आपणास माझे लेखन आवडते आहे असे ब्लॉगला भेट देणारांच्या वाढत्या संख्येवरून वाटते. विषेशकरून कर्णकथेला वाचक पुष्कळ मिळाले. आपल्या प्रतिक्रिया जरूर मिळावयास हव्यात! त्याशिवाय लिहीत राहण्याचा उत्साह कसा टिकून रहाणार?
I changed over from Marathi to English for my comments on Shri. Oak's book recently. I continue to get readers but there are no comments! Wonder whether I am boring!

Last Seven Days

माझी थोडी ओळख

My photo
San Ramon and Mumbai, California and Maharashtra, United States
ज्येष्ठ नागरिक. साहित्य व संगीत प्रेमी. Senior Citizen

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Fall of Abhijit - pictorial representation

I show below two pictures which demonstrate what I consider as Fall of Abhijit.
Please ignore the second picture above. As pointed out by Shri. Oak the position in 9000BC is more relevant. So I have modified the second picture to show both year 9000BC and 6000BC Well before 6000BC Abhijit was probably dropped from Nakshatra list by Brahma.

9 comments:

Nilesh Oak said...

IMHO, you won't win the fight by claiming better explanation for what defines 'Fall of Abhijit.

(1) A star moving from almost above head (close to celestial equator) and moving to NCP can be easily interpreted as Fall. (Vartak, Oak)

(2) A star at NCP (and thus always visible..at night, in the northern hemisphere) moving away from NCP and thus not always visible (going below horizon) can also be easily interpreted as Fall (Phadnis)

--
Your interpretation in (2) is the first alternate and convincing interpretation besides (1). So that is indeed an achievement.

Now, the test of your theory lies in explaining Rohini, Krittka, Dhanishtha stuff and the sequence of events.

Explanations by either Vartak or Oak have their lacune/limitations. That is not the unknown.. what remains to be seen is how Phadnis model/theory overcomes those limitations without losing successes of Vartak/Oak explanations.

Nilesh Oak said...

BTW, that does not mean ( referrign to my previous comment...what remains to be seen is how Phadnis model/theory overcomes those limitations without losing successes of Vartak/Oak explanations) you can not have alternate explanation. In fact, more than likely it has to be an alternate explanation. The test would be if it is better (consistency)than previous ones.

Only other attempt (extremely vague and confusing to the core) is by Prof. R N Iyengar. I can send you the paper (or you can search in google and will find it).

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

Your point no. 1 above is not clear. Any star not at CNP will go around the pole once a day. If it is far away, the circle will be large and at the bottommost point it may touch horizon or drop below. Its highest point could be overhead. If then it progressively increases its declination, its highest point will no doubt move downwards but the lowest point will keep rising,from below horizon towards the CNP, so how can it be considered a 'fall'?

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

I am afraid there are no 'successes' of Oak/Vartak explanations which must be retained! What are they?

Nilesh Oak said...

Consider this question:

Does sun move from east to west or from west to east?

Answer: The answer depends on which motion of the sun one is focusing on.

(a) If it is the diurnal (daily) motion of the sun (albeit - relative...since it is the earth that is moving and is the cause .. in both cases) then, sun moves from the east to the west.

(b) however, if it is annual motion of the sun, then sun moves (against the background starfield) from the west to the east, about 1 degree per day.

(c) If the motion under consideration is for the position of the sun at a specific cardinal point, then again .. Sun is moving from east to west, about 50 arc-sec/year.
--
Let's transpose this knowledge to a star that occupies position near NCP.

When star is near NCP (Polaris now or Abhijit around 12000 BCE),

(a) When daily movement is considered (there is practically NO motion for this star)

(b) When its movement is considered -- i.e. its movement to/close to NCP, from its position farthest from NCP. Astronomers have indeed looked at positions of stars at Meridian.

(b)-1 to an observer near North pole, the position of star at NCP is well above him (exactly opposite of the fall)

(b)-2 On the other hand, to an observer near equator (or sufficient distance away from North pole) the position of the star at NCP is closer to horizon and thus fall from its position when farthest away from NCP.

Current position of Vega (one corner of summer triangle) when compared with current position of Polaris should make this clear. While Vega (Abhijit) appears above head
(at meridian), Polaris is below - closer to horizon in the north. the exact angle would depend on location of the obsever.
--
A line (imaginary) drawn from Vega to Polaris is approximate diameter of this circle of NCP. ~14000 years ago, the positions of Polars and Vega were interchanged.. so to say., i.e. What we see today can be termed.. 'Fall of Polaris'.

