Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

[Guest guest]

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if

you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange

coin.

>

> Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has

conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the

implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state-theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating Universe,

 

This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

 

Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or

near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

 

JR

[Guest guest]

Hmmm...!

 

 

 

, " John " <jr_esq wrote:

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> >

> > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But

if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange

coin.

> >

> > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has

conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the

implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state-theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating Universe,

>

> This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

>

> Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or

near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

>

> JR

>

[Guest guest]

Dear sirs,

May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any

relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the

Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with

the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by

the devotees?

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Hmmm...!

>

>

>

> , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> >

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > >

> > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true.

But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this

strange coin.

> > >

> > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize

has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over

the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state-theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating Universe,

> >

> > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> >

> > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light

or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

> >

> > JR

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayji,

 

Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.

 

JR

 

 

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> To All,

>

> When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with

mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.

>

> No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater

than c

>

> Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).

>

> Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule. For laymen, Wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation is a good reference about it,

which says :

>

> <<<

> Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄŒerenkov) is electromagnetic

radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through

an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium.

> >>>

>

> Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation

emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds

exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie,

speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in

any medium.

>

> Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

>

>

> -VJ

> ===================== ===

>

>

> ________________________________

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear all,

>

> Quote

>

> it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed

> of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.

>

> Unquote

>

> When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation.

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM

>

> To All Concerned,

>

> About my previous message, Mr John wrote :

>

> <<<<

>

> This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

>

> another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons

>

> for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that

>

> it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes

>

> infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back

>

> to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

>

> Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

>

> light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their

>

> masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the

>

> masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

>

> >>>>

>

> My reply is :

>

> Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the

speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The

rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is

equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in

accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater

ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and

relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is

rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of

light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it

through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But

modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have

already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement

from Mr John is unsupported by moder science :

>

> " it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle

having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have

infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of

light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in

circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which

will achieve even greater speeds for particles.

>

> Mr John's point is " I stated that

>

> it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would

be impossible for any objects to

>

> reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand

in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he

is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers).

>

> Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after

>

> Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of

>

> speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond

>

> the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement

>

> about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is

>

> impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests

that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an

IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real

numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense

for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must

attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore

infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe

into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having

real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according

to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article

beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds :

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere

hypothetical.

>

> I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it

>

> was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background

>

> radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of

this theory. Mr John

>

> should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me

>

> because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his

>

> remarks here because his comments are about my statement.

>

> For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site :

http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains

a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los

Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT)

ucla.edu).

>

> Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above

link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity

which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles.

Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never

attested empirically.

>

> Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater

than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest

mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real

speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase

at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its

frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a

time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the

speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous

gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual

contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous

Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe

finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a

flat universe, but Doppler Effect

>

> rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which

are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest

galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.

>

> But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near

the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with

respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical

universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with

respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have

relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe

relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds

with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of

eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of

relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start

collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its

frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its

centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe is

>

> not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and

is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and

another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic

spheroid. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will

be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory

which takes into account the Big Bang.

>

> Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr

John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no

final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about

Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences

about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is

possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape,

attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible

mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some

scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only

plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot

see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore

imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are

normal matter outside the line of sight due

>

> to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning

Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am

not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a

finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to

prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be

finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests.

>

> -Vinay Jha

>

> ============ ========= === ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> John <jr_esq >

>

>

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM

>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> >

>

> > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But

if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange

coin.

>

> >

>

> > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has

conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the

implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating Universe,

>

> This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

>

> Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or

near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

>

> JR

>

>

[Guest guest]

Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!!

 

Best regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi

Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World.

God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World.

>

> Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a

Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator.

>

________________________________

> " harimalla " <harimalla

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear sirs,

> May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has

any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in

the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen

with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into

by the devotees?

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Hmmm...!

> >

> >

> >

> > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > >

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > >

> > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true.

But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this

strange coin.

> > > >

> > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize

has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over

the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

> Universe,

> > >

> > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> > >

> > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light

or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

> > >

> > > JR

> > >

> >

>

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayji,

I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite

true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the

witnessed.

One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately

contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the

observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)?

What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

..

 

 

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi

Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World.

God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World.

> >

> > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a

Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> >

> > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sirs,

> > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has

any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in

the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen

with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into

by the devotees?

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Hmmm...!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > > >

> > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also

true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of

this strange coin.

> > > > >

> > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel

Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered

over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of

JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

> > Universe,

> > > >

> > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> > > >

> > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It

would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

> > > >

> > > > JR

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunilji,

 

Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few

people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the

loopholes?

 

There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated

several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of

their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed

to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the

apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe.

 

After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think

that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours.

 

From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a

black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from

another universe.

 

Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of

materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of

the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas.

 

Regards,

 

John R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Namaste Johnji,

>

> I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that

of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of

Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated.

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote:

>

> John <jr_esq

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Namaste Vinayji,

>

>

>

> Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.

>

>

>

> JR

>

>

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > To All,

>

> >

>

> > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle

with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.

>

> >

>

> > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater

than c

>

> >

>

> > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).

>

> >

>

> > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule. For laymen, Wikipedia

article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference

about it, which says :

>

> >

>

> > <<<

>

> > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is

electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron)

passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light

in that medium.

>

> > >>>

>

> >

>

> > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation

emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds

exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie,

speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in

any medium.

>

> >

>

> > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> > ============ ========= ===

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

> >

>

> > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear all,

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed

>

> > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation.

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM

>

> >

>

> > To All Concerned,

>

> >

>

> > About my previous message, Mr John wrote :

>

> >

>

> > <<<<

>

> >

>

> > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

>

> >

>

> > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons

>

> >

>

> > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that

>

> >

>

> > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> >

>

> > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes

>

> >

>

> > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back

>

> >

>

> > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

>

> >

>

> > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

>

> >

>

> > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their

>

> >

>

> > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the

>

> >

>

> > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

>

> >

>

> > >>>>

>

> >

>

> > My reply is :

>

> >

>

> > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the

speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The

rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is

equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in

accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater

ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and

relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is

rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of

light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it

through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But

modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have

already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement

from Mr John is unsupported by moder science

> :

>

> >

>

> > " it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle

having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have

infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of

light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in

circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which

will achieve even greater speeds for particles.

