Nabble - Calndr-L

Re: ALIGNMENT RE: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:

2009-11-11T08:08:21Z

Dear Brij and Calendar People

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
Sent: 10 November 2009 18:25
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: ALIGNMENT RE: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:

Karl, sir:
>I think Brij has made a few errors.
>I could not see any connection between the above example and the 1730-year cycle, but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis, it became >evident that EIGHT corrections are done every 1730 years (one every 216.25 years). This suggests:

>78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 552313^th'tithi', from

>865^th 1730^th 2595^th 3460^th 4325^th 5190^th 6055^thquarter year

The errors 'pointed' appear because of *ROUNDING or TRUNCATING* 7-corrections (not removing) - ONCE every

78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from
2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation.

78902^nd 157804th 236706th 315608th 394510th 473412th 552314th - Tithi.

It may be seen that NO TITHI is removed and ALL *lunar months have the same number of 29.5 Tithi*. It is thus, CORRECTION (alignment) and not removal, I submitted.

KARL SAYS: All I’ll say here that some of the listed tithis do not occur in the respective lunations. This leads to contradiction.

.....but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis; AGAIN give the mis-conception (prompting to MY ERRORS)!
Please note:
1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi & on adding 3 Tithi BECOME=(631868.6082901554404145 days).

KARL SAYS: I don’t see how adding three tithis can change 631868.9881… days to 631868.60829… days.

It may be seen that 631211.5 Tithi = 21397 Lunation and on adding the necessary THREE ‘tithi’ (i.e. 1730-years PLUS 3 tithi effectively become=21397.1 lunation) and make up for 631869 days (90267 weeks) that give:
Mean Year =7*(52+307/1730) =365d 5h 48m 45.7803468; and likewise Mean Lunation =631869/21397.1 resulting in 29d 12h 44m 3s.027326.
NINE cycles of (1730*9) years =(21397*9)+1 =192573 plus 1 are=192574 lunation. Last lunation AUTOMATICALLY gets adjusted, as I point.

KARL SAYS: I am aware that 1730 years have about 21,397.1 lunations. Hence 21,397 lunar months is about 3 tithis short of 1730 years.

I see that Brij has made nine of these 1730-year cycles into a more accurate cycle by adding one lunar month to nine periods of 21,397 lunar months to get 192,574 lunar months in 15,570 years.

If there are 631214.5 tithis in each of the first eight 1730-year cycles, then the ninth must have 631217 tithis to get the required 192,574 lunations in the 15,570-year cycle.

If the 15,570-year cycle were made by whole tithi corrections of the 19-year cycle, we’d require 1298 corrections (= 44 lunations) over nineteen 15,570-year cycles, which is about one correction per 227.9 years (Yes, that 44 is the value of T).

I’ll point out to calendar people that in an earlier E-mail that Brij’s preference for the 1730-year cycle arises from the fact that it is the sum of the 896-year cycle with 159 leap weeks and the 834-year cycle with 148 leap weeks so has 307 leap weeks. This gives it 52*1730+307=90,267 weeks equal to 631,869 days as reckoned by Brij above.

This gives mean year of about 365.24219653 days and nine of these with 192,574 lunar months have a mean lunar month of 29.5305753 days (29d 12h 44m 1.70241s).

>I think Brij intended the 7^th set of figures to be 552313^th and 18725^th which should be 18723^rd.
^{18725
lunation seem to be right, for correction (2675*7 =18725).}

KARL SAYS: So Brij has made the error of multiplying after rounding, thereby multiplying the rounding error!

