Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

Karl Palmen

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

I’m replying only to new points not previously discussed.

 

Brij refers to a “Harappa Tithi”  of 1 335/326919 days. This would produce a very short lunar month of about 29.53023845 days, which is about 19/235 tropical year. Why does Brij choose such a complicated fraction?

I think it is because 326919 is the number of tithis in 11082 lunar months. The number of days in these 11082 lunar months using the “Harappa tithi” is three days less than 896 years of 365.2421875 days.

 

While I may believe Harappa people used a tithi of 2/59 of a lunar month. I don’t believe they ever used an 896-year cycle nor an 11082-month cycle. One reason I  don’t believe this is because the tropical year was longer in Harappa days than it is now.

 

If the Harappa people used both a tithi of 2/59 lunar months and the 19-year cycle then they’d have 365 – 5/38 tithis in a mean year.  However if they were to use tithis of 1/30 lunar months and the 19-year cycle they’d have 371 + 1/19 tithis in a mean year, which is a simpler fraction.

 

Another simpler fraction is 365 – 3/22, which with the tithi of 2/59 day gives the 649-year cycle, which is accurate today, but not so accurate in Harappa days, but still then more accurate than the 19-year cycle.

 

Karl

 

16(08(14

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 07 April 2017 22:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: Jumbled jig-saw Re: Confusion Re: Patterns Re: Short & simple Re: (235+6Adhika) Re: ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

>as the Old Lufkan cycle, >because it was used in an old >version of fictional Lufkan >calendar. 

I thought of changing the 'thread'  but it seems. I have some difficulty with my iPhone- not being conversant still in handling. My not choosing your suggested 'Tithi' durations was from two reasons: (1) Your desire of a simple definition of this complicated number; and (2) my linking Harappa Tithi, as I expect, known to Indus people with 29 1/2 (29.5 markings) tithi AND not Days - popularly announced! 

I recall having sent you "a .pdf" file of Fairsetvis' Harappan Lunar Calendar, from E.J.H. Mackay 'Further Excavations at Mohdnjo-Daro (Delhi 1938), Plate CXLIII' observations; along with some of my calculations! Further, while in Delhi I had some exchange of information, I had shown my contributions since mid-70's to Prof. Romila Thapar, last year. I reproduce my calculation of 19-years:

1 335/326919 day x 6932.5 Tithi divide 365.242189669781 =19.00000618327503 years! 

My value 1 338/326919 equally good for this and EXACTLY fit 896-years cycle. Adding one Tithi make my calculation getting Mean Lunation= 29d 12h 44m 2s.9887

>Brij has suggested a Vij tithi 

>value of 1 338/326919 days,

>which gives 11082 lunar

>months to 896 years. I have

>suggested 1 339/326918

>days, which gives one less 

>tithi to the 896-year cycle

>and so makes it more

>accurate.

Karl's accuracy is for 'a day extra' i.e. 1 339/326918 x 326919 Tithi=[337258 days (896-years+1day)]; while my Tithi is worked for 'exactly 896-years' and the EXTRA Tithi/day is for the self compensation of "absorbed moon" over 29 cycles, [1 338/326919 x 326919=327257 days or 896-years], also discussed earlier!

My exactness for 19-year cycle is due to my adjustment of Harappa Tithi (if used with (1 335/326819 day), sir! 

As for other variants, I shall leave it to the judgement/ acceptable accuracy of astronomers, without reference to Hindu thought/Tithi values used in Hindu panchangs. 

My regards, 

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Caldndar

Friday, 2017 April 07H14:19 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Karl, list sirs:

>Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to >the 334-year cycle tallies for both years >and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

>I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle >of 11082 months is about one day or tithi >out. This is because too many 19-year >cycles have been added to the 334-year >cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

I thank you, Karl for reconciling with my calculations pointing to my (2x448)-years/11082 moons falling short by 1-Tithi/day to get right Mean Year & Mean Lunation for desired, discussed earlier also.

I recall some discussion about 3712-years cycle of 29*128-year cycle; and my calculations of 29 cycles of 896-years taking care of 'Absorbed/Extra moon' in arriving at my results, we talked.

