Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Tropical(fixed) zodiac Vs. Sidereal Zodiac: Let me state an example, which is analogus to this: Mr Judge is riding a car on Hwy 101 N and his speedometer showing 75 miles/hour. Another philosopher is driving a car on Hwy 101 N with speed 95 miles/hour. A question: 1) What is the speed of Mr Philosopher's car? A) 95 miles per hour(analogous to Sidereal) or 25 miles per wrt Mr Judge moving car(analogous to tropical) Why dont we measure our spacecrafts' velocity, our bykes' speed, or our own cars' speed wrt Mr Judge's moving Car, if we are measuring astronomical cycles in tropical zodiac. 2) What is the speed of Mr Judge's Car? A) 75 miles per hour--With what reference? Earth surface..Analogous to Sidereal.. Dont we know that "the duration of earth wobble" is ~26,000 years wrt nakshtra-s(sidereal zodiac for these worthies). Pointing this is not RACISM, or Fanaticism, as presumed by these so called psuedo time keepers using quantum mechanical devices, who knew only sidereal = tropical - precession with assumption, tropical is a fixed zodiac(Of course, Judge's moving car is fixed, for these worthies) This reminds me the mindset of primitives who hanged Galileo in 1642 AD. Unfortunately, the defenders of sidereal zodiac are purely ascientific(un scientific) in their ways. Regarding Static vs Dynamic universe: Let us not confused by semantics of so called OxBridge dictionaries. I already explained what is meant by static/dynamic in earlier posting. This is not a game of word jugglery. Ancients in India considered this entire brahmaanda(universe) as a celestial tree(kalpa vr`kSa). Of course, expanding universe can be represented as a tree. Expanding universe, hiranyagharbja centric universe are tree-s. WHat is the very difference then? In hiranyagharba centric universe: The branches(mandala-s) spin around its axis and also orbit around its higher centre(the root of this true). This is what I meant by DYNAMIC. Word jugglery, linguistic magic is mullerian way to analyse. Regarding my post on sulekha-s article: I just posted for information, but not to trigger any discussion on this eboard. Most of the elite humanities departments and their students got this informative paper by now, how these christian scholars invaded humanities depts with scholarly garbs(such as Prof of History of Religions, Prof of comparative lingustics et al). This is the place(universities), where students learn about hinduism. Just I am spreading this information. No Indologist/RISA scholars mince a word so far. Of course, these so called scholars at Harvard, Chicago are writing theses on Swami Chaitanya mahaprabhu, like they did on Ramakrishna paramahamsa. Forget and forgive is the past: One has to kept intellectual asura-s tames, which is another aspect of Dharma. Conclusion: Let us measure time(depends on velocity--cf:Theory of relativity), speed wrt Mr Judge's moving car. Regards, VR - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember./tribute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Mr Venkateswara Reddy raises some good points, but, let us be precise to a fault when we talk of relative and dynamic. Relative speed is a very interesting concept. As soon as we talk about relative, we need, by default, a reference point. And herein lies the rub. As most astronomers will tell you, there are no absolute reference points. Every star in the heavens has a relative motion that is a combination of its proper motion, and the proper motion of the earth - sun system. This creates a moving heaven that is anything but static. This moving target is what we are making our measurements. While Polaris is the north star in current times, as few as 2500 years ago, it wasn't. This is due to precession, the wobble of the earth in it's orbit, and the motion of the earth about the centroid (nope, not the center, because it is the center of gravity, not the geometric center nor the center of mass) of the galaxy. Bernard's Star is close enough that we can actually watch it's movement in the heavens over as short (100 or so) observational period. Current thought is that certain pulsars are red-shifted (thus indicating their extreme distance) enough to provide a locus of reference for true measurement, but technically sophisticated instruments are necessary to spot these objects and thus use them for measurements. So, since astrology is a empirical study, it is the results of the empirical evidence, not the geometric positioning that will validate or invalidate the results. This, simply said, says that if "moving everybody's chart to the right 20' 15" gives a more accurate result, then there should be