first---if at all

there

can be any so called nirayana Rashis!

 

That starting point of nirayana rashis cannot be a fictitious point

that

was conjunct the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD that was in exact

opposition to

the star Spica then---euphemistically known as Lahiri Ayanamsha! It

cannot

be an arbitrary point selected by Shakukntala Devi or Chandr Hari

etc. The

fictitious point of " Chitrapaksha " is therefore a lie by Rashtriya

Panchanga

on the shoulders of N C Lahiri via Grahalaghava which landed

ultimately in

the lap of the Surya Sidhanta (of Maya the mlechha!) calculated

longitudes!

That fictitious point is being thrust on the Hindu community these

days by

Rashtriya Panchanga because majority of " Vedic astrologers " want it

and

that is why we are being compelled to celebrate all our festivals and

muhurtas on wrong days!

 

Regarding the " concept of tropical and sidereal years " , the irony is

that

all the sidhantas, right from the Surya Sidhanta of Pancha-sidhantika

through Aryabhati and the current Surya Sidhanta to Sidhanta

Shiromani,

give the duration of a year something like 365d 15 gh 31 palas, a few

vipalas/palas plus or minus. That is virtually eight palas i.e. 3.2

seconds

more than even a sidereal year, which itself is longer by about 20

mts. 24

seconds than the tropical year!

 

But when it comes to clubbing of rashis with the cardinal points and

seasons, all the sidhantas, right from the Surya Sidhanta of

Panchasidhantika through Aryabhati to Sidhanta Shiromani, in unison,

claim

that Mesha Sankranti is the name of Vishuva, when the day and night

are

equal, Karkata Sankrnati is a synonym of Dakshinayana, when the day

is the

longest, Tula Sankranti is another name of Hemanta Sampata when the

day and

night are equal and again, Makar Sankranti is nothing but a synonym of

Uttarayana, when the day is the shortest. Vateshwara (924 AD) has

gone to

the length of saying, " The months Chaitra etc. are called, (according

to the

Vedas), Madhu, Madhava, Shukra, Shuchih, Nabhas, Nabhasya, Isha, Urja,

Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas and Tapasya respectively " . ---Vateshwara

Sidhanta

3/28, published by INSA, 1985.

 

That means till 924 AD, no sidhantakara had any idea that while he was

giving the duration of the year as sidereal, he was actually clubbing

all

the phenomena like Winter Solstice etc. of a tropical year with

them! That

just proves that they had absolutely no idea about any difference

between a

tropical and a sidereal year!

 

We come across Ayanamsha corrections for the first time in Munjala's

Laghumanasa for March 10, 932 AD, when he has advised that an

Ayanamsha at

the rate of one arc minute per year from Shaka 444 must be added to

the

calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta and Aryabhati etc. That

means

that though Munjala wanted sayana longitudes, but he also has given

the

duration of year the same as the Surya Sidhanta---more than even the

sidereal year! It also shows that just after eight years of

Vateshwara, who

had not suggested any " ayanamsha corrections " , Munjala had discovered

the

discrepancies in calculated longitudes of the SS vis-à-vis the actual

Vishuva etc.

 

Thus, even Munjala has not differentiated between a tropical and a

sidereal

year which again confirms that he also had no idea about a sidereal or

tropical year! All sidereal periods of the sun were nothing but

durations

of a tropical year according to him as well!

 

 

 

Prof. K. S. Shukla has quoted (on page 22 of his translation of

Laghumanasa

--INSA) several manuscript panchangas by Prasastidhara of Kashmir

for 962

AD, 967 AD etc. that had been prepared after the additive corrections

of

Munjala's Ayanamsha. Technically, all these could be called Sayana

Panchangas, thus!

