Tropical Zodiac Again

[Guest guest]

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