some "systematic error" that the 20' 15" solves. That is all. Also, different disciplines will solve different problems. We should avoid the dictum of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you're only solution will be to treat everything like a nail." My $0.02 ramble for this afternoon. -- John M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Chosing a reference point: It would be fine to chose equinoxes, solistics for something happening on earth(life span on earth--100 years, which is 1/260 of one precessional cycle of equinoxes). This reference point would be relatively fixed for 30 years/70 years(71 years ~ 1 day change in seasons). But measuring other planetary cycles(other than earth), using this very point would be fine for GEO-centric practioners(planets in our solar system are orbiting around EARTH) Let us think of our wrist watchs: Time is relative, as we know already. You wont see any difference in time in moving aeroplane and time while you sit in library. The reason is the the difference in the times is of O[10^(-15) seconds]. We call this error is negligible and our scientific calculators WONT notice this. But astronomers, jyOtiSya-s consider O(10^4 years) is NON-negligble, wrt relatively fixed nakshtra-s(of course, these naksatra-s do spin, they are also part of some super galaxy, glaxy cluster). This reference frame wrt solar system(planets, moons in this system) looks fixed for O(100 million years). >This moving target is what we are making our >measurements. While Polaris is the north star >in current times, as few as 2500 years ago, it >wasn't. This is due to precession, the wobble of >the earth in it's orbit, and the motion of the earth >about the centroid (nope, not the center, because >it is the center of gravity, not the geometric center >nor the center of mass) of the galaxy. The 7 nakSatra-s( in saptarsi mandala-saptarsi cycle) are over the northern hemisphere of the "great sphere" around earth, and thus draw circles around the north pole in every precession. Their rising/setting times are another way to record the direction of earth axis. The nakSatra-s along the zodiac appear to move northward/southward too. All these were noted and tracked in ancient Bharat (cf. brAhmaNa texts) Issue is Negligible vs. Non-negligible error gjlist, "John Melka" <johnm@m...> wrote: > Mr Venkateswara Reddy raises some good points, but, let us be precise to a fault > when we talk of relative and dynamic. > > Relative speed is a very interesting concept. As soon as we talk about relative, we need, > by default, a reference point. And herein lies the rub. > > As most astronomers will tell you, there are no absolute reference points. Every star in the > heavens has a relative motion that is a combination of its proper motion, and the proper > motion of the earth - sun system. This creates a moving heaven that is anything but static. > > > Bernard's Star is close enough that we can actually watch it's movement in the heavens over > as short (100 or so) observational period. > > Current thought is that certain pulsars are red-shifted (thus indicating their extreme distance) enough > to provide a locus of reference for true measurement, but technically sophisticated instruments are > necessary to spot these objects and thus use them for measurements. > > So, since astrology is a empirical study, it is the results of the empirical evidence, not the geometric > positioning that will validate or invalidate the results. > > This, simply said, says that if "moving everybody's chart to the right 20' 15" gives a more accurate > result, then there should be some "systematic error" that the 20' 15" solves. That is all. > > Also, different disciplines will solve different problems. We should avoid the dictum of "if the only tool > you have is a hammer, you're only solution will be to treat everything like a nail." > > My $0.02 ramble for this afternoon. > > -- John M - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember./tribute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Venkat, et al -- Venkateswara Reddy [venkateshwara_reddy] Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:38 PM gjlist Cc: vedic astrology [GJ] Tropical Zodiac Again Tropical(fixed) zodiac Vs. Sidereal Zodiac: Let me state an example, which is analogus to this: Mr Judge is riding a car on Hwy 101 N and his speedometer showing 75 miles/hour. Another philosopher is driving a car on Hwy 101 N with speed 95 miles/hour. A question: 1) What is the speed of Mr Philosopher's car? A) 95 miles per hour(analogous to Sidereal) or 25 miles per wrt Mr Judge moving car(analogous to tropical) Where do you get 25 miles per hour from??? Relatively