 

We also find, on page 38 of the same Laghumanasa, that as late as 15th

century AD, Yallaya had given, in his commentary of Laghumanasa, the

initial

constants for March 18, 1482 AD, after the ayanamsha corrections as

advised

by Munjala, for preparing panchangas for future years! Therefore,

even in

15th century AD, India was following the so called sayana longitudes

in

spite of the sidhantas giving duration of a tropical year more than

that of

a sidereal year!

 

 

 

That is why I have clarified it in several posts that we do not find

any

references to precession in any of the sidhantas, and the Ayanamsha

corrections that have been discussed by Munjala and Bhaskara-II are

just the

differences between the calculated longitudes of the various sidhantas

vis-à-vis the actual geographical visible phenomena.

 

That is why I keep on repeating that the myth of nirayana rashichakras

appears to have come into vogue sometimes after 1482 AD (Yallaya's

year of

constants) but before 1520 AD of Grahalaghava, when Ganesha Daivajnya

put

the cart before the horse by advising to subtract Ayanamsha at the

rate one

arc minute per year from Shaka 444.

 

Surprisingly, the Brihat Parashara Hora Shastram, the bible of " Vedic

astrologers " , published by Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, in early 19th

century, following the footsteps of Grahalaghava, also has advised to

subtract ayanamsha at the rate of one arc minute from Shaka 444.

 

Actually, it is not only the Mumbai edition but all the other

editions as

well that advise to follow some or the other ayanamsha like Pt.

Sitaram Jha,

the compiler of Master Khelari Lal, Varanasi edition of BPHS, had

advised

to use " Surya Sidhanta longitudes " for correct predictions. It was

the

same edition that was translated by late R. Santhanam into English,

but he

advocated Lahiri Ayanamsha!

 

Thus, one and the same Brihat Parashari has advised to follow at

least three

different ayanamsha, none tallying with the other when we do not find

any so

called nirayana Rashichakra in the Vishnu Purana of Maharshi

Parashara, who

is supposed to be the author of BPHS!

 

It is only because of such nirayana mess, on the shoulders of

precession and

BPHS etc., that we are celebrating all our festivals and muhurtas on

wrong

days.

 

It is my earnest effort to make the Hindu community realize this

unfortunate

fact, even if some scholars feel that I am wasting their precious

time. All

I can do is to request those scholars just to ignore my posts, as if

they

never existed.

 

With regards,

 

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hinducivilization , " aareni " <aareni@> wrote:

 

" Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved@>: wrote:

 

I don't think Jacobs is wasting the time of the members any more than

 

what wastage is thrust upon the Group by Pandit Kaul! Knowing one's

 

science is different from having scientific temper. For communicative

 

discussion the latter is essential, one should have an open mind to

 

listen to others also.

 

Knowledge of the phenomenon of precession is not same as knowing the

 

value of the constant accurately. The first part was known since

Vedic

 

times, in a qualitative sense. Shifting of the nakshatras for the

 

equinox is in effect precession. So also with the concepts of

sidereal

 

and tropical years.

 

RNI

 

 

 

>Shri James Q. Jacobs,

> Namsakar!

> You are just wasting the time of members of the forum by obfuscating

> the issue!

 

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. "

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " James Q. Jacobs "

<jqjacobs wrote:

 

" Avtar Krishen Kaul " ... wrote:

 

> Regarding ... " ... Àryabhata wrote that 1,582,237,500

> rotations of the Earth equal 57,753,336 lunar orbits. ...

 

> I have pointed out to you already that these are actually the

> fundamental arguments of the Surya Sidhanta ...

 

I am interested in the origin of this knowledge, of course.

So, the numbers are there, and they remain accurate.

Origin makes little difference on the implications of the accuracy?

 

> ... as per your own calculations, Aryabhata's (read Surya

> Sidhanta!) " fundamental cosmic motions " was exact for 1604 BCE.

> ... Kaliyuga which started in 3102 BCE and that cannot be

> said to have any link to 1604 BCE!

 

You miss the point. The error in 500 AD was on the side of the past.

