Guest guest Posted December 4, 2005 Report Share Posted December 4, 2005 Ash <ashsam73 écrivit: > Dear Francois Carriere and all list members, > > If you are interested in the Rate of precession you may take it as > follows > > The preccession as given to me by Krushnaji is as follows. > > For year 1900 to 2000 it is 50.96 > For year 2000 to 2100 it is 51.00 > For year 2100 to 2200 it is 51.05 > For year 2200 to 2300 it is 51.08 > For year 2300 to 2400 it is 51.14 > > I hope information helps you, Hello Ash, Thank you! ;-) -- Best regards, François Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2005 Report Share Posted December 4, 2005 Dear Ash, Thank you for this data about precession from Krushna. However, if it's correct, it must mean that there's a problem with the new spreadsheet calculations. The spreadsheet gives (as you and others have said, as as I have checked) the following KAY values: 1900: 21°33'23 " 2000: 22°57'11 " 2100: 24°21'10 " Reducing these values to seconds, subtracting one value from another and dividing by 100 for each century, we get an average rate of precession 50.28 " from 1900 to 2000, and of 50.39 from 2000 to 2100. (Please anybody, don't hestitate to check my arithmetic!) This is considerably less than the values given to you below by Krushna. We worked for some time with a spreadsheet which has turned out to be slightly " off " , so I would just like to make sure we're not doing the same thing again. Best wishes Graham , Ash <ashsam73> wrote: > > Dear Francois Carriere and all list members, > > If you are interested in the Rate of precession you may take it as follows > > The preccession as given to me by Krushnaji is as follows. > > For year 1900 to 2000 it is 50.96 > For year 2000 to 2100 it is 51.00 > For year 2100 to 2200 it is 51.05 > For year 2200 to 2300 it is 51.08 > For year 2300 to 2400 it is 51.14 > > I hope information helps you, > Cheers !!! > Ash > > FRANCOIS CARRIERE <shaula001@g...> wrote: > Hello Ash, > > Thank you again for you kind answer and patience! ;-) > > I wish to make clear that I do not at all disparage nor do I put in question > Krushna's ayanamsha. It has proven to be very efficient. I just wish to > understand better. Most softwares I use have the modern way to compute > charts and ayanamsha, and they will not work with the way KAY is computed. > So I need to do it by hands, at least to get a good approximation of the KAY > for a given date (if not available through the worksheet, from 1900 to > 2400). One last question on this subject, then: > > Ash écrivit: > > [...] > > > 1) Starting date for Krushnas Ayanamsa or the date when the split > > took place is 24th February 366 AD. > > > > 2) The value of Krushnas Ayanamsa on 1st January 1900 is 21:33:23. > > > > You can take it from here and find out how the ayanamsa reached > > 21:33:23 in 1900/01/01 from 24th Feb 366 AD when the value was > > 0:00:00. > > If I compute the ayanamsha for the next centuries, i.e. 1900, 2000, 2100, > 2200, 2300 and 2400 on january 1st, will I get the correct Krushna > ayanamsha? This may help me to understand how to go back to the 0 date of > february 24, 366. At least it may help me to understand how the precession > rate is processed, since no other software I own can give the same results > as the KAS worksheet. That is very annoying. > > For now I get: > > 1900: 21:33:23 > 2000: 22:57:11 > 2100: 24:21:01 > 2200: 25:44:53 > 2300: 27:08:47 > 2400: 28:32:43 > > Thank you for your kind patience. > > -- > With my best regards, > François Carrière > mailto : shaula001 @ gmail dot com > mailto : francois dot carriere @ gmail dot com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2005 Report Share Posted December 4, 2005 Dear Graham, Now Donna has uploaded the exact values of KAY in Revised Lesson 6. For the year 2000 the value given by WS is 22:58:18 as the exact KAY value and the program is giving as 22:57:11 so the difference that creeps in at 2000 is 1 minute and 07 seconds. That much difference is creeps in due to the precession of swiss ephimeris. This difference of 1 minute 07 seconds is tollerable. I am afriad that with the current limitations we have this is the best we get. Hopefully in time we will or can find a way to bring the ayanamsa rectification back at the turn of each century. I do not know if some other program might have this feature to add the difference, In that case you can give the exact ayanamsa value at the start of each century which now is available in the lesson upto year 2400. Hope that helps, Cheers !!! Ash Graham Fox <fox.graham wrote: Dear Ash, Thank you for this data about precession from Krushna. However, if it's correct, it must mean that there's a problem with the new spreadsheet calculations. The spreadsheet gives (as you and others have said, as as I have checked) the following KAY values:1900: 21°33'23"2000: 22°57'11"2100: 24°21'10"Reducing these values to seconds, subtracting one value from another and dividing by 100 for each century, we get an average rate of precession 50.28" from 1900 to 2000, and of 50.39 from 2000 to 2100.(Please anybody, don't hestitate to check my arithmetic!)This is considerably less than the values given to you below by Krushna. We worked for some time with a spreadsheet which has turned out to be slightly "off", so I would just like to make sure we're not doing the same thing again.Best wishesGraham , Ash wrote:>> Dear Francois Carriere and all list members,> > If you are interested in the Rate of precession you may take it as follows> > The preccession as given to me by Krushnaji is as follows.> > For year 1900 to 2000 it is 50.96> For year 2000 to 2100 it is 51.00> For year 2100 to 2200 it is 51.05> For year 2200 to 2300 it is 51.08> For year 2300 to 2400 it is 51.14> > I hope information helps you,> Cheers !!!