speaking, "Mr. Philosopher" is moving at a rate of 20 mph away from "Mr. Judge". This assumes of course, no earthquakes are occurring at the time. haha Why dont we measure our spacecrafts' velocity, our bykes' speed, or our own cars' speed wrt Mr Judge's moving Car, if we are measuring astronomical cycles in tropical zodiac. I am assuming you mean, "Why don't we measure our space at speeds RELATIVE to Earth?" In fact, we DO measure them that way. 2) What is the speed of Mr Judge's Car? A) 75 miles per hour--With what reference? Earth surface..Analogous to Sidereal.. Dont we know that "the duration of earth wobble" is ~26,000 years wrt nakshtra-s(sidereal zodiac for these worthies). Pointing this is not RACISM, or Fanaticism, as presumed by these so called psuedo time keepers using quantum mechanical devices, who knew only sidereal = tropical - precession with assumption, tropical is a fixed zodiac(Of course, Judge's moving car is fixed, for these worthies) How can something be both "fixed" AND "moving"? A) IT CAN'T! Unless (again!) you are speaking relatively. But in that case, you must also consider a third entity - the road (hwy 101 N). You see - you can't have it both ways. Once you start speaking about relativity, you MUST have some point of reference. You have not established one with your (sorry, but it's true) LAME example. This reminds me the mindset of primitives who hanged Galileo in 1642 AD. Unfortunately, the defenders of sidereal zodiac are purely ascientific(un scientific) in their ways. No - but, we do take into account ALL of the science and not just part of it as did the "primitives who hanged Galileo in 1642 AD." (A crime in my opinion - they were wrong, he was right!) Regarding Static vs Dynamic universe: Let us not confused by semantics of so called OxBridge dictionaries. I already explained what is meant by static/dynamic in earlier posting. This is not a game of word jugglery. Ancients in India considered this entire brahmaanda(universe) as a celestial tree(kalpa vr`kSa). Of course, expanding universe can be represented as a tree. Expanding universe, hiranyagharbja centric universe are tree-s. WHat is the very difference then? In hiranyagharba centric universe: The branches(mandala-s) spin around its axis and also orbit around its higher centre(the root of this true). This is what I meant by DYNAMIC. Word jugglery, linguistic magic is mullerian way to analyse. You really need to make up your mind. I will give you this - the words which you have translated as dynamic/static amy have a different meaning to a speaker of Hindi. But in English, the language being used in this discussion group, they mean moving or changing, and stable or not-changing, respectively. The Universe, and everything in it IS dynamic - hence we must study BOTH dynamic and static science - if only to offset what Heisenberg called the Uncertainty Principle. Regarding my post on sulekha-s article: I just posted for information, but not to trigger any discussion on this eboard. Most of the elite humanities departments and their students got this informative paper by now, how these christian scholars invaded humanities depts with scholarly garbs(such as Prof of History of Religions, Prof of comparative lingustics et al). This is the place(universities), where students learn about hinduism. Just I am spreading this information. No Indologist/RISA scholars mince a word so far. Of course, these so called scholars at Harvard, Chicago are writing theses on Swami Chaitanya mahaprabhu, like they did on Ramakrishna paramahamsa. Forget and forgive is the past: One has to kept intellectual asura-s tames, which is another aspect of Dharma. Conclusion: Let us measure time(depends on velocity--cf:Theory of relativity), speed wrt Mr Judge's moving car. Regards, VR I think you are well-meaning, but only partially informed about certain things, and incorrect about others. But keep studying... ______________ - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember./tribute Cheers to you for this though... Best regards, Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Members, Forgive me for a typo: correct 25 as 20.. Typos are not Lame. Again, Lingustic magic is pervading around. VR gjlist, "MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT)" <mm6365@s...