Hindu calendar may adopt/verify my calculations; or the combination of several other 'permutations'. But You may possibly agree to credit my 448-years/5541-Lunation to be "yet another lunisolar cycle" linked to my aimed calculations for approaching current Astronomers' Aversge MY & ML values, approaching Harappa/my calculated Tithi of 1 338/ 326919 day, sir. The value is simple: One Tithi=No.of days in 896-yrs/No. of Tithi in (11082x29 1/2) moons; also

pointing to 'exactness of 19-year cycle' known to ancient Indus people! I thank you again, sir!

Regards,

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ

Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar 

Thursday, 2017 April 06H09:14 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to the 334-year cycle tallies for both years and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle of 11082 months is about one day or tithi out. This is because too many 19-year cycles have been added to the 334-year cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Evaluation of Tithi 896-years Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Karl, list sirs:
Yesterday we had Full Pink Moon, and incidentally my birth date (Friday, 1936 April 10). I took little easy, although I had to reconcile with my earlier presented calculations of 'around 2014 September 25 through October 02). So I had to rework my calculations.
image1.JPG
   The point I intend stressing is that my 19-year calculations 1 335/326919 day is for the 19-year cycle, I presumed to belong to Indus people, in the absence of any deciphered script & my presented format on removing 13th date of every month from Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar. 
1 335/326919 day x 6932 1/2 Tithi 6939.60 3862118751 days /365.242189669781= 19.00000618327523 years. I said "this value" of Tithi could ALSO be used for my 896-years cycle - perfection of what in 327257 days/11082 Lunation could be got by my refined Tithi value of 1 338/326919 day=1.001033895246223 day an EXACT fit for 327257 days. An extra Tithi/day when added makes for 11082 moons resulting in Mean Lunation=29.530590146183 days or 29d 12h 44m 2s.98863; as against the current Lunation of 29.53058886 days (or 29d 12h 44m 2s.8875).
This may be seen that Richard Fiedler's observed value for Hebrew calendar is 29d 12h 44m 3s 1/3(1/18 minute) stands at 29.53059413580247 days!
     "Your attempt to provide me the alternate Tithi" duration of 1 339/336918 day is close TO MY CALCULTION, BUT, slightly over 896-years to result in 29d 12h 44m 2s.996715 i.e. 29.5305902397544
days. Naturally, my option remained firm bacause of TWO reasons; (1) my value reported is closer to actual; & (2) my value is based on the EASY definition for Tithi as: No.of days in 896-years/No.of Tithi in 11082 moons! Thus, movement of SUN is slightly advanced by 23 1/3 minute in 448-years/ 5541 moons (see central portion of my hand calculations along with). As you are aware, I have accommodated {(334+6*19)=448-years/5541-moons using (4131+1410)=5541 moons. 
It is my opinion that in the absence of any documentation as yet deciphered, THIS advanced civilisation now being observed as INDO-Saraswati basin in the areas of British (pre-partitioned) India upto around the borders of Afghanistan,  had their expertise far ahead of present day technology, to possibly eliminate the existence of such a civilisation!
I recall having advance my calculation for using 1 335/326919 day Tithi, by 3 'added Tithi/days' to use 19-year cycle, now known and credited to Metonic Cycle.
I assume, my evaluation of 896-year Tithi make this UNIQUE lunisolar cycle to give Mean Year=365.2421875 days; and bettering the records for Mean Lunation, as supported above and the provided photo of "compared Tithi values"!
Regards,
Brij Bhushsn metric VIJ, Author
Brij-Gregorian Modified Calendar 
Tuesday, 2017 April 11H16:46 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

I’m replying only to new points not previously discussed.

 

Brij refers to a “Harappa Tithi”  of 1 335/326919 days. This would produce a very short lunar month of about 29.53023845 days, which is about 19/235 tropical year. Why does Brij choose such a complicated fraction?

I think it is because 326919 is the number of tithis in 11082 lunar months. The number of days in these 11082 lunar months using the “Harappa tithi” is three days less than 896 years of 365.2421875 days.

 

While I may believe Harappa people used a tithi of 2/59 of a lunar month. I don’t believe they ever used an 896-year cycle nor an 11082-month cycle. One reason I  don’t believe this is because the tropical year was longer in Harappa days than it is now.

 

If the Harappa people used both a tithi of 2/59 lunar months and the 19-year cycle then they’d have 365 – 5/38 tithis in a mean year.  However if they were to use tithis of 1/30 lunar months and the 19-year cycle they’d have 371 + 1/19 tithis in a mean year, which is a simpler fraction.

