Friday, July 24, 2020

My research paper on Siddhantic concept of the equinoxes offers newer insights to emerging trends in Science on Precession (Part 1)


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 Saranathan 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 Saranathan 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 Saranathan 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 Saranathan 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 Saranathan 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.


A08 said...


I am a beginner for these things starting your and Mr. Nilesh Oak's videos in connection with dating of MB and Ramayana's Rama-Ravana war.

1. Precession of equinoxes of earth is a phenomenon emanating out of combined gravitational forces of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies. As you have rightly quoted in your blog that in zero gravity there would not be any precession. It is an observation and confirmed experimentally. The physics behind this is well understood and known problem of 'spinning top' from Classical Mechanics.

2. As I understand, Milankovitch Cycles are his hypothesis about the climatic patterns due to variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of Earth. As such these have no bearing on observed physical data of earth's orbit.

3. Local changes in earth's physical properties, say-redistribution of mass, certainly will affect and modulate observed orbital data. But Precession will not vanish all together in a short period of time.

4. Am I correct in assuming that Effect of precession on lunar equations and eclipses is expected to be minimal as lunar cycle is around 29 days and eclipses are still shorter, a few hours as compared with 26000 years cycle.

5. Per Mr. Nilesh's theory, Surya Sidhanta is estimated to be as old as 14500 BCE. With his Rama-Ravana Yudh date of 12000 BCE, it is highly unlikely that Veda Vyasa during his date of 5500 BCE would not be aware of phenomenon of precession of 26000 years but aware of a short cycle of 7200 years consisting of forward and backward motion of the equinoxes.

6. How would you react to Mr. Nilesh's assertion that due to precessional motion of the Earth, for about every 2000 years the seasons shift by 1 lunar month. Consequently, compared to our times, seasons during his proposed Rama's times would be about 7 months behind. Based on Shaloka in Valmiki Ramayana spoken by Lakshmana and Angada.

7. My thinking is that at the first cut, Mr Nilesh's proposed theory of AV observation appears convincing which gives a very broad outer limits for the occurrence of MB war, i.e., 11000 to 4500 BCE. The date is narrowed down further on the basis of other observations mentioned in the epic.
Similarly for Rama-Ravana Yudh happening before 11000 BC, as AV phenomenon is not mentioned as observation in Valmiki's Ramayana.

8. In your video, the AV observation is depicted to be occurring more than once everyday. This is not clearly understood. As per my understanding, in 24 hours any star would cross the local meridian visually once only.

Thank you very much for your kind patience.

Best Regards.

Jayasree Saranathan said...



My replies point-wise.

1. 1st sentence correct. 2nd & 3rd sentence not correct. 3rd sentence not so.

2. Wrong understanding. Milankovitch's primary aim was to understand insolation on earth during different times in the past. There was no observed physical data of earth when he formulated his theory. His was totally based on olden ideas starting from Hipparchus to Newton.

3. 1st sentence is what scientists are coming to recognize. 2nd sentence shows you have not understood what I wrote in the blog as recent trends in understanding precession.

4. Absolute non-understanding of precession related science given in the links in the above blog. Precession is not counted while calculating eclipses - is what made scientists think.

26,000 year cycle becomes null and void because that is derived from the presumed gyroscopic motion of the earth. Now it is known no gyroscopic movement possible in zero gravity, so how then this 26,000 year cycle is valid?

5. Raking up 26,000 year cycle. Please understand when you say that earth cannot make gyroscopic revolution, this cycle automatically vanishes.

To know the absurdity of Oak's Surya Siddhanta date, read this blog of mine which has the relevant part excerpted from my book critiquing his Mbh date.

Vyasa and others knew 7200 year cycle. To know from when, you must watch my video on Manvantaras. This knowledge started from Cakshusha manvantara, sometime during Last Glacial Minima but before younger Dryas. Not in North India for sure which was frozen due to Ice age but in equatorial region.

Wait for my 2nd part of the series on precession wherein I have given the data recorded in the past by Indic sages. All of them around 7200 year cycle.

6. Seasons do not change in 7200 year cycle. Oak uses western tropic zodiac.He doesn't even know that it is irrelevant to Indic concept.

Watch my video critiquing that part of Oak's version that includes exposing his absurd interpretation of Lakshmana's version.