>

> >

>

> > Mr John's point is " I stated that

>

> >

>

> > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> >

>

> > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would

be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand

in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he

is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers).

>

> >

>

> > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after

>

> >

>

> > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of

>

> >

>

> > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond

>

> >

>

> > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement

>

> >

>

> > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is

>

> >

>

> > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above

suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must

imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex

numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not

make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light,

a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass

and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract

entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any

particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the

past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia

article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds :

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere

hypothetical.

>

> >

>

> > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it

>

> >

>

> > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background

>

> >

>

> > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of

this theory. Mr John

>

> >

>

> > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me

>

> >

>

> > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer

his

>

> >

>

> > remarks here because his comments are about my statement.

>

> >

>

> > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site :

http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains

a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los

Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT)

ucla.edu).

>

> >

>

> > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above

link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity

which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles.

Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never

attested empirically.

>

> >

>

> > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about

greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real

rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some

real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to

increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie

at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with

time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds

approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with

tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an

eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A

continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical

universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only

for a flat universe, but Doppler

> Effect

>

> >

>

> > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which

are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest

galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.

>

> >

>

> > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very

near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with

respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical

universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with

respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have

relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe

relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds

with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of

eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of

relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start

collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its

frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its

centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe

> is

>

> >

>

> > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts

and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and

another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic

spheroid. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will

be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory

which takes into account the Big Bang.

>

> >

>

> > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since

Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no

final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about

Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences

about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is

possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape,

attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible

mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some

scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only

plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot

see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore

imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are

normal matter outside the line of sight

> due

>

> >

>

> > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning

Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am

not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a

finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to

prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be

finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests.

>

> >

>

> > -Vinay Jha

>

> >

>

> > ============ ========= === ===

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > John <jr_esq >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM

>

> >

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true.

But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this

strange coin.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize

has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over

the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

> Universe,

>

> >

>

> > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

>

> >

>

> > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light

or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

>

> >

>

> > JR

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Jhaaji,

I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I

am not mistaken,Vivekananda says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is

adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are

one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri

Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point.

My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the

religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous

astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there

I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite

competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss

how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how

does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology.What

is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms?

Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology.Eistein says,in his theory of

relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is

this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say

PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok?

I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so

they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you

..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained

by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish

shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am

trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully

also agree with me with the details.

I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the

four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically?This has been my

craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us

discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank

you.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Good write-up. 

>

> A few clarifications please.

>

> 1)

> Quote

>

> but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not

> differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term

> " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> vadanti " .

>

> Unquote

>

> Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

>

> 2)

> Quote

>

> Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed

13! or 6227 millions by even

> one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

> Unquote

>

> Are these your own computations?

>

> 3)

>

> If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed

the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th

century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern

science

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Malla Ji,

>

>

>

> Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change

because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there

is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion

cannot be imposed on God.

>

>

>

> Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are

attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and

all other material properties.

>

>

>

> Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika

material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola

Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We

must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure

Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we

differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between

Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from

Adi Shankara).

>

>

>

> It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa

Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

>

>

>

> This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects :

Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat +

Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu,

and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses

or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern

science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of

pancha-mahaa- bhootas.

>

>

>

> <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

terms?>>>

>

>

>

> The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get

mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the

one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on

the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the

Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy

which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi

Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be

atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul

from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat

vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

>

>

>

> Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is

Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed

consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is

made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self

but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera,

because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or

Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three

antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling

of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or

intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi

dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to

linear arrangement of these 13

>

> elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one

million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on

trends of century which have changed).

>

>

>

> The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and

Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or

Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto

the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White,

Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make

hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these

three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured

quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not

be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives

merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three

colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of

Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> supercomputer

>

> takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of

three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes

through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through

fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but

inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence.

>

>

>

> The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern

supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per

second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute

the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required

in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !!

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ===== ==

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> " harimalla@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite

true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the

witnessed.

>

> One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush ,

the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)?

>

> What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?

>

> Regards,

>

> Hari Malla

>

>

>

> ..

>

>

>

> , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!!

>

> >

>

> > Best regards,

>

> >

>

> > Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi

Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World.

God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World.

>

> > >

>

> > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is

a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

>

> > >

>

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear sirs,

>

> > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed

has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun

in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be

seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered

into by the devotees?

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > > Hari Malla

>

> > >

>

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

>

> > > >

>

> > > > Hmmm...!

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also

true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of

this strange coin.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel

Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered

over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of

JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

>

> > > Universe,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It

would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > JR

>

> > > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

Thank you for the suggestion.Hence,please join 'Parvasudhar forum'. I am sending

a separate invitation to you.Thank you.

 

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> If you know everything then why are you wasting your time here. Go ahead and

prepare your calendar and write your books. Open your own Calendar group as Kaul

and Darshaney also do not agree with your ideas.

>

> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

>

> harimalla <harimalla

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 6:07 AM

>

>

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

> Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and

that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are

defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The

next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is

sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month

ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and

punimanta months are also known as krishnadi.

> There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the

two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods

are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after

the purnimanta month.

> Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya

in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the

amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima.

> The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in

the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in

Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus

completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five

year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of

five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada.

> Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> >

> > Hari Mallaji,

> >  

> > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla

pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the

conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after

Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there

was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as  the seasonal

month started. Uttarayana  when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day

was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ  is meaning

" yugadi "  (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga)  

> >

> > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How

can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To

me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not?

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Harimallaji,

> > >  

> > > No guesswork in these  cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of  the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was

composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the

cake and have it too.

> > >  

> > > However the VJ says as follows:

> > >  

> > > <<  svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau .

> > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak  >>

> > >  

> > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the

start of the Yuga  and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the

seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha.  VJ did not say that Uttarayana

occurred on Shukla pratipada.

> > >  

> > > Sincerely

> > >  

> > > SKB

> > >  

> > >  

> > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Bhattachajyaji,

> > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more

details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is

correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be

purnimanta.

> > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is

purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta.

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >  

> > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

> > > >  

> > > > Quote

> > > >  

> > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to.

> > > >  

> > > > Unquote

> > > >  

> > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any

specific reference anywhere?

> > > >  

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >  

> > > > SKB

> > > >  

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

> > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need

to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating

of VJ.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= ==

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa

and the year as1800 BCE

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

> > > >

> > > > Sunil da,

> > > >

> > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna

(chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is

" completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end

with a full moon .

> > > >

> > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at

start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon

in actual practice.

> > > >

> > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious

and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This

duality is Vedic and is still preserved.

> > > >

> > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong

by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is

better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false

text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > > ============ ========= ==== ====

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga

Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in

Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next

day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing

this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the

Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and

Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it

was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day

following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of

Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa.

> > > >

> > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the

VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari

Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of

other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail

to some of those groups also

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

> > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested

in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry

of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla

Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have

neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or

not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The

proof is simple :

> > > >

> > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of

Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began

with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon).

thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that

one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the

opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on

Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are

regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate

computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers,

but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and

mathematics also supports them.

> > > >

> > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of

Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

> > > >

> > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM

and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar

Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti

(360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

> > > >

> > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has

no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence,

which he ignores.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > > ============ ========= ==== ===

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Harimallaji,

> > > >

> > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have

not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

> > > >

> > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

> > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made

this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

> > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the

time I will explain in short.

> > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun

in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way

and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

> > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar

tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha

caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan

> > > tithi

> > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my

claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for

the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

> > > > thank you,

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > > casued thereby.

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in

Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring

to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for

at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably

upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that

period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered

this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the

month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is

involved there.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sinil Da,

> > > > >

> > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > > ============ ======== ==

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da,

> > > > >

> > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke

gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar

Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both

entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible

during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr

Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described

in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to

any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for

the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > > ============ ========= ==

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

> > > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar

(seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two

months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ

must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha .

This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one

cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da,

> > > > >

> > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the

solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume

that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always

equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers

of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c

in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later

work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some

unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma

Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical

conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because

Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New

Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after,

approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into

Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during

much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it.

Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

> > > > >

> > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who

believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them,

" advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude

presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided

material possessions.

> > > > >

> > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in

Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years.

I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation

at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that

prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the

humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji

said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of

Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was

populated by uncultured peoples.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > > ============ ======== ====

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > > >

> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga

Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred

in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single

expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are

still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled

this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were

unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

> > > > >

> > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this

calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

> > > > >

> > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God.

Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is

defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr

Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

> > > > >

> > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of

this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to

earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us

believe.

> > > > >

> > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has

no knowledge of astrology :

> > > > >

> > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic

Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc,

and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

> > > > >

> > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this

Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for

computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes,

this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was

originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It

cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion

of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

> > > > >

> > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas,

which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of

Ayanamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by

scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is

the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object

is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not

defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their

being within the Bhachakra.

> > > > >

> > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic

concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious

calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one

uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made

by atheists.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > > ============ ========= ======= ===

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > >

> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going

for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps

were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I

see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready

to shift the rashis appropriately.

> > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an

improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be

welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the

sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa

even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness

is the middle path compromise.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic

do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve

as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency.

> > > > >

> > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but

since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

> > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole

stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

> > > > >

> > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to

re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be

changed, according to SB Dixit.

> > > > >

> > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions

of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these

writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

> > > > >

> > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am

trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar

sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I

am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

> > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras

in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal

dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> > > > > Sincerely yours,

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > NShri Harimallaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do

not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent.

About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana

occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of

the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > > > > > with Pausha month.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the

western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different

effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to

understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody

should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please

incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made.

Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like

Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I

prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of

opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I summarise the above as follows:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1) Show precedents,

> > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your

opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your

assertions and reassertions.

> > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the

Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis

but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the

Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the

above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has

been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be

unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this

topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras

and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear sir,

> > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not

go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different

from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the

eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness

and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the

nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thank you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear friend,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Unauote

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion

on this point.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the

Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different

times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear sir,

> > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the

basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear members,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by

one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi

as the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a

good future be fulfilled!

> > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the

earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic

path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and

the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the

earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other

than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has

become the norm in some places :-(

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature

forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for

Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of

those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now

being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is

really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun

(creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) --

although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find

out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow

polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star

over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will

bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should

also affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic

so only those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation

itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars

which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont

go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad

that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the

reality.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your

ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras)

in the ecliptic

> > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no

use if other

> > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered

to be of having any

> > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he

reasserted that.

> > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He

never cared to

> > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was

chosen in the first

> > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the

ecliptic band. Do you

> > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the

preferential choice of the

> > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that

he is ignorant of

> > > > > > > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears

to me that he

> > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no

> > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic

band also would not

> > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless

> > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because

he does not know in

> > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen

> > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any

merit?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is

truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no

problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the

ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If

it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true

when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45

degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji

and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank

you,

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred

for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay

ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the

following :

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_

Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for

prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from

astrology, because it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this

point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me

off as an outdated person.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations

(Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are

also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not

considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and

subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all

assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic

band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside

the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the

preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we

assume that he is ignorant of the same?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It

appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic

band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so

because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the

ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has

any merit?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@

.in> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are

as below:-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to

9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific

constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below

example:-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it

is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped

creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both

side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made)

are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from

ecliptic will affect in same way

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so

many works present between us

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology

will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who

wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside

that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK

you,

> > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil

Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations

outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as

the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth

are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive

from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare

their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the

same..

> > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect

us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please

comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas

other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant

questions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I

raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made

any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised

some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by

questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are

raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I

will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic

literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on

earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to

say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of

effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth

Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > & g

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Kind of reminds me of the Jesuit missionaries and their 'mindset', Dada, who

came to enlighten the aboriginees and teach the natives the higher path! And

look at the extent of the MESS they created in developed nations: Australia,

USA, Canada and so on! Of course in India too we have our own history of torture

(farmer-slaves, scheduled castes and tribes...) but we were torturing our own

kind and I suppose that makes it alright as some tell me. NOT!!