 

Another simpler fraction is 365 – 3/22, which with the tithi of 2/59 day gives the 649-year cycle, which is accurate today, but not so accurate in Harappa days, but still then more accurate than the 19-year cycle.

 

Karl

 

16(08(14

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 07 April 2017 22:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: Jumbled jig-saw Re: Confusion Re: Patterns Re: Short & simple Re: (235+6Adhika) Re: ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

>as the Old Lufkan cycle, >because it was used in an old >version of fictional Lufkan >calendar. 

I thought of changing the 'thread'  but it seems. I have some difficulty with my iPhone- not being conversant still in handling. My not choosing your suggested 'Tithi' durations was from two reasons: (1) Your desire of a simple definition of this complicated number; and (2) my linking Harappa Tithi, as I expect, known to Indus people with 29 1/2 (29.5 markings) tithi AND not Days - popularly announced! 

I recall having sent you "a .pdf" file of Fairsetvis' Harappan Lunar Calendar, from E.J.H. Mackay 'Further Excavations at Mohdnjo-Daro (Delhi 1938), Plate CXLIII' observations; along with some of my calculations! Further, while in Delhi I had some exchange of information, I had shown my contributions since mid-70's to Prof. Romila Thapar, last year. I reproduce my calculation of 19-years:

1 335/326919 day x 6932.5 Tithi divide 365.242189669781 =19.00000618327503 years! 

My value 1 338/326919 equally good for this and EXACTLY fit 896-years cycle. Adding one Tithi make my calculation getting Mean Lunation= 29d 12h 44m 2s.9887

>Brij has suggested a Vij tithi 

>value of 1 338/326919 days,

>which gives 11082 lunar

>months to 896 years. I have

>suggested 1 339/326918

>days, which gives one less 

>tithi to the 896-year cycle

>and so makes it more

>accurate.

Karl's accuracy is for 'a day extra' i.e. 1 339/326918 x 326919 Tithi=[337258 days (896-years+1day)]; while my Tithi is worked for 'exactly 896-years' and the EXTRA Tithi/day is for the self compensation of "absorbed moon" over 29 cycles, [1 338/326919 x 326919=327257 days or 896-years], also discussed earlier!

My exactness for 19-year cycle is due to my adjustment of Harappa Tithi (if used with (1 335/326819 day), sir! 

As for other variants, I shall leave it to the judgement/ acceptable accuracy of astronomers, without reference to Hindu thought/Tithi values used in Hindu panchangs. 

My regards, 

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Caldndar

Friday, 2017 April 07H14:19 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Karl, list sirs:

>Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to >the 334-year cycle tallies for both years >and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

>I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle >of 11082 months is about one day or tithi >out. This is because too many 19-year >cycles have been added to the 334-year >cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

I thank you, Karl for reconciling with my calculations pointing to my (2x448)-years/11082 moons falling short by 1-Tithi/day to get right Mean Year & Mean Lunation for desired, discussed earlier also.

I recall some discussion about 3712-years cycle of 29*128-year cycle; and my calculations of 29 cycles of 896-years taking care of 'Absorbed/Extra moon' in arriving at my results, we talked.

Hindu calendar may adopt/verify my calculations; or the combination of several other 'permutations'. But You may possibly agree to credit my 448-years/5541-Lunation to be "yet another lunisolar cycle" linked to my aimed calculations for approaching current Astronomers' Aversge MY & ML values, approaching Harappa/my calculated Tithi of 1 338/ 326919 day, sir. The value is simple: One Tithi=No.of days in 896-yrs/No. of Tithi in (11082x29 1/2) moons; also

pointing to 'exactness of 19-year cycle' known to ancient Indus people! I thank you again, sir!

Regards,

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ

Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar 

Thursday, 2017 April 06H09:14 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to the 334-year cycle tallies for both years and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle of 11082 months is about one day or tithi out. This is because too many 19-year cycles have been added to the 334-year cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evaluation of Tithi 896-years Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

Karl Palmen

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

Thank you Brij for the picture of your calculations and explanations. It shows that his “Harappa tithi” gives 3 fewer days to 11082 lunar months than there are in one 896-year cycle (of 327257 days).

 

I can see why he rejects my suggested tithi value of 1 339/326918 days. Brij calculates the number of days in 326919 tithis, which for tithis of 2/59 month is 11082 months and my proposed tithi does not result in a whole number.

 

I suggest calculating the number of tithis in one 896-year cycle of 327257 days. Then one would get a whole number for my suggestion.