The inference is the knowledge dates from the past, to a time when it

was more accurate. We don't know if it came from Sumeria, the Indus,

or elsewhere. We do know the ratio was most accurate around 3600

years ago. That is useful information. It does not have to match

your specified date to be useful to us today.

 

> You are also actually obfuscating ... comparing the durations

> of year .. without mentioning as to whether the modern solar

> year you are talking about is sidereal or tropical!

 

There is only one solar year. I refer you to my fundamental astronomy

discussion here, http://jqjacobs.net/astro/aegeo_3.html

 

" The formula for years per orbit (YO) is one orbit minus the inverse

of the precession cycle (YO = 1 - 1/PR). Days per year (DY),

formulated in reference to fixed celestial space, is [ (RO - 1/RO) x

(1 - 1/PR) ]. "

 

where R is rotations, O is orbit, Y is year, D is day, and PR is

precession.

 

> Your statement, " Sidereal year (= solar orbits) is observable...

> Would you kindly inform the members of this group as to

> what you mean when you say, " Sidereal year is observable " .

 

Just that. First, to avoid confusion, I use years and orbits.

The members already know solar orbit is observable using astronomy.

 

> ... You are also unaware that it was Hipparchus ... who

> had discovered precession for the first time!

 

NO. First known recorded instance in a script form is NOT the gold

standard of what came first! It is, instead, likelier a better

approximation of which conquest came last.

 

> ... I do have ... the original Aryabhati with the

> commentary of K. S. Shukla, published by Indian National Science

> Academy, New Delhi.

 

And, what is the ratio as stated there?

Does Clark quote the accurate ratio accurately?

1,582,237,500 : 57,753,336

 

If so, how do you explain the accuracy?

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Shri James Q. Jacobs,

Namaskar!

<Noone is stating they are accurate for that time span.

What was stated is a ratio for the era of the writing.

Accuracy dictates using long number strings.>

 

It is a surprising statement! You are taking into account planetary

orbits for a time span of 43200000 years to arrive at a particular

ratio for a particular era! And in the same breath you are

saying, " none is saying they are accurate for that time span " . Do

you mean to say that you are using inaccurate data for arriving

at " correct ratio " ?

But that is a " miracle " only " Vedic astrologers " do----make correct

predictions from incorrect data! Are you, as such, discussing " Vedic

astrology " or some real astronomy!

 

<Those of us with advanced knowledge of astronomy

utilize formulas with a temporal factor and we know

that the orbit element values are different every day.

But, that does not mean we have made observations

for 4,320,000 years. We make logical deductions,

and we express the results with long number strings.>

 

This is yet another abracadabra like that of " Vedic astrologers " !

You do not make logical deductions without having any records of the

earlier cycles! What type of a logical deduction can you make from

the orbital elements of 4,320,000 years, when you do not have the

records of even 4000 BCE available? You are blissfully unaware that

the oribital elements of Newcombe's Sun and Brown's Moon are no

longer valid even though they are not older than a couple of

centuries! These days astronomers go by polyomials and even then,

DE400 has been over-ruled by the same JPL NASA that had generated it

about a decade back! But you still claim that you can make correct

deductions to the twentieth fraction of a decimal from non-existent

data of millions of years! What type of an astronomer are you? Is

it that you also have taken astronomy lessons from Surya Bhagwan

himself like Maya the mlechha, since only such " evolved souls " can

claim the acuracy of data from the dawn of creation till doomsday!

 

<In other words, the value is for solar orbit, not the tropical year.

The question provoked is, " Who determined the orbit value when? " >

 

For God's sake, do read some elementary books of astronmy and then do

a thorough study of the sidhantas!

You are again overlooking my shouting from housetops that the

sidhantas have given the duration of a year more than even the

sidereal year but declared the results of their calculations as that

of a tropical year since they have all along been saying that the

First Point of Aries always coincides with the first point of

astrological sign Aries and so on! Or is that you do not know that a

sidereal year means actually the sidereal period of the sun?