> Ash> > FRANCOIS CARRIERE wrote:> Hello Ash,> > Thank you again for you kind answer and patience! ;-)> > I wish to make clear that I do not at all disparage nor do I put in question > Krushna's ayanamsha. It has proven to be very efficient. I just wish to > understand better. Most softwares I use have the modern way to compute > charts and ayanamsha, and they will not work with the way KAY is computed. > So I need to do it by hands, at least to get a good approximation of the KAY > for a given date (if not available through the worksheet, from 1900 to > 2400). One last question on this subject, then:> > Ash écrivit:> > [...]> > > 1) Starting date for Krushnas Ayanamsa or the date when the split> > took place is 24th February 366 AD.> >> > 2) The value of Krushnas Ayanamsa on 1st January 1900 is 21:33:23.> >> > You can take it from here and find out how the ayanamsa reached> > 21:33:23 in 1900/01/01 from 24th Feb 366 AD when the value was> > 0:00:00.> > If I compute the ayanamsha for the next centuries, i.e. 1900, 2000, 2100, > 2200, 2300 and 2400 on january 1st, will I get the correct Krushna > ayanamsha? This may help me to understand how to go back to the 0 date of > february 24, 366. At least it may help me to understand how the precession > rate is processed, since no other software I own can give the same results > as the KAS worksheet. That is very annoying.> > For now I get:> > 1900: 21:33:23> 2000: 22:57:11> 2100: 24:21:01> 2200: 25:44:53> 2300: 27:08:47> 2400: 28:32:43> > Thank you for your kind patience.> > -- > With my best regards,> François Carrière> mailto : shaula001 @ gmail dot com> mailto : francois dot carriere @ gmail dot com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2005 Report Share Posted December 5, 2005 Thank you Ash, all is now clear -- the worksheet uses Swiss Ephemeris precession values, so for now we have to accept a slight variance from the values recommended by Krushna. Graham , Ash <ashsam73> wrote: > > Dear Graham, > Now Donna has uploaded the exact values of KAY in Revised Lesson 6. > > For the year 2000 the value given by WS is 22:58:18 as the exact KAY value and the program is giving as 22:57:11 so the difference that creeps in at 2000 is 1 minute and 07 seconds. That much difference is creeps in due to the precession of swiss ephimeris. This difference of 1 minute 07 seconds is tollerable. > > I am afriad that with the current limitations we have this is the best we get. Hopefully in time we will or can find a way to bring the ayanamsa rectification back at the turn of each century. > > I do not know if some other program might have this feature to add the difference, In that case you can give the exact ayanamsa value at the start of each century which now is available in the lesson upto year 2400. > > Hope that helps, > Cheers !!! > Ash > > > Graham Fox <fox.graham@w...> wrote: > Dear Ash, > Thank you for this data about precession from Krushna. However, if > it's correct, it must mean that there's a problem with the new > spreadsheet calculations. > The spreadsheet gives (as you and others have said, as as I have > checked) the following KAY values: > 1900: 21°33'23 " > 2000: 22°57'11 " > 2100: 24°21'10 " > > Reducing these values to seconds, subtracting one value from another > and dividing by 100 for each century, we get an average rate of > precession 50.28 " from 1900 to 2000, and of 50.39 from 2000 to 2100. > (Please anybody, don't hestitate to check my arithmetic!) > This is considerably less than the values given to you below by > Krushna. > We worked for some time with a spreadsheet which has turned out to > be slightly " off " , so I would just like to make sure we're not doing > the same thing again. > Best wishes > Graham > > , Ash > wrote: > > > > Dear Francois Carriere and all list members, > > > > If you are interested in the Rate of precession you may take it > as follows > > > > The preccession as given to me by Krushnaji is as follows. > > > > For year 1900 to 2000 it is 50.96 > > For year 2000 to 2100 it is 51.00 > > For year 2100 to 2200 it is 51.05 > > For year 2200 to 2300 it is 51.08 > > For year 2300 to 2400 it is 51.14 > > > > I hope information helps you, > > Cheers !!! > > Ash > > > > FRANCOIS CARRIERE wrote: > > Hello Ash, > > > > Thank you again for you kind answer and patience! ;-) > > > > I wish to make clear that I do not at all disparage nor do I put > in question > > Krushna's ayanamsha. It has proven to be very efficient. I just > wish to > > understand better. Most softwares I use have the modern way to > compute > > charts and ayanamsha, and they will not work with the way KAY is > computed. > > So I need to do it by hands, at least to get a good approximation > of the KAY > > for a given date (if not available through the worksheet, from > 1900 to > > 2400). One last question on this subject, then: > > > > Ash écrivit: > > > > [...] > > > > > 1) Starting date for Krushnas Ayanamsa or the date when the split > > > took place is 24th February 366 AD. > > > > > > 2) The value of Krushnas Ayanamsa on 1st January 1900 is > 21:33:23. > > > > > > You can take it from here and find out how the ayanamsa reached > > > 21:33:23 in 1900/01/01 from 24th Feb 366 AD when the value was > > > 0:00:00. > > > > If I compute the ayanamsha for the next centuries, i.e. 1900, > 2000, 2100, > > 2200, 2300 and 2400 on january 1st, will I get the correct Krushna > > ayanamsha? This may help me to understand how to go back to the 0 > date of > > february 24, 366. At least it may help me to understand how the > precession > > rate is processed, since no other software I own can give the same > results > > as the KAS worksheet. That is very annoying. > > > > For now I get: > > > > 1900: 21:33:23 > > 2000: 22:57:11 > > 2100: 24:21:01 > > 2200: 25:44:53 > > 2300: 27:08:47 > > 2400: 28:32:43 > > > > Thank you for your kind patience. > > > > -- > > With my best regards, > > François Carrière > > mailto : shaula001 @ gmail dot com > > mailto : francois dot carriere @ gmail dot com > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.