I think it would be convenient to have a whole number of tithi in one 896-year cycle and that is why I suggested 1 339/326918 days.

 

If Brij really thinks it is important to have a whole number of days in 326919 tithis, then I’d suggest 1 339/326919 days, which has almost the same duration.

 

 

Karl

 

16(08(16

 

 

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 12 April 2017 00:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Evaluation of Tithi 896-years Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

Yesterday we had Full Pink Moon, and incidentally my birth date (Friday, 1936 April 10). I took little easy, although I had to reconcile with my earlier presented calculations of 'around 2014 September 25 through October 02). So I had to rework my calculations.

image1.JPG

   The point I intend stressing is that my 19-year calculations 1 335/326919 day is for the 19-year cycle, I presumed to belong to Indus people, in the absence of any deciphered script & my presented format on removing 13th date of every month from Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar. 

1 335/326919 day x 6932 1/2 Tithi 6939.60 3862118751 days /365.242189669781= 19.00000618327523 years. I said "this value" of Tithi could ALSO be used for my 896-years cycle - perfection of what in 327257 days/11082 Lunation could be got by my refined Tithi value of 1 338/326919 day=1.001033895246223 day an EXACT fit for 327257 days. An extra Tithi/day when added makes for 11082 moons resulting in Mean Lunation=29.530590146183 days or 29d 12h 44m 2s.98863; as against the current Lunation of 29.53058886 days (or 29d 12h 44m 2s.8875).

This may be seen that Richard Fiedler's observed value for Hebrew calendar is 29d 12h 44m 3s 1/3(1/18 minute) stands at 29.53059413580247 days!

     "Your attempt to provide me the alternate Tithi" duration of 1 339/336918 day is close TO MY CALCULTION, BUT, slightly over 896-years to result in 29d 12h 44m 2s.996715 i.e. 29.5305902397544

days. Naturally, my option remained firm bacause of TWO reasons; (1) my value reported is closer to actual; & (2) my value is based on the EASY definition for Tithi as: No.of days in 896-years/No.of Tithi in 11082 moons! Thus, movement of SUN is slightly advanced by 23 1/3 minute in 448-years/ 5541 moons (see central portion of my hand calculations along with). As you are aware, I have accommodated {(334+6*19)=448-years/5541-moons using (4131+1410)=5541 moons. 

It is my opinion that in the absence of any documentation as yet deciphered, THIS advanced civilisation now being observed as INDO-Saraswati basin in the areas of British (pre-partitioned) India upto around the borders of Afghanistan,  had their expertise far ahead of present day technology, to possibly eliminate the existence of such a civilisation!

I recall having advance my calculation for using 1 335/326919 day Tithi, by 3 'added Tithi/days' to use 19-year cycle, now known and credited to Metonic Cycle.

I assume, my evaluation of 896-year Tithi make this UNIQUE lunisolar cycle to give Mean Year=365.2421875 days; and bettering the records for Mean Lunation, as supported above and the provided photo of "compared Tithi values"!

Regards,

Brij Bhushsn metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Calendar 

Tuesday, 2017 April 11H16:46 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

I’m replying only to new points not previously discussed.

 

Brij refers to a “Harappa Tithi”  of 1 335/326919 days. This would produce a very short lunar month of about 29.53023845 days, which is about 19/235 tropical year. Why does Brij choose such a complicated fraction?

I think it is because 326919 is the number of tithis in 11082 lunar months. The number of days in these 11082 lunar months using the “Harappa tithi” is three days less than 896 years of 365.2421875 days.

 

While I may believe Harappa people used a tithi of 2/59 of a lunar month. I don’t believe they ever used an 896-year cycle nor an 11082-month cycle. One reason I  don’t believe this is because the tropical year was longer in Harappa days than it is now.

 

If the Harappa people used both a tithi of 2/59 lunar months and the 19-year cycle then they’d have 365 – 5/38 tithis in a mean year.  However if they were to use tithis of 1/30 lunar months and the 19-year cycle they’d have 371 + 1/19 tithis in a mean year, which is a simpler fraction.

 

Another simpler fraction is 365 – 3/22, which with the tithi of 2/59 day gives the 649-year cycle, which is accurate today, but not so accurate in Harappa days, but still then more accurate than the 19-year cycle.