 

RR

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Shri Harimallaji,

>

> You have misunderstood my mail. What I said in my last mail is what I have

been telling you umpteen times that you assume that you know everything and you

have many absurd ideas. You equated all the Nakshartras with the Nakshatras in

the ecliptic from the Jyotish point of view. You also want to change the names

of the Nakshatras and the Rashis. There are several such absurd ideas you

expressed time to time. I understand that you even propose to consult scholars

like Dr. Karan Singh for calendar reform.  On top of it ypu do not believe in

astrology. Do you really think that that your ideas on calendar reform will help

the fora on Indian astrology.  Now that you say that you have your own forum you

can concentrate in your own forum. You can invite Kaul and Darshaney if you

like. You can leave me alone.

>

> Thanks

>

>

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

> harimalla <harimalla

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 7:45 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> Thank you for the suggestion.Hence, please join 'Parvasudhar forum'. I am

sending a separate invitation to you.Thank you.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Hari Malla

>

>

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > If you know everything then why are you wasting your time here. Go ahead and

prepare your calendar and write your books. Open your own Calendar group as Kaul

and Darshaney also do not agree with your ideas.

>

> >

>

> > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 6:07 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> > Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and

that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are

defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The

next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is

sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month

ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and

punimanta months are also known as krishnadi.

>

> > There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in

the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two

methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15

days after the purnimanta month.

>

> > Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush

amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where

as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush

purnima.

>

> > The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas

in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in

Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus

completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five

year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of

five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada.

>

> > Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay.

>

> > Regards,

>

> > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> > , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Hari Mallaji,

>

> > >  

>

> > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla

pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the

conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after

Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there

was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as  the seasonal

month started. Uttarayana  when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day

was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ  is meaning

" yugadi "  (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga)  

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> > >

>

> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> > > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How

can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To

me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not?

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > > Hari Malla

>

> > >

>

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > >

>

> > > > Harimallaji,

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > No guesswork in these  cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of  the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was

composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the

cake and have it too.

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > However the VJ says as follows:

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > <<  svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau .

>

> > > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak  >>

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was

the start of the Yuga  and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the

seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha.  VJ did not say that Uttarayana

occurred on Shukla pratipada.

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > Sincerely

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > SKB

>

> > > >  

>

> > > >  

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> > > >

>

> > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > >

>

> > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji,

>

> > > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more

details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is

correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be

purnimanta.

>

> > > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is

purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta.

>

> > > > Regards,

>

> > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > >

>

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > Quote

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to.

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > Unquote

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any

specific reference anywhere?

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > > SKB

>

> > > > >  

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Sunil Da,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I

need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for

dating of VJ.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > ============ ========= ==

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa

and the year as1800 BCE

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > SKB

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Sunil da,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna

(chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is

" completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end

with a full moon .

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were

at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new

moon in actual practice.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious

and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This

duality is Vedic and is still preserved.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong

by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is

better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false

text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > ============ ========= ==== ====

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga

Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in

Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next

day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing

this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the

Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and

Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it

was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day

following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of

Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the

VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari

Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of

other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail

to some of those groups also

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Sunil Da,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested

in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry

of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla

Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have

neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or

not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The

proof is simple :

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of

Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began

with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon).

thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that

one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the

opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on

Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are

regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate

computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers,

but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and

mathematics also supports them.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle

of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini

NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar

Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti

(360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is

best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small

residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years,

which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I

have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has

no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence,

which he ignores.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > ============ ========= ==== ===

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Harimallaji,

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have

not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > SKB

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

>

> > > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made

this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

>

> > > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the

time I will explain in short.

>

> > > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun

in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way

and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

>

> > > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar

tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha

caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar

> uttaryan

>

> > > > tithi

>

> > > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my

claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for

the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

>

> > > > > thank you,

>

> > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > >

>

> > > > > casued thereby.

>

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in

Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring

to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for

at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably

upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that

period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered

this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the

month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is

involved there.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > SKB

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Sinil Da,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun

enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed

mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ============ ======== ==

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Thanks

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Sunil Da,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or

Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity

of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon

both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite

impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately

neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions

described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot

belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is

unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the

mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ============ ========= ==

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar

(seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two

months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ

must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha .

This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one

cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Sunil Da,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate

the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must

assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always

equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers

of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c

in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a

later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some

unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma

Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical

conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because

Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New

Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after,

approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into

Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during

much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it.

Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who

believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them,

" advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude

presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided

material possessions.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in

Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years.

I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation

at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that

prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the

humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji

said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of

Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was

populated by uncultured peoples.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ============ ======== ====

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Dear Vinay,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In

Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana

occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga

Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that

reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest

months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is

that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the

Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > SKB

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a

single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and

are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology

controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee

were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this

calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is

not surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God.

Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is

defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr

Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of

this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to

earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us

believe.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who

has no knowledge of astrology :

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic

Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc,

and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this

Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for

computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes,

this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was

originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It

cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion

of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your

ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of

Ayanamsha.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by

scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is

the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object

is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not

defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their

being within the Bhachakra.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic

concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious

calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one

uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made

by atheists.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > > ============ ========= ======= ===

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> > > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been

going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two

camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar

Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have

suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem

both have to give up something so we meet somewhere.

>

> > > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be

ready to shift the rashis appropriately.

>

> > > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an

improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be

welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the

sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa

even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness

is the middle path compromise.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic

do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve

as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

>

> > > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but

since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

>

> > > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole

stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to

re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be

changed, according to SB Dixit.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions

of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these

writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I

am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar

sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I

am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

>

> > > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras

in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal

dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

>

> > > > > > Sincerely yours,

>

> > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji,

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do

not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent.

About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana

occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of

the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

>

> > > > > > > with Pausha month.

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even

the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has

different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please

try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that

anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then

please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can

be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations

like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but

I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences

of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows:

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > 1) Show precedents,

>

> > > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

>

> > > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your

opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your

assertions and reassertions.

