Moon's Wobble

[Guest guest]

Hi Visti,

 

I was taking a look into true node behaviour some time ago;

thought I had a few more notes on the subject but it seems not...

However two items below might be of some interest.

 

Item 1: (interesting comments but source not entirely reliable!)

 

"Once this get factored in, we discover that the nodes' motion is

not absolutely constant. For example, roughly twice a year, for

roughly two months each time, the calculated nodal positions

move backwards only about 1°. In other words, less than a third

of their average speed. This is known as their true speed.

 

To describe it in more visual terms, for a day or two each orbit

(sidereal month), the Moon appears to be travelling exactly on

the ecliptic. If the Sun's path, the ecliptic, happened to be directly

overhead from our particular position on Earth, then the Moon's

path at night would also be directly overhead. At this time the

Moon's longitude and, let's say, Rahu's longitude will be the

same because the Moon will be crossing the ecliptic. From this

time on, the Moon's path will stray slightly to the left, or north, for

a week or so, and then back towards the centre or ecliptic. A

week later it will cross the ecliptic - conjoining Ketu - and then

spend two weeks drifting right, or south, and back again. The

next time it makes it back to the ecliptic, its position with regard

to the fixed stars will be about a degree or two less than it was

on the previous orbit.

 

In fact, about two months out of six, the `new' ecliptic intersection

is two or even three degrees before the previous one. This

`quick patch' is followed by a month where Rahu is right where

you'd expect it, on average, to be. Then come another two

months in which the Moon seems to cross the ecliptic in virtually

the same place, ie the Moon and Rahu conjoin at almost the

same longitude, on three consecutive occasions. This is

followed by another average month, then the quick months etc.

These are the true node positions.

 

This variable motion shows that the Moon is perpetually caught

in a tug of war between the Earth and the Sun. The closer the

three bodies are to being in a straight line, and on the same

plane, the more likely it is that the Moon will stay on a `fixed' path.

However, the Moon travels its elliptical path about every 27.3

days. The next time it returns to the Rahu point, the Sun will be

at a longitude that is about 26° from that previous straight line.

The gravitational pulls of the Sun and the Earth will be `crossing'

each other, rather than `meshing' with each other. Under these

circumstances, the Moon's path begins to `drift'."

 

2nd Item: (there was an interesting series of posts I came

across; my recollection is that there was some quite informative

detail on the true node calculation. I thought I'd copied it, but only

found the piece below.)

 

Juan http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/Posts/Apogee.html

 

Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:52:15 -0600

Hello all!

 

Just a note before I continue reading and enjoying this post.

First, let me say that I see no problem in working with purely

mathematical or hypothetical points. They all work. But the Black

Moon cannot be compared with the nodes for 3 reasons:

 

1- the nodes are clearly defined by the intersection of two orbital

planes, and do not depend on the shape of the orbit. The

apogee/empty point is dependent on the shape, which in the

case of the Moon's orbit, being constantly changing in shape, is

very badly defined.

 

2- the difference between the mean node and the true node is

never more than 1 degree 52'. The difference between the mean

apogee and the true apogee reaches 30 degrees.

 

3- the ephemeris of the mean apogee is barycentric (center of

masses Earth/Moon, located 1700 Km below the surface of the

earth), not geocentric, and if you define it as the "empty focus",

then, because of parallax, you would need to apply a correction

of more than 6 degrees to the mean Black Moon. This does not

happen with the nodes.

 

I would say that if the mean apogee works, it is for the same

reason that all other hypothetical and physically impossible

planets also work.

 

Cheers, Kriya

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

------------------------

Dear Kriya,

You wrote:

I would say that if the mean apogee works, it is for the same

reason that all other hypothetical and physically impossible

planets also work.

 

In fact this is the very reason why I am goinng to teach in te US - the bais of

Jyotish, why Navagraha why not more or less? After all Uranus et al are also

planets. Why mean Rahu, why not true? What is the philosophy behind the

paradigm? and so many questions.

Regards

Sanjay Rath

[Guest guest]

I know there was an email regarding the conference by Sanjay Rathji

on the US west coast area some time ago, but I cannot find that mail.

Could anyone refer me the mail number or tell me the venue and time

please?

Thanks.

Viraj

 

 

vedic astrology, "Sanjay Rath" <srath@v...> wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

> ------------------------

> Dear Kriya,

> You wrote:

> I would say that if the mean apogee works, it is for the same

> reason that all other hypothetical and physically impossible

> planets also work.

>

> In fact this is the very reason why I am goinng to teach in te US -

the bais of Jyotish, why Navagraha why not more or less? After all

Uranus et al are also planets. Why mean Rahu, why not true? What is

the philosophy behind the paradigm? and so many questions.

> Regards

> Sanjay Rath