 

Karl

 

16(08(14

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 07 April 2017 22:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: Jumbled jig-saw Re: Confusion Re: Patterns Re: Short & simple Re: (235+6Adhika) Re: ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

>as the Old Lufkan cycle, >because it was used in an old >version of fictional Lufkan >calendar. 

I thought of changing the 'thread'  but it seems. I have some difficulty with my iPhone- not being conversant still in handling. My not choosing your suggested 'Tithi' durations was from two reasons: (1) Your desire of a simple definition of this complicated number; and (2) my linking Harappa Tithi, as I expect, known to Indus people with 29 1/2 (29.5 markings) tithi AND not Days - popularly announced! 

I recall having sent you "a .pdf" file of Fairsetvis' Harappan Lunar Calendar, from E.J.H. Mackay 'Further Excavations at Mohdnjo-Daro (Delhi 1938), Plate CXLIII' observations; along with some of my calculations! Further, while in Delhi I had some exchange of information, I had shown my contributions since mid-70's to Prof. Romila Thapar, last year. I reproduce my calculation of 19-years:

1 335/326919 day x 6932.5 Tithi divide 365.242189669781 =19.00000618327503 years! 

My value 1 338/326919 equally good for this and EXACTLY fit 896-years cycle. Adding one Tithi make my calculation getting Mean Lunation= 29d 12h 44m 2s.9887

>Brij has suggested a Vij tithi 

>value of 1 338/326919 days,

>which gives 11082 lunar

>months to 896 years. I have

>suggested 1 339/326918

>days, which gives one less 

>tithi to the 896-year cycle

>and so makes it more

>accurate.

Karl's accuracy is for 'a day extra' i.e. 1 339/326918 x 326919 Tithi=[337258 days (896-years+1day)]; while my Tithi is worked for 'exactly 896-years' and the EXTRA Tithi/day is for the self compensation of "absorbed moon" over 29 cycles, [1 338/326919 x 326919=327257 days or 896-years], also discussed earlier!

My exactness for 19-year cycle is due to my adjustment of Harappa Tithi (if used with (1 335/326819 day), sir! 

As for other variants, I shall leave it to the judgement/ acceptable accuracy of astronomers, without reference to Hindu thought/Tithi values used in Hindu panchangs. 

My regards, 

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Caldndar

Friday, 2017 April 07H14:19 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Karl, list sirs:

>Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to >the 334-year cycle tallies for both years >and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

>I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle >of 11082 months is about one day or tithi >out. This is because too many 19-year >cycles have been added to the 334-year >cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

I thank you, Karl for reconciling with my calculations pointing to my (2x448)-years/11082 moons falling short by 1-Tithi/day to get right Mean Year & Mean Lunation for desired, discussed earlier also.

I recall some discussion about 3712-years cycle of 29*128-year cycle; and my calculations of 29 cycles of 896-years taking care of 'Absorbed/Extra moon' in arriving at my results, we talked.

Hindu calendar may adopt/verify my calculations; or the combination of several other 'permutations'. But You may possibly agree to credit my 448-years/5541-Lunation to be "yet another lunisolar cycle" linked to my aimed calculations for approaching current Astronomers' Aversge MY & ML values, approaching Harappa/my calculated Tithi of 1 338/ 326919 day, sir. The value is simple: One Tithi=No.of days in 896-yrs/No. of Tithi in (11082x29 1/2) moons; also

pointing to 'exactness of 19-year cycle' known to ancient Indus people! I thank you again, sir!

Regards,

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ

Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar 

Thursday, 2017 April 06H09:14 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to the 334-year cycle tallies for both years and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle of 11082 months is about one day or tithi out. This is because too many 19-year cycles have been added to the 334-year cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Invention Re: Evaluation of Tithi 896-years Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Dear Karl, sir:
I know, this Tithi of 1 339/326919 day works to (896-years+1 day) without any gain; and also not fulfilling the simple definition for Tithi in my 896-year - lunisolar - cycle.
ONE TITHI= No.of days in 896-years/No.of Tithi in 11082 moons [11082x29 1/2=326919 tithi].
You may agree that 'this cycle' is my invention, as discussed. Thanks & regards for 'twisting my minds' response, sir!
It may be your support for Indo-American friendship, to accept this cycle for the Reform of my Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar, if it has to happen!
Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Wednesday, 2017 April 12H06:61 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

Thank you Brij for the picture of your calculations and explanations. It shows that his “Harappa tithi” gives 3 fewer days to 11082 lunar months than there are in one 896-year cycle (of 327257 days).

