Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 |om namo bhagavate vasudevaya| Dear Ramapriya Comments/notes below your mail. jyotisa [jyotisa ] On Behalf Of Ramapriya DWednesday, July 13, 2005 7:10 AMjyotisa Subject: A basic Q on nodes Dear Sanjay, I'm posting here the same mail I'd sent you a week or so ago, in the hope of a reply ) If I've understood correctly, the nodes are the two points where the lunar orbit intersects the earth's orbit, the lunar orbit being inclined at about five degrees to the earth's orbit, according to the Narada Purana. This is confirmed by present-day astronomical data as well. [sanjay Rath] 5 deg 9 minutes to be more precise. We know that the diameters of the lunar and earth's orbits are roughly 59 and 11,765 times the diameter of the earth. From the surface of the earth, which is where we are as we look out, if two points are to be 180 degrees away from each other, they've to be directly on opposite points. Now from one of the nodes, if you draw a line touching the earth's surface and extend it, does it touch the other node? No way! It cannot. The line joining the two nodes, and the lines joining the nodes with the surface of the earth, form a triangle. Not a large-angled triangle, but a triangle nonetheless. This is the topocentric positioning. Even if you consider geocentric positioning, there still is a triangle formed between the center of the earth and the line joining the two nodes. [sanjay Rath] We don't need diameters to define a plane. We need the definitions for their creation. The ecliptic is the plane of the earth around the Sun or the sun around the earth. The plane will be the same in both the definitions. In the geocentric model, the ellipse formed has the earth as one of the focii. In the lunar plane the earth is already a center and does not need a definition. When two planes intersect each other they will do so only along a line. There cannot be any other kind of intersection unless the planes are parellel. If we are to consider the planes as ellipse, then the border or line forming the ellipse of the Moon shall intersect the ecliptic (earth-Sun plane) at two points called the nodes.Since these nodes are on the plane of the Moon and also on the plane of the earth, they will be on the line that is formed by the cutting of the lunar plane with the earth/sun plane. So we have a line joining these two points by definitions that are obvious to us now. Your queston is that this line that is caused by the intersection of the two planes does not pass through the center of the earth and instead is at an angle with the earth center! Lets see - The lunar plane has the earth as its center and so also the earth plane has the earth as its center, so any line formed by the intersection of these two planes should pass through the center of the earth. If it does so then the geocentric angle between the nodes shall always be 180 degrees. For accuracy, I recently put these down on a scale in Autocad (picture file attached) and saw that the angle subtended by the nodes from the earth's surface is about 181.7 degrees. If true, this can mean that when Rahu is at 29-degree something in Aries, Ketu is at 0-degree something in Scorpio. That'll not only change the perspective of a chart, you know what can happen to divisional charts thereon ) Why then do we assume that the nodes are always exactly 180 degrees away from one another? Wondering if it had anything to do with software settings in Jagannatha Hora, I'd written about this to Narasimha too, but he's probably too busy to reply. [sanjay Rath] All this speculation is fine once we are clear about whats happening in geometry. Respects, Ramapriya ayirpamar (AT) gmail (DOT) com With best wishes and warm regards, Sanjay Rath * * * Sri Jagannath Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 * * * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Know what, Sanjay? If you hadn't knocked me earlier on that topocentric thing, even by your definition, the nodes couldn't have been 180 degrees away from each other. Just this morning, I got hold of some pics that demonstrate through animations the movement of nodes, the Moon bobbing up and down, and eclipse formations. Very fascinating, and I confess I hadn't really understood the physicals of all that until I watched these. If I were you, I'd include some animated lessons for SJC students; retrogression can be better explained that way too. Give it a thought. Respects, Ramapriya ayirpamar On 7/16/05, Guru Sanjay Rath <guruji wrote: |om namo bhagavate vasudevaya| Dear Ramapriya I have been enjoying this thing on the nodes as I know you want me to accept the true nodes Nice picture seems