Friday, July 24, 2020

My research paper on Siddhantic concept of the equinoxes offers newer insights to emerging trends in Science on Precession

A work that I would prefer to call as the magnum opus of my life is now getting published as a series in the reputed astrological magazine founded by Dr. B.V. Raman. Dr. Raman’s contribution to arriving at the rate of Precession is well known to many. I feel honored to have my research paper on the Siddhantic version of precession verified with paleocliamtic data, offering newer insights to recent trends in science on precession, accepted for publication in this magazine after being reviewed by the editorial team.

The paper is published as a multi-part series starting from August 2020 issue of the magazine.

Click here to download the August 2020 issue

Recent trends in science:

Certain recent observations in planetary science have raised doubts on the reliability of the luni-solar model of the precession of the equinoxes. A brief account of them is given below:

1.      The earth’s spin axis is no longer precessing, i.e. not moving westward, but had started moving eastward. ( )
Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," reports Adhikari who had presented quite a few research papers on this topic. ( )
NASA scientists  have identified three factors influencing the axial drift, namely isostatic rebound of land forms formerly under ice sheets, melting of the ice sheets and mantle convection – each having equal weightage in influencing the axial drift. (
The axial drift is therefore guided by internal dynamics of the earth and not by external forces such as luni-solar pull which is the basis for the current theory of precession.

2.      This revelation brings us to the next issue on what happens with the moon in relation to the earth. The moon is receding from us thereby theoretically producing less torque, whereas the rate of precession is found to be increasing which can happen due to greater force on the earth as per luni-solar theory. This contradiction is now being noticed, but when read with the previous point, it is understood that the earth’s axial motion is not influenced by the moon or the sun. Added to this is the fact demonstrated in space station that a gyroscope in zero gravity does not change its orientation come whatever be the disturbance to it.  This means earth does not behave like a rotating gyroscope in zero gravity, which is contrary to the current concept that is the basis for the 26000 year cycle of precession.

3.      That there is no precession of the earth is established by the data on lunar cycle equations and eclipse calculations. The earth completes a full revolution of 360 degrees from one like equinox to another like equinox and is not found short of the proverbial precession amount of 52 arc seconds. Examination of the past data also shows that the spring equinox had occurred on the same Gregorian date (after leap year adjustment) and not drifted. The spring equinox occurs on 21st March (or 20th) now and it was on the same Gregorian date in the year 499 CE, at the time of Aryabhata when the tropical equinox coincided with sidereal equinox. (check out Fig 5 in my blog: )

This means that there is no variation in the dates with reference to the earth in relation to the sun as it circles around the sun. The points of equinoxes and solstices are fixed on the circle of orbit of the earth. What is perceived as precession is the shift noticed in the background frame of reference when the entire circle is moving ahead. This can be possible only if the sun along with the entire solar system is moving in a curved path. Only in that case, there can be absence of precession with reference to sun but presence of precession with reference to a distant star.

Since the rate is increasing now, the researchers hypothesize a binary companion for the sun, with the sun presently moving around the perigee. The implication of this which is not yet grasped by the scientists is that the sun is going to change the direction of its movement by which we will see the equinox moving forward. This forward movement of the equinox after a backward movement is exactly the version of Surya Siddhanta and revealed variously by different authors in the past and expressed by limited shift of the pole stars in the Puranas.

In this backdrop I worked on the Siddhantic concept of precession in comparison with the Milankovitch cycles and checked with paleoclimatic data since the beginning of Last Glacial Maximum. My findings reveal a wavy or a sinusoidal path for the sun with least scope for a binary companion.

This implies that in the next generation simulators based on Siddhantic precession, Arundhati will be seen ‘walking behind’ Vasishtha and Amavasya or Pournami not happening on the “13th day”, forcing the researchers to learn the basics and start from the basics.

The abstract of my paper gives in a nutshell the contents and the focus of my paper. Request readers to share this paper, discuss and come up with constructive responses, if any.  


The current theory of the axial precession of the earth relative to the distant stars resulting in the continuous precession of the equinoxes and the corresponding pole shift in a circle around the zodiac in a cycle of approximately 26000 years is not recognized by the Indic Thought that proposes a short cycle of 7200 years consisting of forward and backward motion of the equinoxes and a corresponding limited number of pole stars spread across the span of the constellation of Ursa Minor, known as Shishumara in Puranas and the Vedic texts. The decipherment of the ‘difficult passage’ of Siddhanta Shiromani reveals the cycle of eccentricity of the earth’s orbit that differs from that of Milankovitch which suffers from ‘100 000 year problem’. The precession cycle of Milankovitch stands disputed by the Surya Siddhantic cycle and the ‘Yuga of Ayana’ of Munjāla and Vishnuchandra that consists of three cycles of equinoxes. The concept of obliquity of Milankovitch absent in Indic Thought is also non- existent in the emerging scientific revelation from lunar data and solar path-based movement that is mistaken as precession of the axial tilt.  The three Indic cycles enumerated from the Siddhantas and checked against the Milankovitch cycles are verified with paleocliamtic data. It is found that the sequence of glacial events since the Last Glacial Maximum match with the mid-point of the Ayana cycle of the equinoxes. The incidence of Dansgaard –Oeschger events that remain unexplained by any current theory are found to match with the Ayana cycles, besides giving credence to the sinusoidal path of the sun that is observed as to and fro motion for an observer on the earth.