 

I can see why he rejects my suggested tithi value of 1 339/326918 days. Brij calculates the number of days in 326919 tithis, which for tithis of 2/59 month is 11082 months and my proposed tithi does not result in a whole number.

 

I suggest calculating the number of tithis in one 896-year cycle of 327257 days. Then one would get a whole number for my suggestion.

I think it would be convenient to have a whole number of tithi in one 896-year cycle and that is why I suggested 1 339/326918 days.

 

If Brij really thinks it is important to have a whole number of days in 326919 tithis, then I’d suggest 1 339/326919 days, which has almost the same duration.

 

 

Karl

 

16(08(16

 

 

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 12 April 2017 00:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Evaluation of Tithi 896-years Re: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: : ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

Yesterday we had Full Pink Moon, and incidentally my birth date (Friday, 1936 April 10). I took little easy, although I had to reconcile with my earlier presented calculations of 'around 2014 September 25 through October 02). So I had to rework my calculations.

<image001.jpg>

   The point I intend stressing is that my 19-year calculations 1 335/326919 day is for the 19-year cycle, I presumed to belong to Indus people, in the absence of any deciphered script & my presented format on removing 13th date of every month from Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar. 

1 335/326919 day x 6932 1/2 Tithi 6939.60 3862118751 days /365.242189669781= 19.00000618327523 years. I said "this value" of Tithi could ALSO be used for my 896-years cycle - perfection of what in 327257 days/11082 Lunation could be got by my refined Tithi value of 1 338/326919 day=1.001033895246223 day an EXACT fit for 327257 days. An extra Tithi/day when added makes for 11082 moons resulting in Mean Lunation=29.530590146183 days or 29d 12h 44m 2s.98863; as against the current Lunation of 29.53058886 days (or 29d 12h 44m 2s.8875).

This may be seen that Richard Fiedler's observed value for Hebrew calendar is 29d 12h 44m 3s 1/3(1/18 minute) stands at 29.53059413580247 days!

     "Your attempt to provide me the alternate Tithi" duration of 1 339/336918 day is close TO MY CALCULTION, BUT, slightly over 896-years to result in 29d 12h 44m 2s.996715 i.e. 29.5305902397544

days. Naturally, my option remained firm bacause of TWO reasons; (1) my value reported is closer to actual; & (2) my value is based on the EASY definition for Tithi as: No.of days in 896-years/No.of Tithi in 11082 moons! Thus, movement of SUN is slightly advanced by 23 1/3 minute in 448-years/ 5541 moons (see central portion of my hand calculations along with). As you are aware, I have accommodated {(334+6*19)=448-years/5541-moons using (4131+1410)=5541 moons. 

It is my opinion that in the absence of any documentation as yet deciphered, THIS advanced civilisation now being observed as INDO-Saraswati basin in the areas of British (pre-partitioned) India upto around the borders of Afghanistan,  had their expertise far ahead of present day technology, to possibly eliminate the existence of such a civilisation!

I recall having advance my calculation for using 1 335/326919 day Tithi, by 3 'added Tithi/days' to use 19-year cycle, now known and credited to Metonic Cycle.

I assume, my evaluation of 896-year Tithi make this UNIQUE lunisolar cycle to give Mean Year=365.2421875 days; and bettering the records for Mean Lunation, as supported above and the provided photo of "compared Tithi values"!

Regards,

Brij Bhushsn metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Calendar 

Tuesday, 2017 April 11H16:46 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij and Calendar People

 

I’m replying only to new points not previously discussed.

 

Brij refers to a “Harappa Tithi”  of 1 335/326919 days. This would produce a very short lunar month of about 29.53023845 days, which is about 19/235 tropical year. Why does Brij choose such a complicated fraction?

I think it is because 326919 is the number of tithis in 11082 lunar months. The number of days in these 11082 lunar months using the “Harappa tithi” is three days less than 896 years of 365.2421875 days.

 

While I may believe Harappa people used a tithi of 2/59 of a lunar month. I don’t believe they ever used an 896-year cycle nor an 11082-month cycle. One reason I  don’t believe this is because the tropical year was longer in Harappa days than it is now.

 

If the Harappa people used both a tithi of 2/59 lunar months and the 19-year cycle then they’d have 365 – 5/38 tithis in a mean year.  However if they were to use tithis of 1/30 lunar months and the 19-year cycle they’d have 371 + 1/19 tithis in a mean year, which is a simpler fraction.