> wrote: > Venkat, et al -- > > > Venkateswara Reddy [venkateshwara_reddy] > Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:38 PM > gjlist > Cc: vedic astrology > [GJ] Tropical Zodiac Again > > > Tropical(fixed) zodiac Vs. Sidereal Zodiac: > > Let me state an example, which is analogus to this: > > Mr Judge is riding a car on Hwy 101 N and his > speedometer showing 75 miles/hour. > > Another philosopher is driving a car on Hwy 101 N with > speed 95 miles/hour. > > A question: > > 1) What is the speed of Mr Philosopher's car? > > A) 95 miles per hour(analogous to Sidereal) or 25 > miles per wrt Mr Judge moving car(analogous to > tropical) > > Where do you get 25 miles per hour from??? Relatively speaking, "Mr. > Philosopher" is moving at a rate of 20 mph away from "Mr. Judge". This > assumes of course, no earthquakes are occurring at the time. haha > > Why dont we measure our spacecrafts' velocity, our > bykes' speed, or our own cars' speed wrt Mr Judge's > moving Car, if we are measuring astronomical cycles in > tropical zodiac. > > I am assuming you mean, "Why don't we measure our space at speeds > RELATIVE to Earth?" In fact, we DO measure them that way. > > 2) What is the speed of Mr Judge's Car? > > A) 75 miles per hour--With what reference? Earth > surface..Analogous to Sidereal.. > > Dont we know that "the duration of earth wobble" is > ~26,000 years wrt nakshtra-s(sidereal zodiac for these > worthies). > > Pointing this is not RACISM, or Fanaticism, as > presumed by these so called psuedo time keepers using > quantum mechanical devices, who knew only sidereal = > tropical - precession with assumption, tropical is a > fixed zodiac(Of course, Judge's moving car is fixed, > for these worthies) > > How can something be both "fixed" AND "moving"? > > A) IT CAN'T! Unless (again!) you are speaking relatively. But in that > case, you must also consider a third entity - the road (hwy 101 N). You > see - you can't have it both ways. Once you start speaking about > relativity, > you MUST have some point of reference. You have not established one with > your (sorry, but it's true) LAME example. > > This reminds me the mindset of primitives who hanged > Galileo in 1642 AD. > > Unfortunately, the defenders of sidereal zodiac are > purely ascientific(un scientific) in their ways. > > No - but, we do take into account ALL of the science and not just part of > it as did the "primitives who hanged Galileo in 1642 AD." (A crime in > my opinion - they were wrong, he was right!) > > Regarding Static vs Dynamic universe: Let us not > confused by semantics of so called OxBridge > dictionaries. I already explained what is meant by > static/dynamic in earlier posting. This is not a game > of word jugglery. Ancients in India considered this > entire brahmaanda(universe) as a celestial tree(kalpa > vr`kSa). Of course, expanding universe can be > represented as a tree. Expanding universe, > hiranyagharbja centric universe are tree-s. WHat is > the very difference then? > > In hiranyagharba centric universe: The > branches(mandala-s) spin around its axis and also > orbit around its higher centre(the root of this true). > This is what I meant by DYNAMIC. Word jugglery, > linguistic magic is mullerian way to analyse. > > You really need to make up your mind. I will give you this - the > words which you have translated as dynamic/static amy have a > different meaning to a speaker of Hindi. But in English, the language > being used in this discussion group, they mean moving or changing, > and stable or not-changing, respectively. The Universe, and everything > in it IS dynamic - hence we must study BOTH dynamic and static > science - if only to offset what Heisenberg called the Uncertainty > Principle. > > Regarding my post on sulekha-s article: I just posted > for information, but not to trigger any discussion on > this eboard. Most of the elite humanities departments > and their students got this informative paper by now, > how these christian scholars invaded humanities depts > with scholarly garbs(such as Prof of History of > Religions, Prof of comparative lingustics et al). This > is the place(universities), where students learn about > hinduism. Just I am spreading this information. No > Indologist/RISA scholars mince a word so far. Of > course, these so called scholars at Harvard, Chicago > are writing theses on Swami Chaitanya mahaprabhu, like > they did on Ramakrishna paramahamsa. > > Forget and forgive is the past: One has to kept > intellectual asura-s tames, which is another aspect of > Dharma. > > Conclusion: Let us measure time(depends on > velocity--cf:Theory of relativity), speed wrt Mr > Judge's moving car. > > Regards, > VR > > I think you are well-meaning, but only partially informed about > certain things, and incorrect about others. But keep studying... > ______________ > - We Remember > 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost > http://dir.remember./tribute > > Cheers to you for this though... > > Best regards, > Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.