Dr Rama Krishnan said...

Dear Jayshree Ji
I consider you an authority in many field, especially the field of astronomy/astrology. I again came across one such video in You tube regarding the dating of Mahabharatha. I am totally ignorant on the nitty gritty stuff in astronomy ( I am Physician and hI have been residing in Sydney over 4 decades, hence my unfortunate disconnection with our traditional knowledge) I have to go by your word on the claims made in this video.
I f and when your time permits, I would like your views on this video.
Thank you Ji
Dr Rama Krishnan

Unknown said...

Respected Jayasree-ji,

The link you have given is about eastward shift in Polar motion.

Apparently, there are three motions that are relevant. I am copy pasting from wiki...

In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it can refer to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation in a cycle of approximately 25,772 years.[1] This is similar to the precession of a spinning-top, with the axis tracing out a pair of cones joined at their apices. The term "precession" typically refers only to this largest part of the motion; other changes in the alignment of Earth's axis—nutation and polar motion—are much smaller in magnitude.



jayasree said...

Dear Dr Ramakrishnan,

We are now living in the time of "Romancing with with Itihasa era" promoted by SM glare that quickly takes one to the notice of many. This Romancing started with the rise of 'Hindu nationalism" aka Vedic nationalism of generation X,Y and Z who know only the spelling of Itihasa and Veda, with a few reading them with the belief that knowledge of Sanskrit is enough to understand them. Wishing to cash in on this, a mushroom growth of promoting sites have come up mostly funded by foreigners. They promote any stuff that carries the tags "Itihasa, Veda, dating, scientific, software" etc. with the result the promoting and the promoted are satisfied that they achieved something, while the others will remain perplexed more than ever with no two of them giving the same date for Mahabharata war.

Now imagine you are in the previous era where you have to read only the Itihasas - let us say Mahabharata here, not the electronic ones, but print editions, with commentaries or translations by stalwarts of olden times where they would have explained some of the tricky issues then and there and to understand which you have to acquaint yourself with underlying basic concepts, and discuss with experts in relevant fields, what will be your product like? In the absence of scope to rush to public glare instantly, the researchers of that time felt no need to flash their "theories". Almost all of them who tried in that era knew the boundary conditions well and therefore did not dare to present a date that didn't fulfill the boundary conditions.

I think I have stated the underlying problem clearly.

Now the boundary conditions that you have to look for when you come across videos / books / talks on Mahabharata.

1. The most basic boundary condition is that Mahabharata war occurred 35 years before the start of Kali Yuga. That means the date must be precisely 3136 BCE. (This is extrapolated from present to the past by 5156 years - saying this because the promoted ones have a penchant to confuse and convince you with talks on Julian vs Gregorian and such other western stuff we are least concerned with) If the speaker's date is something else, you can skip it without a second thought. It is time-pass for them, time-waste for us.

The video you have shown is Manish Pandits' who believes in "Achar Bharat", i.e. he is out on establishing Narahari Achar's date which fails this boundary condition. In contrast Nilesh Oak's is "Vartak Bharata", again failing to fulfill this basic boundary condition. There are others who give other dates but everyone of them is dependent on simulators designed for current theory of precession. It is here I find the beginning of the end of the "Simulator Era" (refer my above blog) that will sweep out all these researches at one stroke. The irony is that none of these researchers know these boundary conditions.

2. If you are ready to spend your time on them and see further, the next two boundary conditions are whether they promote the idea (1) of 13 day phase - of Amavasya and/or Pournmi occurring on Trayodhashi (if they say 13th day, you can exit then and there) and (2) two 13 day eclipses before Mahabharata war.

Parroting these two means they have absolutely no knowledge of fundamentals of astronomy.
To know this check out this short video by me.

Hope this helps in guiding you whenever you come across this kind of stuff.

jayasree said...

Respected Chakraborty-ji,

Sorry to state wiki is not the source of science that is taking shape now. Given some links in the blog. Please go through them to know what is being perceived by current science. More links cited in my paper.

What is perceived over 100 years is "Chandler Wobble" of the spinning axis within 9 metres and repeating the same at the same point every 7 years. The wiki page on this has stated in the 2nd para "Somewhat confusingly, ..." the axis relative to distant stars varies. So going by Chandler wobble, only a very small free nutation exists, but no other movement of the axis. But seen in the backdrop of star we had tilted further. How?