Nilesh Oak said...

Shri Prabhakar Phadnis write..

I am afraid there are no 'successes' of Oak/Vartak explanations which must be retained! What are they?
--

Let's begin with Vartak...

(1) The fact that this verse refers to knowledge of ancient astronomy-- of Vega becoming Pole star. The whole context.

The success of Vartak in connecting these 4 verses with Indian astronomer's awareness of Abhijit becoming pole star is not obvious.. until one realizes that No one before him connected the dots. (sure, likes of S B Dikshit, and few others suggested it, but then left it at that).

So it will be inappropriate if one considers that 'Abhijit becoming pole star' was common knowledge (either to them or to ancient Indians) is a myth.. not until elucidated/asserted by Dr. Vartak

(2) Why Dhanistha was given first place... Vartak states that Indian astronomers would have seen point of summer solstice near 'defined' position of nakshatra Abhijit (Abhijit shows up in Nakshatra list after Uttara Ashadha)....however since Vega had fallen (by becoming a pole star), astronomers were forced to consider another (Dhanishtha) nakshatra in lieu of Abhijit. Position of Dhanistha makes this clear. (e.g. during Mahabharata year, 5561 BCE, position of Abhijit (Right ascension is a good measure for defining sequential position of Nakshatras) was between nakshatra Shravana and nakshatra Dhanistha and nakshatra Shravan.

(3) Summer solstice at Krittika (and thus Krittka going to to Vana for tapa) as the time when fall of Abhijit began (21000 BCE). I (Nilesh) have considered this explanation as not the best, but then no one who considers 'going to vana for tapa applies to Krittika' has explained it besides Dr. Vartak. Of course we will wait for Shri Prabhakar Phadnis explanation of this. My (Nilesh) explanation below.

(4) Vartak refers to two different methods of time reckoning (beginning of calendar) in explaining Dhanistha as first nakshatra and also Rohini as first nakshatra. The explanation is interesting (but runs into what I call 'degree of freedom' problem.. i.e. there is nothing else to validate his conejecture.. and still problem remains unsolved).


Successes of Shri Oak

(1) Since Falling is that of Abhijit (all three - Vartak, Oak, Phadnis agree on it), Oak explanation is that Abhijit went to Vana to do tapa by becoming Pole star... i.e. going away from the social life (no longer part of 27/28 nakshatra system) and by becoming steady in one place i.e. NCP (TAPA).

(2) The clear definition for the timing of crisis... i.e. if Fallen Abhijit (whichever way it is defined) is coming back from that fallen position, then the timing is not correct. This led to 4 experiments for position of Dhanistha and elimination of 3 of 4, leading to timing of ~14500 BCE for this crisis of 'Fall of Abhijit'

(3) Assertion that historically in ancient times (at least 14500 BCE and before and at least in the system known to Markendeya/Mahabharata) the status of first Nakshatra was given to nakshatra that was close to/coincided with the point of summer solstice. This is corroborated with the fact that Varsha (beginning of rainy season) with the beginning of a new year.

(4) Interpretation for the mention of nakshatra Rohini (as being first some time in the past) as referring to a mile post.. that allows interpretation by referring to 'arrow of time', enabling upper limit on the timing of this crisis (~22500 BCE, etc.)

(5) Why Krittika were mentioned (last of the 4 shloka...btw this is the first time Krittika are mentioned explicitly in these 4 shlok) by stating that this is when they were rising 'Due East' and not deviating from true east (well, in comparison to other 26/27 nakshatras).

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

I regret my hasty comment about your and Dr. Vartak's successes and withdraw it. I will write about all these aspects in my subsequent posts. My own interest in this subject arose out of your book only, so I owe it to you!

Lean Jedi said...

No need to regret your comments. This simply means that you feel passionately about your theory and nothing is been achieved without fashion.

There are few well know personalities who have attained popularity in spite of extremely mediocre work. Such people do have a reason to worry and reason to create dogma of their findings.

Not you or me.

I love what Karl Popper said.. "Good experiments/tests kills bad theories, we survive, to guess again".
-
This is very reason when someone shows a novel explanation, I am very excited. When someone come up with alternate date for the timing of Mahabharata War, my first reaction, before even I have read about the details, is that of excitement.

There are numerous theories proposed in the area of QM (Quantum mechanics) and such similar subjects, and while these theories were falsified they shed a lot of light on the problems/clarifications/amazement of Quantum mechanics.

Regards,

Nilesh

Lean Jedi said...

Not sure how to edit my comments. I meant "Nothing is achived without passion".