>

> > > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

>

> > > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the

Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

>

> > > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

>

> > > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the

Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the

Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda?

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the

above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has

been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be

unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this

topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras

and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > Sincerely

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > Dear sir,

>

> > > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also

not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

>

> > > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different

from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

>

> > > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the

eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness

and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the

nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

>

> > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > thank you,

>

> > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Dear friend,

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > You said:

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Quote

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Unauote

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further

discussion on this point.

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that

the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different

times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Sincerely

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > Dear sir,

>

> > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the

basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

>

> > > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Dear members,

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Quote

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too

by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen

rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Unquote

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

>

> > > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a

good future be fulfilled!

>

> > > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the

earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic

path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and

the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

>

> > > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on

the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

>

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji,

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that

other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as

has become the norm in some places :-(

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a

mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done

for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one

of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now

being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is

really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun

(creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) --

although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find

out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow

polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star

over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > RR

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star

are scattered around the ecliptic.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will

bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic

should also affect on earth like other stars affect us.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on

ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the

consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the

same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many

planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi(

as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the

reality.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Love you all

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your

ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Quote

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations

(Nakshatras) in the ecliptic

>

> > > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of

no use if other

>

> > > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not

considered to be of having any

>

> > > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he

reasserted that.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He

never cared to

>

> > > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was

chosen in the first

>

> > > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the

ecliptic band. Do you

>

> > > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the

preferential choice of the

>

> > > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume

that he is ignorant of

>

> > > > > > > > > > > the same?

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It

appears to me that he

>

> > > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no

>

> > > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic

band also would not

>

> > > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless

>

> > > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so

because he does not know in

>

> > > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic

band were chosen

>

> > > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any

merit?

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth

is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no

problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the

ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If

it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true

when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45

degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji

and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank

you,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred

for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think

Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... "

.. >>>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the

following :

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_

Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for

prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from

astrology, because it is an age-old thing.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about

this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already

written me off as an outdated person.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic

literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations

(Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are

also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not

considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and

subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all

assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic

band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside

the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the

preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we

assume that he is ignorant of the same?

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It

appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic

band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so

because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the

ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has

any merit?

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@

.in> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those

are as below:-

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8

to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or

anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we

should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific

constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below

example:-

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say

it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped

creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both

side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made)

are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from

ecliptic will affect in same way

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so

many works present between us

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to

astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All

astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman,

who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his

claims.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations

outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as

the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply

comes.ThanK you,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil

Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations

outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as

the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic

literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth

are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive

from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare

their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the

same..

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars

effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please

comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas

other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant

questions.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth

Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I

raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made

any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised

some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by

questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are

raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I

will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic

literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures

on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to

say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of

effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth

Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

> > > > > > & g

>

> > > > > >

>

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear sirs,

Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary

cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years

is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature.

Regards

Hari Malla

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Please just give one verse only where it clearly says  " Divya Varsha = Solar

year X 360 "

>

> -SKB

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:17 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

I am surprised at your language. I told you I have placed order for Vayu

Purana, yet you are levelling wrong charges against me. Moreover, I am

conviinced that Vayu Purana cannot contradict other Puranas and MBh, which were

all works of a single person (Vyasa Ji).

>

>

>

> As for your following charge, should I reproduce my previous postings quoting

verses from all those puranas and MBh which you first quoted for your wrong

value of Divya Varsha ? You should not deny so much evidences already sent to

you.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:21:52 PM

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> I told you that you have to read the Chapter 57, particularly the verse 17.

It now appears to me that it would probably have been better if I would not

have asked you to read it. If you think that you don't need to read the Vayu

purana then please don't read it. With your attitude towards the Vayu purana it

will be better that you don't read it. For your information what I have said is

from a major purana and that has not been contradicted by any other purana.

You are living in your imaginary world. You have not quoted any verse from any

of the four Vedas or from the fifth veda where the Divya varsha is said to be

360 human years.

>

> ..

>

>

>

> SKB.

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 AM

>

>

>

> Sunil da,

>

>

>

> <<<Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it.

However it does not define the Divya-varsha >>>

>

>

>

> Bhagavata Purana defines Divya Vasha, and I have already sent verse number. I

sent you clear definitions of Divya Varsha from many Puranas and MBh and

siddhantas, but now you rely on Vayu purana, without citing the verse which

defines Divya Varsha in Vayu Purana. There is no ancient text which equates

Divya Varsha with normal solar/lurar/ human varshas. Everywhere, it is said to

be of 360 years, and I have sent many proofs, while you have not sent a single

proof. The view you propogate is a modern myth created to placate evolutuonists

& c who cannot digest Indian yuga system. But such persons should call Indian

system False, instead of misinterpreting ancient texts.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

> ============ ====== ==

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009 6:19:10 PM

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Vinay,

>

>

>

> You have misunderstood the statement. Bhagavata purana is the highest of the

puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha

like the Vayu purana does. When you read the Vayu purana then only you will

realise it. Please hold your horses till then.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

>

>

> SKB

>

>

>

> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friday, July 10, 2009, 5:14 AM

>

>

>

> Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> I am surprised at your statement : " Vayu purana, as that alone gives the

correct definition of the Divya varsha " .

>

>

>

> Should I reproduce your earlier statement about the primacy of Bhagavata

Purana in this regard ?

>

>

>

> Do not worry about Vayu Purana. All Puranas have stories about Sargas. I have

placed an order for it. But I am really surprized ober your adamant refusal to

reject all evidences from Puranas, epics and Siddhantas, and now Vayu Purana is

the ONLY true book !

>

>

>

> Within a month or two, my college ( a private Sanskrit college funded by

central govt and recognized by Sanskrit universities) library will contain

almost the whole ancient Indian literature which money can buy. I am also

planning to digitize it for easy referencing. I have teachers and students in

the college to search for the references.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

> ============ ========= ====== ===

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:24:31 AM

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me

that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it

because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone

gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha.

>

>

>

> The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of

the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is

the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada . You know this . Why

then is the confusion?

>

>

>

> Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one

Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such

a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15

days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese

events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month

was Magha.

>

>

>

> I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400

BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can

question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or

not.