As to who determined that value, the answer is: As per Maya the

mlechha, it was revealed to him by none other than Surya Bhagwan,

whereas it was actually a discovery of Grecho-chaldean astrologers,

as is evident from the Paulisha sidhanta of panchasidhantika, that

you have quoted yourself in your article!

 

<... we do not find any references to precession

in any of the sidhantas ...

....Absence of proof is not proof of absence. "

 

Your words " absence of proof is not proof of absence " may be a good

quotable quote, but the fact of the matter is that the burden of

proof lies on the person who claims the presence or absence of

something! You have not read any of the sidhantas yourself but are

still claiming, like a Shakuntala Devi Ayanamsha-wala member of this

group, that it is in the sidhantas! I have read all the sidhantas

with commentaries and translation, but have not been able to decipher

any references to precession either directly or indirectly! And still

you want me to take your statement for granted that precession does

exist in the sidhantas!

Only " Vedic astrologers " can make such claimes---that they can " see "

or even " foresee " what others cannot! Quite a few people do believe

them, but I am not one among those believers!!

 

 

< However, this dark age does not preclude a scientific foundation.

The evidence is not only in the Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata,

now it is in your posts too, showing the orbit values.>

 

Pardon me for saying so, but most of us are still living in dark ages

since most of us still go by what Varahamihira had said about the

directions in which a swallow moved!

The calendar makers to the nation, viz. the India Meteorological

Department, New Delhi, which works under the Union Ministry of

Science and Technology, goes on repeating year after year at the end

of each Rashtriya Panchanga, " This panchanga has been prepared after

beeja corrections to the values of Surya Sidhanta " , but in the

Preface the same panchanga repeats year after year, " This panchanga

is based on Indian Astronomical Ephemeris " and that " Astronomical

Ephemeris " repeats year after year that the data they are reproducing

was very kindly supplied by NASA and Heidelberg!

 

It is the same India Meteorological Deptt. that supplies the same

Rashtirya Panchanga data for panchangas to at least 95 per cent

panchanga makers in India!

 

So I do not know what to believe, since if the Ministry of Science

and Technology itself is still living under the shadow of Maya the

mlechha, on the shoulders of " almighty Lahiri " , God only can save

this democracy from its " calendar makers " and " well-wishers " !

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

hinducivilization , " James Q. Jacobs "

<jqjacobs@> wrote:

>

> .... " jyotirved " <jyotirved@> wrote:

>

> > ... Anybody with even the basic knowledge of

> > planetary astronomy should know that no

> > orbital elements can be presumed to be correct

> > for more than ten thousand years plus or minus....

>

> Noone is stating they are accurate for that time span.

> What was stated is a ratio for the era of the writing.

> Accuracy dictates using long number strings.

>

> Those of us with advanced knowledge of astronomy

> utilize formulas with a temporal factor and we know

> that the orbit element values are different every day.

> But, that does not mean we have made observations

> for 4,320,000 years. We make logical deductions,

> and we express the results with long number strings.

>

> > ... all the sidhantas ...give the duration of a year

> > something like 365d 15 gh 31 palas, a few vipalas/palas

> > ... 3.2 seconds more than even a sidereal year ...

>

> In other words, the value is for solar orbit, not the tropical year.

> The question provoked is, " Who determined the orbit value when? "

>

> > ... they had absolutely no idea about any difference

> > between a tropical and a sidereal year!

>

> Obviously. But someone before them did.

>

> How do you maintain such a sweeping claim?

> You cannot know today every ancient idea!

>

> > ... we do not find any references to precession

> > in any of the sidhantas ...

>

> Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

>

> You have shown clearly that in India, for a period of time,

> astronomy apparently lost its scientific footing.

> That is certainly regretful, and not surprising.

> However, this dark age does not preclude a scientific foundation.

> The evidence is not only in the Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata,

> now it is in your posts too, showing the orbit values.

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---