7. Nilesh Oak's work is for the ignorant and by the ignorant. Its your choice to be in perpetual ignorance or care to read my book or Mahabharata. Or atleast read this

7. There is no A-V observation. My video shows that the stars were in circumpolarity. Do you know what it means? Nilesh Oak had no idea of it when he wrote the book.
So the basic requirement is to do sky watching atleast for a year. Or just watch the A-V binary round the year to know how they appear. Simultaneously learn the latest in A-V research in science. Before all that you have to unlearn what you heard in Oak's videos. Otherwise no use, no scope to learn true science.

Thank you for reading this reply

A08 said...


Thank you for your comments full of knowledge. Showed me directions that I need to study more in the suggested subjects.

1. My attempt was to understand Mr. Nilesh's assertions vis-a-vis your comments/videos. It is his theory and it is he who has to defend it, wherever required.

2. Therefore, I wish to limit the present discussion to 26000 years-precession of equinoxes motion of the Earth only.

(a) Point number of 1. of the original post, which refers to eastward movement of Earths's axis noticed around the year 2000. This I understood and indicated in my para number 3 as perturbation to the main precession. The published paper has not indicated clearly, if they talked about precession of equinoxes or small observed perturbation on it and explained it due to melting of polar ice and consequent rise in the mean sea level.

(b) Coming back to zero gravity situation for the Earth.
Per my understanding, the day Earth experiences zero gravity, all its orbital (yearly), spin of its axis (daily) and precession of equinoxes (26000 years) motions will cease. Please believe me that it shall fly off tangentially, from its orbit around the Sun, and drift away from its path into vastness of space. This can happen only if the Sun ceases to exist.

Thank you once again and

Best Regards

Jayasree Saranathan said...



1. Nilesk Oak wont defend. None has seen his defending or debating skills. For him to debate means "I present my view, you present your view,and we agree to disagree" That's all. I have saved those tweets of him. But he will attack me because he knows my book is his nemesis. Dharma Devata knows how to deal with him.

2. 26000 year precession vanishes in the current perception of precession of the solar system and no independent precession for the earth. Better learn the emerging concepts before batting for Oak in the guise of batting for 26000 year cycle.

a. The wobble of the earth caused by three factors related to earth is found out. How could this happen if the luni-solar influence is there on the earth? Why precession is not observed in the recorded data since 1900? Why is there no precession of earth noticed with reference to any planets of the solar system and the sun? Why is it noticed only with reference to outside the solar system frame of reference? What it means then?

b. The day earth experiences zero gravity? That can happen when the sun ceases to exist? Well tell me what caused the earth in present state of spinning and location?

Watch the gyroscope in the experiment at Space station. Link given in my blog

Thank you.

A08 said...


This appears to be my last post here.

Thank you very much for your patience, reading through my statements and critically commenting upon these.

2. Mr Oak did not discover precession of equinoxes. Per Britannica it was noticed around 129 BCE

Also please see the following document from NASA about what do they think will happen to this motion after 13000 years in future.

My support for his theory ends just before he draws the straight line cutting the dotted circle, as in your video
There ends my knowledge and therefore, I am dependent on experts like you for further analysis.

a. With my limited knowledge, I am not in a position to answer any of these questions.

b. As already said, the present 3 motions are understood as mainly due to Sun's gravitational pull. Using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, representative values are:

The gravitational force between earth and its moon = 1.99e20 N

The gravitational force between earth and Sun = 3.56e22 N, which is about 179 times larger than moon's. Hence, major contributor.

The precession of equinoxes is due to above forces + in addition Earth being a non-perfect non-homogeneous sphere.

Further explanation is beyond the scope of this blog, I guess.

Perhaps refresher through Graduation level Physics problem of a 'spinning top' could help. Might have noticed children playing with लट्टू: संस्कृत्, (बंबरम Tamizh, Pambaram malayalam, Buguru kannada, Laatim baangla). Its equations of motion unravel the three motions.

Yes, I did consider the Gyroscope experiment in ESA's space station.

Not commenting on your research paper but only on the video.

Compare about 3 seconds of precessional motion of a hand crafted लट्टू of about 300 gram at the surface of earth, with that of a machine crafted/well balanced Gyroscope under zero gravity conditions.
Due to its good symmetry, precession of the Gyroscope would have very large time period. Even if it was, say for the sake of argument, 1/2 hour it would be near impossible to notice/measure that during the time interval of video.