ok from a laymans perspective. Astrologer Davis has better pictures on the net. With best wishes and warm regards, Sanjay Rath * * * Sri Jagannath Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 * * * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 |om namo bhagavate vasudevaya| Dear Ramapriya You don't have to be me to do that...you are one of those who always does for everyone. So please do this for Jagannath mahaprabhu. A nice lesson on the nodes is what is expected from you Ramapriya. Starting with the mechanics of the nodes and the eclipses, please show how the mean nodes is the correct thing for Jyotish and then show the working in charts. Maybe 2-3 lessons. If you can have animated lessons then you should have Sarbani put these in the .org website. Take this as a good opportunity for some good karma although I know you have already been doing a lot With best wishes and warm regards, Sanjay Rath * * * Sri Jagannath Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 * * * jyotisa [jyotisa ] On Behalf Of Ramapriya DSaturday, July 16, 2005 8:13 AMjyotisa Subject: Re: A basic Q on nodes Know what, Sanjay? If you hadn't knocked me earlier on that topocentric thing, even by your definition, the nodes couldn't have been 180 degrees away from each other. Just this morning, I got hold of some pics that demonstrate through animations the movement of nodes, the Moon bobbing up and down, and eclipse formations. Very fascinating, and I confess I hadn't really understood the physicals of all that until I watched these. If I were you, I'd include some animated lessons for SJC students; retrogression can be better explained that way too. Give it a thought. Respects, Ramapriya ayirpamar On 7/16/05, Guru Sanjay Rath <guruji wrote: |om namo bhagavate vasudevaya| Dear Ramapriya I have been enjoying this thing on the nodes as I know you want me to accept the true nodes Nice picture seems ok from a laymans perspective. Astrologer Davis has better pictures on the net. With best wishes and warm regards, Sanjay Rath * * * Sri Jagannath Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 * * * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 No Sanjay, wrong conclusion. I know little to plump for one or the other in this regard ) I've only ever used mean nodes, albeit for the lack of a better understanding on what true nodes are. Is it fair to say that the difference is that the mean node is the position according to a formula, ignoring perturbations in its orbit, while true nodes are the real position of the moon's node at any time? I recall reading Narasimha stating once that there's nothing 'true' about true nodes either, so it's all rather fuzzy for me. A clarification from you on this would be timely, in fact! And what do the other astrologers hereabouts use - true or mean nodes? Respects, Ramapriya ayirpamar On 7/16/05, Guru Sanjay Rath <guruji wrote: |om namo bhagavate vasudevaya| Dear Ramapriya I have been enjoying this thing on the nodes as I know you want me to accept the true nodes Nice picture seems ok from a laymans perspective. Astrologer Davis has better pictures on the net. With best wishes and warm regards, Sanjay Rath * * * Sri Jagannath Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 * * * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Dear Lakshmi, Sanjay has this proclivity to subtly pull legs. He did it again today, but you obviously didn't... I mean, that rishi bit had me fall off my chair ) I don't even know what true and mean nodes are yet. And till this morning, I couldn't physically correlate to nodes either. But that said, I don't want to give up, and I'll write up something and pass it to Swee first and later to Sanjay for his critique. If anyone wants me to write on retrogression of the lagna, I can... no, really! ) Respects, Ramapriya ayirpamar On 7/16/05, lakshmikary <lakshmikary wrote: Hare KrishnaDear Ramapriya,Yes, that would be wonderful if you can do that as this topic does come up on a regular basis and it willbe nice to have such a reference to direct people toWith regards,Lakshmi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Dear Ramapriya, I'd love to see the animation you mentioned. can you send a link? Thanks, Willa Just this morning, I got hold of some pics that demonstrate through animations the movement of nodes, the Moon bobbing up and down, and eclipse formations. Very fascinating, and I confess I hadn't really understood the physicals of all that until I watched these. If I were you, I'd include some animated lessons for SJC students; retrogression can be better explained that way too. Give it a thought. 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.