>

>

>

> Besyt wishes,

>

>

>

> SKB.

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM

>

>

>

> Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses

out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5

of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a

verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that

the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start

with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year

cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that

Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points.

But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's

Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you.

>

>

>

> I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any

conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign

of my error, but of your hurry.

>

>

>

> I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I

have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely

ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a

false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading

from it to prove modern biases.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

> ============ ========= ===== ===

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Harimallaji,

>

>

>

> No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ)

then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed

some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and

have it too.

>

>

>

> However the VJ says as follows:

>

>

>

> << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau .

>

>

>

> syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >>

>

>

>

> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the

start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the

seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred

on Shukla pratipada.

>

>

>

> Sincerely

>

>

>

> SKB

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

>

>

>

> harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM

>

>

>

> Dear Bhattachajyaji,

>

>

>

> I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more

details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is

correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be

purnimanta.

>

>

>

> My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta

and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

> Hari Malla

>

>

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Quote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Unquote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific

reference anywhere?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > SKB

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to

say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of

VJ.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > -VJ

>

>

>

> > ============ ========= ==

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and

the year as1800 BCE

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > SKB

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Sunil da,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna

(chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is

" completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end

with a full moon .

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at

start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon

in actual practice.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious

and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This

duality is Vedic and is still preserved.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > -VJ

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ============ ========= ==== ====

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga

Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in

Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next

day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing

this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the

Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and

Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it

was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day

following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of

Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I

am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari

Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of

other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail

to some of those groups also

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra.

But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of

Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no

regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence,

which he ignores.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > -VJ

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ============ ========= ==== ===

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Harimallaji,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > SKB

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

>

>

>

> > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

>

>

>

> > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time

I will explain in short.

>

>

>

> > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

>

>

>

> > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi

of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha

caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan

>

>

>

> tithi

>

>

>

> > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim

is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

>

>

>

> > thank you,

>

>

>

> > Regards,

>

>

>

> > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > casued thereby.

>

>

>

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > SKB

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Sinil Da,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > -VJ

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ============ ======== ==

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Thanks

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke

gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar

Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both

entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible

during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr

Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described

in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to

any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for

the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > -VJ

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ============ ========= ==

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar

(seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two

months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must

have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This

shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one

cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Sunil Da,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the

solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume

that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always

equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of

India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in

terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later

work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some

unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma

Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical

conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because

Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New

Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after,

approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into

Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during

much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it.

Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe

no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > -VJ

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ============ ======== ====

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga

Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred

in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > SKB

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

>

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single

expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are

still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled

this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were

unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to

be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only

God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by

the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this

loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn

their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us

believe.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this

Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for

computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes,

this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was

originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It

cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion

of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas,

which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of

Ayanamsha.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > -VJ

>

>

>

> > > ============ ========= ======= ===

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

>

>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

>

>

>

> > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for

over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

>

>

>

> > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to

shift the rashis appropriately.

>

>

>

> > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an

improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be

welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the

sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa

even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness

is the middle path compromise.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do

not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as

the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

>

>

>

> > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we

can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

>

>

>

> > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole

stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to

re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be

changed, according to SB Dixit.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of

the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers

are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am

trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar

sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I

am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

>

>

>

> > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

>

>

>

> > > Sincerely yours,

>

>

>

> > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > NShri Harimallaji,

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not

waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

>

>

>

> > > > with Pausha month.

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the

western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different

effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to

understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody

should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please

incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made.

Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like

Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I

prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of

opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > I summarise the above as follows:

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > 1) Show precedents,

>

>

>

> > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

>

>

>

> > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion.

You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions

and reassertions.

>

>

>

> > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

>

>

>

> > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana

ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

>

>

>

> > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

>

>

>

> > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but

the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > Sincerely

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > Dear sir,

>

>

>

> > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

>

>

>

> > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from

mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

>

>

>

> > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic

do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the

12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too

by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> > > > thank you,

>

>

>

> > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Dear friend,

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > You said:

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Quote

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Unauote

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on

this point.

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the

Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different

times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Sincerely

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > Dear sir,

>

>

>

> > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the

basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

>

>

>

> > > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Dear members,

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Quote

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Unquote

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

>

>

>

> > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

>

>

>

> > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the

earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

>

>

>

> > > > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > Dinesh-ji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature

forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for

Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of

those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now

being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > RR

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so

only those can affect and others can not.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation

itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars

which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont

go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad

that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Love you all

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Quote

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use

if other

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to

be of having any

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he

reasserted that.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never

cared to

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was

chosen in the first

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic

band. Do you

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he

is ignorant of

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > the same?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to

me that he

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band

also would not

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Unquote

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Sincerely,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is

truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no

problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees

if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following

:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice.

One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology,

because it is an age-old thing.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this

point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me

off as an outdated person.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > -VJ

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras)

in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use

if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to

me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific

constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below

example:-

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is

in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations

but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means

+8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are

affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from

ecliptic will affect in same way

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology

will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who

wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside

that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside

that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are

at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive

from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare

their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the

same..

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us

then the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment

if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other

stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised

since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on

earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to

say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of

effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> > > & g

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I

will accept.May I know what it says there.

If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four

yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at

various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi,

dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told

by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing,sitting

and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya

jyotish.

For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole

history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if

zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to

pralaya.

When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures

not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings.

For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just

to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the

vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken

literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but

as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat.

Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror

others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in

the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

> Shri harimallaji,

>

> Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu

purana says.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

> harimalla <harimalla

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Dear sirs,

>

> Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary

cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years

is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature.

>

> Regards

>

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Please just give one verse only where it clearly says  " Divya Varsha = Solar

year X 360 "

>

> >

>

> > -SKB

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

Sadhu Sadhu!

 

If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you

'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one

another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your

differences in public and making the public suffer as well!

 

But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-)

 

RR

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Sunil Ji,

>

> I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think

astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the

differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things.

Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty.

>

> Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you

are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because

you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation

and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you

use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for

which you hate me.

>

> I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks

with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of

civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why

I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of

most dangerous combinations.

>

> -VJ

>

> ========================== ==

>

>

> ________________________________

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

>

>

> Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the

opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists.