I would infer that whatever may be the value it would be negligible/acceptable for their application(s).

PS. Regarding 7200 years cycle attributed to Surya Sidhhanta, present level of my knowledge does not allow me make any comment. ��

Thank you very much once again for a very enlightening exchange of thoughts.

Best Regards.

Jayasree Saranathan said...


To the nameless comment writer, what you need to do is to learn what recent trends say. It is obvious you have not gone through all the pages in all the links I have given in the blog and want to tow the line of Oak. For towing the line of Oak I wrote you were batting for Oak. You replied in your point 2 that Oak did not discover precession of equinoxes. Good discovery!! Oak also does such discoveries for which he is expecting Padmashree and comparison with Kepler, Newton et al.

Your next point on Nasa Image: Science had crossed that phase of thinking is what I am telling in the blog. That undated article has many factual inconsistencies. A simple cross check: Read my book to look into the location of solstice (N or S) at the time of publishing the book, i.e. in October 2019. It was 23°26′12.4" Now check the location - you can do it by browsing for Tropic of cancer or Tropic of Capricorn. It will show you 23°26′11.8″. Why this variation? Check after a year. The number would have changed from the current one, why? If you want to know why, read the chapter on equinoxes in my book. The basic reason for the variation is not recognised in that article in that link.

Next issue, the article says "Each day, our calendar is gradually 'precessing' in time by 0.008 seconds to keep up with the new locations of the equinoxes.." The article writer did not go beyond this. Let me tell what happens after say, 420 years since the present Gregorian calendar was introduced. The equinox must have shifted by 5.9 days, but in reality the equinox continues to occur on the same date. How come? When some scientists started asking this question, the first realization dawned on them that the earth is not precessing. These are there in the links and many articles and videos are there in the public domain. Without reading the links, why asking here?

Well, I explain this anyway.

Imagine you are sitting in a train next to the window. Imagine the window is the equinox (where you spot the sun) and yourself the earth. Imagine there are a row of houses outside which can be compared with the stars in the backdrop. When the train is moving you are seeing one house after another vanishing / moving behind the window. What causes the movement? Reply is both you (earth) and the window (sun) together are crossing the houses. There is no change in the line of alignment between you and the window, but both of you as a single unit have moved with reference to the house.

Similarly the earth and sun are together moving past the background star. The entire unit (train in the example) is passing the houses and not that you are passing. Suppose you alone are gradually moving (precessing) there will be gap between you and the window which is measurable.In the same way if the earth alone had moved (by precession) there will be a gap between the first point (when your were next to the window) and the present point. That works out to 5.9 days in 420 years. But that is not detected at all is the point.

It all involves thinking, not just reading what is written.Now the scientists have started thinking upon noticing absence of change in the dates. This makes your points a and b and top example irrelevant.


Jayasree Saranathan said...

You mentioned my video. The dotted circle given by Oak is plan view from far, far above the earth which no man can see or visualise. It is absurd to project that view. Research starts from basics. A-V was seen from the ground. That dotted circle view can not give the view on the ground. Look at google earth at your street from horizontal and from above. What is seen from above can not be seen in horizontal view. What is seen at the horizontal is not the same as what is seen from above.

On gyroscope: You don't seem to understand. Any gyroscope on earth will behave like a gyroscope because it is under gravity of the earth. Outside the earth there is zero gravity in space. Do you know satellites use gyroscopes filled with mercury to correct the drift of the satellites? Why?

Your PS:
This is the main issue.
I believe you are an Indian. Like many you are not aware of the science of precession given by Indic sages. A researcher into Itihasa where his research involves precession, must have learned the Indic concept before going further in his research. What Nilesh Oak and the whole of lot of other researchers do?

I am pointing out the existence of the Indic version of precession, but you are not able to learn or accept the Indic version. Why?

A08 said...


I am returning here for discussions on PS, left unanswered due to my lack of knowledge.

I have based 7,200 years, Lolaka type, motion of first point of Aries, as the stepping stone of my Research paper.

Sorry, I could not accept 7,200 years as period of precession of Earth's axis.

I have a theory, which shows 24,000 years as period of precession of Earth's axis and indicates it to be having an elliptical path, as internal evidence in SS.