And this tilt is not detected with reference to sun and other planets within the solar system, how? This tilt angle is not counted in calculating eclipses, why? Because there is no tilt with reference to the sun. But then how we see a tilted movement with reference to distant stars? Do you get the point?

Such a displacement can happen for the entire solar system. Means Sun along with solar system is tilting as it moves. So no independent tilt for the earth. This is current science and now working to know more about this. In this backdrop I am giving Siddhantic version which I find will be validated anytime - from a decade to a century.

The absence of precesison of the earth needs a scientific / mathematical calculation to establish so. I have given the link with embedded links on lunar data that shows that earth has no axial movement.
This is the link I gave in the above blog.

Let me give the 1st page of this link, so that you can start reading from the beginning till the recent experiments towards the last page. They are regularly updating this site. Switch on the plugins to watch the simulations.

I agree with them only on the issue of precession. The current theory is toying with the idea that the sun has a binary star companion and is at perigee of the barycentre. I have hypothesized in my paper that the sun follows a wavy path.

Unknown said...

Yes, Wiki is not the reference, but it is good starting point.

I am aware of Chandler motion, True Polar wander etc. And BTW, I don't believe in the reasons given in that paper by Adhikari.

I am aware that a 'Theory' exists about Binary star within Solar system. But I will wait. Let it get proven first.

Anyway, I will watch this space.

Thanks & regards


jayasree said...

@Unknown / Chakraborty,

//I don't believe in the reasons given in that paper by Adhikari.//

It makes no difference to the discovery whether you "believe" or "don't believe"
Other researchers also have come up with the same findings. 1/3 rd attributed to mantle convection that is yet to be measured, had already started leaving its presence on the sea bed off the coast of California. Another phenomena related to this also reported 3 days ago. So keep praying that the earth must behave in the way Milankovitch believed.

You seem to be rattled.
I know one person will be rattled.
I understand :))

Unknown said...

You are completely off track here.

I said that I didn't believe the reasons for the shift (rising landmass due to de-glaciation part). I didn't say that " I don't believe in the Discovery". Please re-read my comments before jumping to conclusion.

If you care to peruse thru your own blog only, you will find my comments from years back. So I don't see any reason for you or anyone to connect my reply to someone you hate. I had written it to you because I thought one should check & crosscheck few times before arriving at any conclusion. But anyway, you are entitled to your opinions.

I don't need to pray for anything as I know Earth does not have any obligation to meet any specific theory from any quarters.



jayasree said...

@ Unknown / Chakraborty

//I said that I didn't believe the reasons for the shift (rising landmass due to de-glaciation part). I didn't say that " I don't believe in the Discovery"//

What is the difference? The reasons are the discoveries - of what causes the drift. The work started after noticing the eastward shift. The data analysed was from 1900 onwards. Now tell me why should a person / you say that you don't believe it.

Even a recent research paper on why the hefty Himalayan range is moving up and down attributed a similar rebound basis. But here the causes are hydrological, of changing ground water condition in India. Grow up man, rebound of land mass is being witnessed across the world and the causes are similar.

//If you care to peruse thru your own blog only, you will find my comments from years back. So I don't see any reason for you or anyone to connect my reply to someone you hate.//

Happy to note that you are an old reader of my blogs.

I don't hate anyone, but I object to absurd, foolish versions if they transgress DHARMA. Only when DHARMA is assaulted I will step in. You may ridicule this statement of mine, but you don't know my background.

Your comment gives a deja vu. Any other person reading those research articles would not make a comment like you did. The only other person capable of making such comment is - you know who :))

//I had written it to you because I thought one should check & crosscheck few times before arriving at any conclusion. But anyway, you are entitled to your opinions.//

It is obvious you have not checked others' researches on the same subject. I quoted Adhikari's here because that comes from NASA.

There is a number of corroboratory researches in support of isostatic rebound of land forms and mantle convection ultimately finding vents to pour out. The dates of such events follow a pattern that matches with the ends of the equinoctial oscillation. It is multi disciplinary and vast.

//I don't need to pray for anything as I know Earth does not have any obligation to meet any specific theory from any quarters.//

You don't? Fine.
But the theory I am bringing to the notice of the world which is not mine, but of ancient rishis is what the earth is dutifully following. That you have troubles in the success of that theory is what makes you unique like the other one who you think I hate and who has reasons to be worried at the success of this theory.

Hope I clarified.


Unknown said...

"What is the difference?" - Enough differences between Causative and associative points.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. The other things you mentioned are known to me. And please don't use such languages like -"Grow up man". This, I believe, is much below your own stature.

Anyway, again, it's your choices. I personally avoid such language to anyone.



jayasree said...

@Unknown / Chakraborty,

The choice of words depends on what comes out from the other side -whether for knowledge, wanting to know, refusing to know and rejecting knowledge.That's all. So don't worry about my statue.