>

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM

>

> The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream.

>

> Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but

unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type

Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who

decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them.

>

> -VJ

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons

for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in

this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in

astrophysics.

>

> -SKB

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM

>

> Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this

material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by

a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not

here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one

can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view

of experts.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Johnji and Vinay,

>

> Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own

Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the

black hole.

>

> From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If

the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this

difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the

scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion

of the universe.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM

>

> Jihn Ji,

>

> Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of

Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe

these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be

mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another.

>

> Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is

a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light

years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because

we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and

reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present

geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light

and we must rely on hypotheses.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= = ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> John <jr_esq >

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM

>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Namaste Sunilji,

>

> Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few

people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the

loopholes?

>

> There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated

several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of

their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed

to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the

apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe.

>

> After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to

think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from

ours.

>

> From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of

a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from

another universe.

>

> Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of

materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of

the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas.

>

> Regards,

>

> John R.

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Namaste Johnji,

>

> >

>

> > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed

that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of

Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated.

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > John <jr_esq@>

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Namaste Vinayji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > JR

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > To All,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle

with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with

greater than c

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia

article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference

about it, which says :

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > <<<

>

> >

>

> > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is

electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron)

passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light

in that medium.

>

> >

>

> > > >>>

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of

radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at

speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c

(ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or

in any medium.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > -VJ

>

> >

>

> > > ============ ========= ===

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM

>

> >

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear all,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed

>

> >

>

> > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov

radiation.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> >

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > To All Concerned,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote :

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > <<<<

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > >>>>

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > My reply is :

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the

speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The

rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is

equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in

accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater

ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and

relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is

rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of

light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it

through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But

modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have

already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement

from Mr John is unsupported by moder

>

> science

>

> > :

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > " it would be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle

having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have

infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of

light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in

circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which

will achieve even greater speeds for particles.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Mr John's point is " I stated that

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it

would be impossible for any objects to

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his

stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong,

but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general

readers).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above

suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must

imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex

numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not

make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light,

a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass

and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract

entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any

particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the

past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia

article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds :

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere

hypothetical.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour

of this theory. Mr John

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer

his

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site :

http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains

a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los

Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT)

ucla.edu).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above

link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity

which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles.

Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never

attested empirically.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about

greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real

rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some

real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to

increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie

at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with

time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds

approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with

tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an

eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A

continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical

universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only

for a flat universe, but Doppler

>

> > Effect

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies

which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by

farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very

near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with

respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical

universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with

respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have

relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe

relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds

with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of

eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of

relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start

collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its

frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its

centre. what does it mean ? It means the

>

> universe

>

> > is

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts

and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and

another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic

spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other

will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state

theory which takes into account the Big Bang.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums.

Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There

is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences

about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while

evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is

possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape,

attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible

mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some

scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only

plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot

see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore

imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are

normal matter outside the line of sight

>

> > due

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning

Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am

not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a

finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to

prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be

finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > -Vinay Jha

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ============ ========= === ===

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > John <jr_esq >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....>

wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true.

But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this

strange coin.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize

has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over

the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

>

> > Universe,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another

forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light

or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would

appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > JR

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

[Guest guest]

Right you are.

 

it is really miserable.

 

CS Ravindramani

 

 

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Sadhu Sadhu!

>

> If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you

'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one

another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your

differences in public and making the public suffer as well!

>

> But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-)

>

> RR

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > Sunil Ji,

> >

> > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think

astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the

differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things.

Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty.

> >

> > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although

you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy,

because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper

substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other

members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for

wine and women, for which you hate me.

> >

> > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks

with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of

civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why

I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of

most dangerous combinations.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ========================== ==

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@>

> >

> > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the

opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists.

> >

> > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM

> >

> > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream.

> >

> > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but

unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type

Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who

decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> >

> >

> > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the

reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe,

here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest

developments in astrophysics.

> >

> > -SKB

> >

> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM

> >

> > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this

material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by

a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not

here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one

can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view

of experts.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ======== ==

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Dear Johnji and Vinay,

> >

> > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own

Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the

black hole.

> >

> > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If

the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this

difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the

scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion

of the universe.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > SKB

> >

> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM

> >

> > Jihn Ji,

> >

> > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of

Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe

these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be

mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another.

> >

> > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there

is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light

years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because

we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and

reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present

geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light

and we must rely on hypotheses.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ========= = ===

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > John <jr_esq >

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM

> >

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Namaste Sunilji,

> >

> > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a

few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find

the loopholes?

> >

> > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They

stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda.

One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is

supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference.

Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of

the universe.

> >

> > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to

think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from

ours.

> >

> > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside

of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from

another universe.

> >

> > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source

of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside

of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these

ideas.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > John R.

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Namaste Johnji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed

that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of

Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > John <jr_esq@>

> >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Namaste Vinayji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > JR

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > To All,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any

particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with

greater than c

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia

article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference

about it, which says :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > <<<

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is

electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron)

passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light

in that medium.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of

radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at

speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c

(ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or

in any medium.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > -VJ

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ============ ========= ===

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear all,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov

radiation.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > To All Concerned,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > <<<<

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >>>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > My reply is :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than

the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The

rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is

equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in

accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater

ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and

relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is

rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of

light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it

through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But

modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have

already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement

from Mr John is unsupported by moder

> >

> > science

> >

> > > :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no

particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it

would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the

speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation

loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under

construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it

would be impossible for any objects to

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his

stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong,

but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general

readers).

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above

suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must

imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex

numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not

make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light,

a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass

and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract

entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any

particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the

past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia

article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds :

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere

hypothetical.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the

favour of this theory. Mr John

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may

answer his

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site :

http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains

a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los

Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT)

ucla.edu).