Theory is based on 7,200 years cycle and therefore there is no change in per year ayanamsha rate.

The theory also fixes, the difficulty faced by Rev. Burgess and other Scholars in assigning the correct direction for this ayanamsha.

The proposed theoretical paper needs to be validated with help of experimental/observational data. This part is beyond my reach, at least in the current life-span.

Yes, I am an Indian and wish to uphold our Parampara, Vedic knowledge and prove to the world that Indian Knowledge imparted by Rushis is much older than the modern knowledge.

Best Regards

A08 said...


This is with respect to your enlightening reply of 26 August 2020. Partly I have already addressed in my limited way. Now for the rest.

You did explain many things to me but I could not comprehend due to my limited exposure in the field.

Once again, I like to touch upon my understanding of your videos and Mr Oak's videos from layman's perspective.

1. Both of you are experts in respective fields.
2. Both schools of thought are equally valid, unless proven otherwise and decided amongst experts.
3. Vedic School is the most respected school amongst all others. In my limited perception SS, is as open to corrections as is Western school, because it recognizes limitations of initial theory.
4. Mr Oak has stated his theory, which I would like to call Hypothesis at this stage. It is first approximation like first chapter of SS. Personally, I applaud his beginning.
5. On the basis of his hypothesis, he calculated some dates. He used Softwares while calculating these dates. Thereafter, made a claim that his calculated dates are correct and should be accepted. No one seems to have asked him what is the accuracy of his claimed dates. In one of the videos he has mentioned that it is +, - 1000 years. In another he appears to be casually stating +, - 2000 years.
6. I saw the issue as broken in three parts.
(a) Whether his hypothesis is on sound footing?
(b) Whether his inference, prediction of MB date, is correct?
(c) Whether his prediction of RR Yudh is correct?
7. With ongoing debates in the Social Media, I found in my perception, that (a) appears OK to all. (b) is the most contentious and not acceptable to majority experts. For (c) I did not find any debates from other RR Yudh researchers. Therefore, thought that (c) could be accepted subject to approval by experts.
8. That's why I approached an expert here to clear my doubts regarding Mr Oak's procedure, especially RR Yudh. And you had very kindly clarified my doubts with your expert opinion.

Thank you so much for your kind patience and understanding.

Best Regards.

Unknown said...

Smt. Jayasree,

Any chance you have read the works of this author and assimilated into your research analysis that were examined in relation to dates of events falling in BCE era?

His view is Buddha attained Nirvana some 1300 before 483 BCE!


Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Sri Thandri,

Less said the better.

To test some, browse my blog for his name to get my rebuttal of his paper.
Check my tweets of last month where I interacted with him showing the defects in one of his works.

As far as the link you have given,

1. Mahaveera as contemporary elder of Buddha must be convincingly resolved before claiming that Buddha lived centuries before Mahavira. I was given inputs from Kappa Sutta to fix the date, but found the inputs wanting. They said (Jain Muni)they would search more. Such being the reality I don't find merit in the claims.

2. There are a dozen claims on Buddha's date even before the colonials came. Cross referential inputs are less.

3.After Kali yuga, the concept of Shaka is the 2nd highest abused concept. Horrible.

Lot more which I am fed up writing here.

Back to the first line above.

A08 said...


सत्यं वद धर्मं चर

This would be my last post here and elsewhere on this subject.
This is in continuation of my previous post of September 15, 2020.
As a student of Indic thought and Vedic Astronomy, I am stuck now. How do I explain the following to myself, with special reference to of original post above.

1. Lahiri's Ayanmsha, Raman Ayanamsha, Yukteshwara ayanamsha etc., all are based on 25900 years of cycles of precession of earth's axis, in contravention to Indic thought of 7200 years of cycle. All Astrologers happily use one or any other similar ayanamsha calculators. These are based on start date ranging between 285 CE to 499 CE!

2. In light of above how do I explain to myself start date of Modern Kali Yuga?

3. Once we propound/quote new theories as mentioned in the main post, under point 3; we must also explain ancient observations, like mentioned in SS, Sutra 9 of chapter Triprashnadhikara. Moreover, this Binary theory not only assumes presence of a binary star, similar to Sun in our solar system, (yet to be established) but predicts 24,000 years for mean cycle of precession of the Earth's axis. Which is not supported by Indic thought.

Best regards