 

Another simpler fraction is 365 – 3/22, which with the tithi of 2/59 day gives the 649-year cycle, which is accurate today, but not so accurate in Harappa days, but still then more accurate than the 19-year cycle.

 

Karl

 

16(08(14

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 07 April 2017 22:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 19-year cycle & 896-years Re: Harappa Astronomy Re: 448-yrs/5541 moons Re: Jumbled jig-saw Re: Confusion Re: Patterns Re: Short & simple Re: (235+6Adhika) Re: ...

 

Karl, list sirs:

>as the Old Lufkan cycle, >because it was used in an old >version of fictional Lufkan >calendar. 

I thought of changing the 'thread'  but it seems. I have some difficulty with my iPhone- not being conversant still in handling. My not choosing your suggested 'Tithi' durations was from two reasons: (1) Your desire of a simple definition of this complicated number; and (2) my linking Harappa Tithi, as I expect, known to Indus people with 29 1/2 (29.5 markings) tithi AND not Days - popularly announced! 

I recall having sent you "a .pdf" file of Fairsetvis' Harappan Lunar Calendar, from E.J.H. Mackay 'Further Excavations at Mohdnjo-Daro (Delhi 1938), Plate CXLIII' observations; along with some of my calculations! Further, while in Delhi I had some exchange of information, I had shown my contributions since mid-70's to Prof. Romila Thapar, last year. I reproduce my calculation of 19-years:

1 335/326919 day x 6932.5 Tithi divide 365.242189669781 =19.00000618327503 years! 

My value 1 338/326919 equally good for this and EXACTLY fit 896-years cycle. Adding one Tithi make my calculation getting Mean Lunation= 29d 12h 44m 2s.9887

>Brij has suggested a Vij tithi 

>value of 1 338/326919 days,

>which gives 11082 lunar

>months to 896 years. I have

>suggested 1 339/326918

>days, which gives one less 

>tithi to the 896-year cycle

>and so makes it more

>accurate.

Karl's accuracy is for 'a day extra' i.e. 1 339/326918 x 326919 Tithi=[337258 days (896-years+1day)]; while my Tithi is worked for 'exactly 896-years' and the EXTRA Tithi/day is for the self compensation of "absorbed moon" over 29 cycles, [1 338/326919 x 326919=327257 days or 896-years], also discussed earlier!

My exactness for 19-year cycle is due to my adjustment of Harappa Tithi (if used with (1 335/326819 day), sir! 

As for other variants, I shall leave it to the judgement/ acceptable accuracy of astronomers, without reference to Hindu thought/Tithi values used in Hindu panchangs. 

My regards, 

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ, Author

Brij-Gregorian Modified Caldndar

Friday, 2017 April 07H14:19 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Karl, list sirs:

>Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to >the 334-year cycle tallies for both years >and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

>I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle >of 11082 months is about one day or tithi >out. This is because too many 19-year >cycles have been added to the 334-year >cycles to form the 448-year cycle.

I thank you, Karl for reconciling with my calculations pointing to my (2x448)-years/11082 moons falling short by 1-Tithi/day to get right Mean Year & Mean Lunation for desired, discussed earlier also.

I recall some discussion about 3712-years cycle of 29*128-year cycle; and my calculations of 29 cycles of 896-years taking care of 'Absorbed/Extra moon' in arriving at my results, we talked.

Hindu calendar may adopt/verify my calculations; or the combination of several other 'permutations'. But You may possibly agree to credit my 448-years/5541-Lunation to be "yet another lunisolar cycle" linked to my aimed calculations for approaching current Astronomers' Aversge MY & ML values, approaching Harappa/my calculated Tithi of 1 338/ 326919 day, sir. The value is simple: One Tithi=No.of days in 896-yrs/No. of Tithi in (11082x29 1/2) moons; also

pointing to 'exactness of 19-year cycle' known to ancient Indus people! I thank you again, sir!

Regards,

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ

Brij-Gregorian Modified calendar 

Thursday, 2017 April 06H09:14 (decimal)

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Brij’s addition of the six 19-year cycle to the 334-year cycle tallies for both years and moons as shown in his calculation.

 

I have pointed out that the 896-year cycle of 11082 months is about one day or tithi out. This is because too many 19-year cycles have been added to the 334-year cycles to form the 448-year cycle.


image001.jpg (937K) Download Attachment
Loading...