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at

above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of

relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real

particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is

hypothetical, never attested empirically.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about

greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real

rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some

real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to

increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie

at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with

time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds

approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with

tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an

eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A

continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical

universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only

for a flat universe, but Doppler

> >

> > > Effect

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies

which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by

farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very

near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with

respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical

universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with

respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have

relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe

relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds

with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of

eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of

relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start

collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its

frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its

centre. what does it mean ? It means the

> >

> > universe

> >

> > > is

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion

starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical

spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this

gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each

other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady

state theory which takes into account the Big Bang.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums.

Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There

is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences

about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while

evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is

possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape,

attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible

mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some

scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only

plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot

see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore

imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are

normal matter outside the line of sight

> >

> > > due

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning

Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am

not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a

finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to

prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be

finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > -Vinay Jha

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ============ ========= === ===

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > John <jr_esq >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....>

wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also

true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of

this strange coin.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel

Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered

over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of

JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

> >

> > > Universe,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It

would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > JR

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

You said,

quote

<Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu

Purana says.>

unquote

May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank

you.

Regards

Hari Malla

 

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Shri Harimallaji, 

>

> 1)

> First you said:

>

> Quote

>

> Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this

> imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary

> cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in

> nature.

>

> Unquote

>

> 2)

> Now you say:

>

> Quote

>

> In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four

> cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas

> mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be

> true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four

> yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.

>

> Unquote

>

> You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by

sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can  read the Vayu purana.  However I

would not insist.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> SKB

>

>

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

> harimalla <harimalla

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

>

> I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I

will accept.May I know what it says there.

>

> If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four

yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at

various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi,

dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told

by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing,

sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his

Bharatiya jyotish.

>

> For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole

history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if

zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to

pralaya.

>

> When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic

figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings.

>

> For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365

just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the

vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken

literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but

as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat.

>

> Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror

others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in

the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you,

>

> Regards,

>

> Hari Malla

>

>

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Shri harimallaji,

>

> >

>

> > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu

purana says.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > SKB

>

> >

>

> > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM

>

> >

>

> > Dear sirs,

>

> >

>

> > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this

imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of

360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature.

>

> >

>

> > Regards

>

> >

>

> > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

To what end did that help, though? Now Halla-gulla ji starts up again! ;-)

 

Let us just sit back and 'enjoy' like some painfully obtuse bollywood movie that

we paid for but it would just not end :-)

 

RR

 

, " ravindramani " <ravindramani wrote:

>

> Right you are.

>

> it is really miserable.

>

> CS Ravindramani

>

>

> , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Sadhu Sadhu!

> >

> > If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of

you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember "

one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your

differences in public and making the public suffer as well!

> >

> > But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-)

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sunil Ji,

> > >

> > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think

astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the

differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things.

Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty.

> > >

> > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although

you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy,

because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper

substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other

members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for

wine and women, for which you hate me.

> > >

> > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque

remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules

of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is

why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one

of most dangerous combinations.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ========================== ==

> > >

> > >

> > > ________________________________

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@>

> > >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the

opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists.

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM

> > >

> > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the

mainstream.

> > >

> > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but

unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type

Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who

decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the

reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe,

here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest

developments in astrophysics.

> > >

> > > -SKB

> > >

> > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM

> > >

> > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this

material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by

a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not

here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one

can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view

of experts.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ============ ======== ==

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear Johnji and Vinay,

> > >

> > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our

own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by

the black hole.

> > >

> > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe.

If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel

this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that

the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the

expansion of the universe.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

> > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM

> > >

> > > Jihn Ji,

> > >

> > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of

Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe

these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be

mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another.

> > >

> > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there

is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light

years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because

we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and

reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present

geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light

and we must rely on hypotheses.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ============ ========= = ===

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > John <jr_esq >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM

> > >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Namaste Sunilji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a

few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find

the loopholes?

> > >

> > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They

stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda.

One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is

supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference.

Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of

the universe.

> > >

> > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to

think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from

ours.

> > >

> > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside

of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from

another universe.

> > >

> > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source

of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside

of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these

ideas.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > John R.

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Namaste Johnji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed

that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of

Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > John <jr_esq@>

> > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Namaste Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > JR

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > To All,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any

particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with

greater than c

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia

article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference

about it, which says :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > <<<

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is

electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron)

passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light

in that medium.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >>>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of

radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at

speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c

(ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or

in any medium.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ============ ========= ===

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Dear all,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov

radiation.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > To All Concerned,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > <<<<

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated

that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >>>>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > My reply is :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than

the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The

rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is

equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in

accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater

ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and

relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is

rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of

light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it

through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But

modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have

already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement

from Mr John is unsupported by moder

> > >

> > > science

> > >

> > > > :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no

particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it

would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the

speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation

loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under

construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it

would be impossible for any objects to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his

stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong,

but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general

readers).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of

beyond

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's

statement

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above

suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must

imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex

numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not

make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light,

a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass

and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract

entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any

particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the

past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia

article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds :

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere

hypothetical.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but

it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on

background

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the

favour of this theory. Mr John

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may

answer his

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site :

http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains

a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los

Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT)

ucla.edu).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at

above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of

relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real

particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is

hypothetical, never attested empirically.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about

greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real

rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some

real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to

increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie

at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with

time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds

approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with

tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an

eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A

continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical

universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only

for a flat universe, but Doppler

> > >

> > > > Effect

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies

which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by

farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be

very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so

with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding

spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is :

with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have

relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe

relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds

with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of

eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of

relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start

collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its

frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its

centre. what does it mean ? It means the

> > >

> > > universe

> > >

> > > > is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion

starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical

spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this

gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each

other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady

state theory which takes into account the Big Bang.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums.

Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There

is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences

about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while

evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is

possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape,

attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible

mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some

scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only

plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot

see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore

imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are

normal matter outside the line of sight

> > >

> > > > due

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a

spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility

and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so

because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external

universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding

universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr

John suggests.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -Vinay Jha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ============ ========= === ===

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > John <jr_esq >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....>

wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also

true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of

this strange coin.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel

Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered

over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of

JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating

> > >

> > > > Universe,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In

another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the

acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible

these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be

assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of

light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It

would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase.

Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or

even near its speed.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > JR

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >