Introduction Libra Suns; 28-form mansions from zero-Taurus

[Guest guest]

It will be fascinating to see what comes out of the Gauquelin moon

study. I'm trying to imagine the scenario that would permit rejection

of the null hypothesis with any and all of the ayanamsha values. I

guess it's just saying that there are one or more strong spikes in the

data that show as anomalous, no matter how the mansion-wheel is

rotated. On the negative side, a greater frequency of births overall

could cause that also with sun placements, simply with seasonal

variation ... so maybe the " expected " date would not be an even

distribution. Using moon placements, seasonal variations should

disappear at least.

 

, " Buz Overbeck " <buz.

overbeck wrote:

>

> Hi Julia, sorry for the tardy response. had me logged out for

> two days and all groups showed up empty! I find what you wrote very

> interesting and something I want to give some thought to.

>

> There are flaws in that study and it should really be redone. It

was,

> after all, done in 1980 using single precision un-optimized

planetary

> routines and I was only aware of two ayanamsas at that time. I was

> suspicious then of the many significant outcomes and, for that

reason,

> used that data as the first run in the Ayanamsa statistical study to

> see what turned up.

>

> What did turn up was that all 24 different ayanamsas ChiSquare

values

> were significant and permitted rejection of the null hypothesis at

the

> 0.05 level! (the test included a random ayanamsa and the tropical

> ayanamsa [=0]). It was at this point that I shelved the Clergy and

> switched to Gauquelin's timed data using the moon.

>

> But your thoughts have reawakened my interest in the 28 fold scheme

and

> Krittika and will plan to redo the study using G's data, the

ayanamsa

> set and the moon.

>

> I'll also look at the ayanamsa you mentioned. Thanks for including

the

> value and epoch.

>

> BTW, you do good work when you're asleep!

>

> Buz

>

>

> , " Julia Cybele "

> <julia_cybele@> wrote:

> >

> > Buz,

> >

> > I was thinking more about that chi-squared significance test

favoring

> > the 28-fold mansion scheme and tried modeling it.

> >

> > If one were taking 0º Taurus as the starting point of both the

zodiac

> > and the nakshatra wheel, there is a dim but nearly-perfect

fiducial

> > star possibility: " 13 Taurus " lies about one minute of arc from

the

> > ecliptic. To keep our coordinates in a way that maintains easier

> > compatability with comparison models, I call this point 30º and

match

> > the beginning point of Krittika there, keeping it as #3 in

sequence.

> > This lower-5th magnitude star, visible, but inconspicuous, has the

> > virtue of having very little proper motion in the component of

> > ecliptic longitude. It takes nearly 400 years to shift a single

second

> > of arc! In contrast, Spica shifts that much in only 15 years.

> >

> > This model places a lot of the nakshatra stars very close to the

> > beginning points of each. The 28-fold system fits with a larger

> > ayanamsha value. Choice of 13 Taurus as beginning point of that

sign

> > gives an ayanamsha of 27º50'48.6 " for J2000.0, projecting that the

> > Sidereal Zodiac aligned with the equinox points approximately at

the

> > AUTUMNAL equinox of 4 BCE, JD=1720227. not greatly different from

the

> > DeLuce value. I think this matches closely with one of your high-

> > performing models for the list of 19th century English clergymen,

> > because for the year 1847 or so, the ayanamsha value would be

about

> > 25º43' or 2/28 of a full circle, aligning a tropical nakshatra

wheel

> > with a sidereal one for the middle of the 19th century. See if

that

> > makes any sense vis-a-vis the models. I might be too sleepy to get

it

> > right

> >

> > , " Buz Overbeck " <buz.

> > overbeck@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > You also mention that you feel a 28-fold mansion scheme seems to

> > work

> > > better than the 27. You might be interested in a followup

article

> > > called " The Sun in the Lunar Mansions " , which was published back

in

> > > 1980 in Charles Jayne's Cosmocology Bulletin. It seems to

support

> > your

> > > theory. You can find it here:

> > >

> > > http://members.toast.net/overbeck/Articles.html

> > >

> > >

> >

>