What I did was to divide the tithi number by 29.5 then round up (as appropriate for ordinal numbers).
^{Thus,
(9*1730)-years/192574 lunation fit in for the SHORTER lunisolar cycle, I point.}

>One thing I think Brij needs to learn is that no calendar can use all his ideas.
I do not deny THIS but am open to Karl's suggestion so long as the FORMAT of corrected Gregorian calendar remain similar to the currently used calendar on removal of July 31st and shifting this as February 29th, so the format can of of use to either divide 4 Leap Days or divide six(6) Leap Week plans to give Mean Year =365.2421875 days - that to me seem rational and closer to Astronomers' Average Mean Year of FOUR cardinal points :
http://www.brijvij.com/bb_deci-sec-nu-mtr.pdf

KARL SAYS: Such a calendar can be made into a lunisolar calendar based on the 19-year cycle (with corrections) only if leap days rather than leap weeks are used. Then it could be done in a manner similar to the Gregorian Easter Computus. It CANNOT be done with a leap week calendar, because 19 years would in such a calendar contain exactly 991, 992 or 933 weeks which is 6937, 6944 or 6951 days, while 235 lunar months have either 6939 or 6940 days.

However one could make a leap week calendar lunisolar by overlaying a lunar calendar (which may count tithis) or using epacts that depend on which year has a leap week, but neither would follow a 19-year cycle (with corrections).

Karl

10(17(24

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Brij's 1730=(91*19)+1 RE: Astronomers' Insight RE:

2009-11-11T05:19:15Z

Dear Brij and Calendar People

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
Sent: 11 November 2009 02:12
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Astronomers' Insight RE: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

Distribution of 1730-years in grouping of 19-years, also is possible as: [1730=(91*19)+1 and (86*19+12*8)], where each 19-years/5*47 i.e. 235 lunation, may have suggested corrections.

KARL SAYS: This is no value whatsoever!

Only Y=(M-T)*19 + T*11 is of value and then only if M/T is not far from 18 or 19,

where M and T are as defined in an earlier note and calculated by Brij.

Each 11 has 136 lunar months and corrects the 19 with 235 lunar months. The total number of lunar months L = 235*M – 99*T.

Brij calculated:

M = 99*Y – 8*L

T = 235*Y – 19*L

(i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;

M= (99*1730) – (8*21397) =94; T = (235*1730) – (19*21397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and

(ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574

M-2= [(99*15570) – (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) – (19*192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455

This gives rise to the following examples:

1730=(87*19+7*11) with M/T = 94/7 = 13 3/7 which is too small

15,570=(794*19+44*11) = 2*(397*19+22*11) with M/T = 419/22 = 19 1/22 which is close.

Brij may note that M-T = 11*L – 136*Y

Karl

10(14(24

PS: if you take 8 years to have 99 lunations, then 1730=(86*19+12*8) has 21398 lunations rather than 21397 from 1730=(87*19+7*11) .

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Re: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

2009-11-11T01:52:44Z

Dear Victor and Calendar People

I said in (3) dateless DAY. This would be a day one cannot go out with one's lover.

Karl

10(14(23 till noon

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Victor Engel
Sent: 10 November 2009 17:40
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

Dateless dates?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karl Palmen <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Brij and Calendar People
>
>
>
> Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long -
> especially in Panchang calculations!
>
> However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue.
>
>
>
> A vision of a possible 5*47 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by
> the Harappan people has come to me.
>
> (1)    Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of
> 73 dates.
>
> (2)    Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19
> seasons, so that the 1st and 47th month have 30 dates.
>
> (3)    Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or
> month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every
> 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of
> 29.5305779... days.
>
> This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216... days and follows the
> 19-year cycle.
>
> This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once
> every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with
> respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once
> every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer.
>
>
>
> This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but
> a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts
> one of these tithis.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(14(23
>
>
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation &
> 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
>
>
>
> Karl, sir:
>>Brij's suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
>> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about
>>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of
>> the year
> Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying
> CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)...etc also there are
> 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and
> liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of
> word.
> .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is
> 78912.5.
>>Brij's calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this.
>>Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
> This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of
> 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217th year
> was to keep the symmetry of '7-tithi over 1730-years' BUT it shall be more
> appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219th/220th year! The the
> EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made
> this clear.
> 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi
> =(631868.6082901554404145 days).
> In suggesting continued count of (5*47) =235 lunation vs years for alignment
> of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of 'Sun-Moon'
> epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132nd ,
> 14265th and 21397th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574th lunation
> (the last getting adjusted automatically).
>
> Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7*(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days
> =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and
>
> Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m
> 1s.702411
>
> Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long - especially
> in Panchang calculations!
>
> However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have
> tried to demonstrate that *Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of
> 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf]
>
> was a unique possibility.
>
> Regards,
> Brij Bhushan Vij
> (MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal)
> EST
>
> Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
> Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
> Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
> (365th day of Year is World Day)
> My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
> HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
> ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
> "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
> Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000
> From: karl.palmen@...
> Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation
> RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dear Brij and Calendar People
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:
> Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
>
>
>
> Karl, sir:
>>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about
>> 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through
>> epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus.
> I agree that the idea of using 5*47=235 lunation was -perhaps never
> concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of
> Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some
> thought provoking results.
> As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the
> continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between
> count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I
> assume, Easter Computus, too has  a method of count of days/lunations wrt
> 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of
> Festivals dates.
> Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following:
> 78902nd            157803rd          236706th          315607th
> 394509th          473411th          525313th   'tithi', from
>
> 2675th              5350th              8025th              10700th
>            13375th            16050th            18725th   lunation.
>
>
>
> to arrive at days vs tithi alignment.
>
> KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years
> vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won't correct
> the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The
> Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number
> of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus.
>
>
>
> Brij's suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the
> 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year.
>
> However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5
> tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation
> has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per
> 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the
> Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year.
>
>
>
> As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any
> correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently.
> Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle.
>
>
>
> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5.
>
> Brij's calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this.
>
> Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
>
>
>
> My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this
> link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (9*1730)
> =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19*M
> - 8*T years approximated to 235*M - 99*T lunation, where M and T are
> integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for
> evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be
> examined & found.
>
> KARL SAKS: Why?
>
> M = 99*Y - 8*L
>
> T = 235*Y - 19*L
>
> (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;
>
> M= (99*1730) - (8*21397) =94;   T = (235*1730) - (19*21397) =7;   M/T =94/7
> = 13.428571428571...1 and
>
> (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574
>
> M-2= [(99*15570) - (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) - (19*192574) =44;
> M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455
>
> These results do not fall in the range.
>
> KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18
> or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate.
>
> 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle.
>
>
>
>>He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying
>> somehow they'll be corrected.
> No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK
> had ever been done and I point to a certain possibility, or the way I see.
>
> KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this
> list and Brij seems to ignore it. See
>
> http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of
> this work.
>
>>Brij's posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate...
> My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning
> and the little time that I have in my life time!
>
> KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the
> subject rather than education.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(14(22
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more.
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Astronomers' Insight RE: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

2009-11-10T18:12:20Z

Victor, Karl CC, sirs:
In my exchange of mails between April 3^rd thro April 9^th ,2009 (i.e. first half of April), I had shown some calculations ‘in defence of my views’ about building the possible Harappan Lunar-Tithi (value) Calendar. I place the formats of my TWO calendars – the (possible) World Calendar and the (possible) Harappan built-up Calendar. Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf
>This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but
>a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts
>one of these tithis.
This is yet 'another approximation' that can be used for Tithi - I do not deny!

Working of my several cycles, showing Tithi value/days is placed at:

http://www.brijvij.com/bb-kp_count-by-week.cycles.doc and Tithi working vs ‘Cycles/Days/Weeks/& Mean Years’ is placed at: http://www.brijvij.com/bb_harappaTithi-Cycles.pdf

Distribution of 1730-years in grouping of 19-years, also is possible as: [1730=(91*19)+1 and (86*19+12*8)], where each 19-years/5*47 i.e. 235 lunation, may have suggested corrections.

I have NO HESITATION in admitting that my calculations are done the harder way, as an inexpert 'slogger' stuck to what I convieve to be correct - of course subject to be 'rectified/corrected' in astronomers language!
I thank Karl for his reading into my mind and making me do the calculations.
My appology, I meant NO OFFENCE, sirs. Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(MJD 2455146)/1361+D-322W46-02 (G. Tuesday, 2009 November 10H21:19 (decimal) EST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548

> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:39:54 -0600
> From: brillig@...
> Subject: Re: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dateless dates?
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karl Palmen <karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> > Dear Brij and Calendar People
> >
> >
> >
> > Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long –
> > especially in Panchang calculations!
> >
> > However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue.
> >
> >
> >
> > A vision of a possible 5*47 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by
> > the Harappan people has come to me.
> >
> > (1)    Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of
> > 73 dates.
> >
> > (2)    Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19
> > seasons, so that the 1st and 47th month have 30 dates.
> >
> > (3)    Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or
> > month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every
> > 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of
> > 29.5305779… days.
> >
> > This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216… days and follows the
> > 19-year cycle.
> >
> > This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once
> > every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with
> > respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once
> > every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer.
> >
> >
> >
> > This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but
> > a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts
> > one of these tithis.
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> >
> > 10(14(23
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> > Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12
> > To: CALNDR-L@...
> > Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation &
> > 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl, sir:
> >>Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
> >> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about
> >>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of
> >> the year
> > Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying
> > CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are
> > 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and
> > liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of
> > word.
> > .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is
> > 78912.5.
> >>Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this.
> >>Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
> > This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of
> > 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217th year
> > was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more
> > appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219th/220th year! The the
> > EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made
> > this clear.
> > 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi
> > =(631868.6082901554404145 days).
> > In suggesting continued count of (5*47) =235 lunation vs years for alignment
> > of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’
> > epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132nd ,
> > 14265th and 21397th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574th lunation
> > (the last getting adjusted automatically).
> >
> > Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7*(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days
> > =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and
> >
> > Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m
> > 1s.702411
> >
> > Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially
> > in Panchang calculations!
> >
> > However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have
> > tried to demonstrate that *Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of
> > 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf]
> >
> > was a unique possibility.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brij Bhushan Vij
> > (MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal)
> > EST
> >
> > Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
> > Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
> > Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
> > (365th day of Year is World Day)
> > My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
> > HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
> > ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
> > "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
> > Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000
> > From: karl.palmen@...
> > Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation
> > RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
> > To: CALNDR-L@...
> >
> > Dear Brij and Calendar People
> >
> >
> >
> > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> > Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30
> > To: CALNDR-L@...
> > Subject: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:
> > Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl, sir:
> >>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about
> >> 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through
> >> epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus.
> > I agree that the idea of using 5*47=235 lunation was -perhaps never
> > concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of
> > Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some
> > thought provoking results.
> > As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the
> > continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between
> > count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I
> > assume, Easter Computus, too has  a method of count of days/lunations wrt
> > 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of
> > Festivals dates.
> > Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following:
> > 78902nd            157803rd          236706th          315607th
> > 394509th          473411th          525313th   'tithi', from
> >
> > 2675th              5350th              8025th              10700th
> >            13375th            16050th            18725th   lunation.
> >
> >
> >
> > to arrive at days vs tithi alignment.
> >
> > KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years
> > vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct
> > the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The
> > Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number
> > of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
> > rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the
> > 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year.
> >
> > However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5
> > tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation
> > has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per
> > 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the
> > Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year.
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any
> > correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently.
> > Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle.
> >
> >
> >
> > I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5.
> >
> > Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this.
> >
> > Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this
> > link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (9*1730)
> > =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19*M
> > – 8*T years approximated to 235*M – 99*T lunation, where M and T are
> > integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for
> > evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be
> > examined & found.
> >
> > KARL SAKS: Why?
> >
> > M = 99*Y – 8*L
> >
> > T = 235*Y – 19*L
> >
> > (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;
> >
> > M= (99*1730) – (8*21397) =94;   T = (235*1730) – (19*21397) =7;   M/T =94/7
> > = 13.428571428571…1 and
> >
> > (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574
> >
> > M-2= [(99*15570) – (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) – (19*192574) =44;
> > M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455
> >
> > These results do not fall in the range.
> >
> > KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18
> > or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate.
> >
> > 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle.
> >
> >
> >
> >>He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying
> >> somehow they’ll be corrected.
> > No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK
> > had ever been done and I point to a certain possibility, or the way I see.
> >
> > KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this
> > list and Brij seems to ignore it. See
> >
> > http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of
> > this work.
> >
> >>Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate...
> > My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning
> > and the little time that I have in my life time!
> >
> > KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the
> > subject rather than education.
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> >
> > 10(14(22
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more.
> >
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> >
>

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

ALIGNMENT RE: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:

2009-11-10T10:24:46Z

>78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 552313^th'tithi', from

>865^th 1730^th 2595^th 3460^th 4325^th 5190^th 6055^thquarter year

The errors 'pointed' appear because of *ROUNDING or TRUNCATING* 7-corrections (not removing) - ONCE every

78902^nd            157803^rd          236706^th          315607^th          394509^th          473411^th          525313^th'tithi', from
2675^th              5350^th              8025^th             10700^th           13375^th            16050^th          18725^thlunation. 78902^nd                157804th               236706th             315608th              394510th              473412th              552314th - Tithi.                          It may be seen that NO TITHI is removed and ALL *lunar months have the same number of 29.5 Tithi*. It is thus, CORRECTION (alignment) and not removal, I submitted.
.....but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis; AGAIN give the mis-conception (prompting to MY ERRORS)!
Please note:
1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi & on adding 3 Tithi BECOME=(631868.6082901554404145 days).
It may be seen that 631211.5 Tithi = 21397 Lunation and on adding the necessary THREE ‘tithi’ (i.e. 1730-years PLUS 3 tithi effectively become=21397.1 lunation) and make up for 631869 days (90267 weeks) that give:
Mean Year =7*(52+307/1730) =365d 5h 48m 45.7803468; and likewise Mean Lunation =631869/21397.1 resulting in 29d 12h 44m 3s.027326.
NINE cycles of (1730*9) years =(21397*9)+1 =192573 plus 1 are=192574 lunation. Last lunation AUTOMATICALLY gets adjusted, as I point.
>I think Brij intended the 7^th set of figures to be 552313^th and 18725^th which should be 18723^rd.
^{18725 lunation seem to be right, for correction (2675*7 =18725).}
^{Thus, (9*1730)-years/192574 lunation fit in for the SHORTER lunisolar cycle, I point.}
>One thing I think Brij needs to learn is that no calendar can use all his ideas.
I do not deny THIS but am open to Karl's suggestion so long as the FORMAT of corrected Gregorian calendar remain similar to the currently used calendar on removal of July 31st and shifting this as February 29th, so the format can of of use to either divide 4 Leap Days or divide six(6) Leap Week plans to give Mean Year =365.2421875 days - that to me seem rational and closer to Astronomers' Average Mean Year of FOUR cardinal points :
http://www.brijvij.com/bb_deci-sec-nu-mtr.pdf

Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij

(MJD 2455146)/1361+D-322W46-02 (G. Tuesday, 2009 November 10H13:39 (decimal) EST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:05:39 +0000
From: karl.palmen@...
Subject: Re: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:
To: CALNDR-L@...

Dear Brij and Calendar people

I think Brij has made a few errors:

He said that correction would occur at

78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from

2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation.

but these tithis do not all occur in their respective lunations. In particular the last one is wrong. With exactly 29.5 tithis in a lunation, I make it

78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from

2675^th 5350^th 8024^th 10699^th 13374^th 16048^th 17808^thlunation.

This can be seen by dividing the tithi number by 29.5 and rounding up.

I think Brij intended the 7^th set of figures to be 552313^th and 18725^th which should be 18723^rd .

I could not see any connection between the above example and the 1730-year cycle, but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis, it became evident that EIGHT corrections are done every 1730 years (one every 216.25 years). This suggests:

78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 552313^th'tithi', from

865^th 1730^th 2595^th 3460^th 4325^th 5190^th 6055^thquarter year

Brij mentions a different idea of the Harappan year of 364 tithis. I’ve mentioned in an earlier E-mail that a tropical year has about 365.2422*(29.5/29.53059)=364.864 tithis.

The 19-year cycle of 235*29.5=6932.5 tithis gives 364.868421… tithis, which is exactly 364 33/38 tithis to a mean year. If one tithi were removed from a year once every 219 years, this would be reduced to 364.863855 tithis which is quite accurate. One can’t fault Brij on his choice of 219 years given for a mean year very close to 365.2422 days.

According to the 19-year cycle, 1730 years would have 1730*(364 33/38) = 631222 7/19 tithis. Take 8 from this and you get 631214 7/19 tithis, which is quite close but not exactly the same the 631214.5 tithis reckoned by Brij. It is in fact 5/38 tithis short. Perhaps, the eighth correction (not shown) is by 33/38 tithi instead of 1 tithi, thereby creating one year of exactly 364 tithis.

There is a simple relationship between the number of truncations T of the 19-year cycle and the number of X of these tithi corrections.

T = (59/38)*X

X = (38/59)*T

This is because 59 tithi corrections correct by two lunar months so does 38 truncations.

Brij’s 15570-year cycle with T=44 would require 44*59/38= 68 6/19 of these tithi corrections and so cannot be realized by them, because a whole number of them is required.

Also Brij mentioned the idea of making a lunar calendar identical to a solar calendar but with the 13^th day omitted from each month. This I have pointed out would make either the lunar month too short or the solar year too long. I showed him that if the 13^th were kept in every 13^th lunar month and every intercalary month (not corresponding to a solar month) had 31 days less any omitted 13^th, then a 391-year cycle of 4836 lunar months would result, which is considerably more accurate than the 19-year cycle. It has M=21 and T=1. Alternatively, one could have one 13^th in a lunar month annually except in a year with a saltus lunae.

Contrary to claims by Brij such an idea does not use tithis of 2/59 lunation.

One thing I think Brij needs to learn is that no calendar can use all his ideas.

Karl

10(14(23

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle

Karl, sir:
>Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about
>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year
Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of word.
.> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. >Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this.
>Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong.
This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217^th year was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219^th/220^th year! The the EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made this clear.
1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi =(631868.6082901554404145 days).
In suggesting continued count of (5*47) =235 lunation vs years for alignment of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’ epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132^nd , 14265^th and 21397^th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574^th lunation (the last getting adjusted automatically).

Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7*(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and

Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m 1s.702411

Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations!

However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have tried to demonstrate that *Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf]

was a unique possibility.

Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) EST

Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000
From: karl.palmen@...
Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
To: CALNDR-L@...

Dear Brij and Calendar People

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle

Karl, sir:
>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus.
I agree that the idea of using 5*47=235 lunation was -perhaps never concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some thought provoking results.
As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I assume, Easter Computus, too has  a method of count of days/lunations wrt 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of Festivals dates.
Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following:
78902^nd            157803^rd          236706^th          315607^th          394509^th          473411^th          525313^th'tithi', from

2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation.

to arrive at days vs tithi alignment.

KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus.

Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year.

However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year.

As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle.

I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5.

Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this.

Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong.

My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (9*1730) =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19*M – 8*T years approximated to 235*M – 99*T lunation, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be examined & found.

KARL SAKS: Why?

M = 99*Y – 8*L

T = 235*Y – 19*L

(i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;

M= (99*1730) – (8*21397) =94; T = (235*1730) – (19*21397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and

(ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574

M-2= [(99*15570) – (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) – (19*192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455

These results do not fall in the range.

KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate.

15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle.

KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this list and Brij seems to ignore it. See

http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of this work.

>Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate...
My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning and the little time that I have in my life time!

KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the subject rather than education.

Karl

10(14(22

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more.

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop. Learn more.

Re: A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

2009-11-10T09:39:54Z

Dateless dates?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karl Palmen <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Brij and Calendar People
>
>
>
> Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long –
> especially in Panchang calculations!
>
> However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue.
>
>
>
> A vision of a possible 5*47 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by
> the Harappan people has come to me.
>
> (1)    Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of
> 73 dates.
>
> (2)    Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19
> seasons, so that the 1st and 47th month have 30 dates.
>
> (3)    Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or
> month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every
> 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of
> 29.5305779… days.
>
> This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216… days and follows the
> 19-year cycle.
>
> This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once
> every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with
> respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once
> every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer.
>
>
>
> This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but
> a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts
> one of these tithis.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(14(23
>
>
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation &
> 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
>
>
>
> Karl, sir:
>>Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
>> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about
>>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of
>> the year
> Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying
> CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are
> 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and
> liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of
> word.
> .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is
> 78912.5.
>>Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this.
>>Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
> This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of
> 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217th year
> was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more
> appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219th/220th year! The the
> EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made
> this clear.
> 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi
> =(631868.6082901554404145 days).
> In suggesting continued count of (5*47) =235 lunation vs years for alignment
> of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’
> epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132nd ,
> 14265th and 21397th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574th lunation
> (the last getting adjusted automatically).
>
> Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7*(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days
> =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and
>
> Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m
> 1s.702411
>
> Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially
> in Panchang calculations!
>
> However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have
> tried to demonstrate that *Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of
> 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf]
>
> was a unique possibility.
>
> Regards,
> Brij Bhushan Vij
> (MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal)
> EST
>
> Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
> Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
> Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
> (365th day of Year is World Day)
> My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
> HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
> ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
> "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
> Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000
> From: karl.palmen@...
> Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation
> RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dear Brij and Calendar People
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
> Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:
> Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle
>
>
>
> Karl, sir:
>>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about
>> 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through
>> epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus.
> I agree that the idea of using 5*47=235 lunation was -perhaps never
> concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of
> Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some
> thought provoking results.
> As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the
> continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between
> count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I
> assume, Easter Computus, too has  a method of count of days/lunations wrt
> 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of
> Festivals dates.
> Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following:
> 78902nd            157803rd          236706th          315607th
> 394509th          473411th          525313th   'tithi', from
>
> 2675th              5350th              8025th              10700th
>            13375th            16050th            18725th   lunation.
>
>
>
> to arrive at days vs tithi alignment.
>
> KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years
> vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct
> the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The
> Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number
> of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus.
>
>
>
> Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis
> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the
> 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year.
>
> However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5
> tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation
> has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per
> 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the
> Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year.
>
>
>
> As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any
> correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently.
> Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle.
>
>
>
> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5.
>
> Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this.
>
> Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong.
>
>
>
> My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this
> link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (9*1730)
> =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19*M
> – 8*T years approximated to 235*M – 99*T lunation, where M and T are
> integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for
> evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be
> examined & found.
>
> KARL SAKS: Why?
>
> M = 99*Y – 8*L
>
> T = 235*Y – 19*L
>
> (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;
>
> M= (99*1730) – (8*21397) =94;   T = (235*1730) – (19*21397) =7;   M/T =94/7
> = 13.428571428571…1 and
>
> (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574
>
> M-2= [(99*15570) – (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) – (19*192574) =44;
> M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455
>
> These results do not fall in the range.
>
> KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18
> or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate.
>
> 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle.
>
>
>
>>He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying
>> somehow they’ll be corrected.
> No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK
> had ever been done and I point to a certain possibility, or the way I see.
>
> KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this
> list and Brij seems to ignore it. See
>
> http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of
> this work.
>
>>Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate...
> My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning
> and the little time that I have in my life time!
>
> KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the
> subject rather than education.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(14(22
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more.
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>

A Possible: 5*47 lunation Calendar

2009-11-10T08:25:09Z

Dear Brij and Calendar People

Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations!

However, use of (5*47) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue.

A vision of a possible 5*47 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by the Harappan people has come to me.

(1) Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of 73 dates.

(2) Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19 seasons, so that the 1^st and 47^th month have 30 dates.

(3) Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of 29.5305779… days.

This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216… days and follows the 19-year cycle.

This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer.

This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts one of these tithis.

Karl

10(14(23

Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7*(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and

Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m 1s.702411

Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations!

was a unique possibility.

Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) EST

Dear Brij and Calendar People

2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation.

to arrive at days vs tithi alignment.

I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5.

Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this.

Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong.

KARL SAKS: Why?

M = 99*Y – 8*L

T = 235*Y – 19*L

(i) for Y=1730 & L=21397;

M= (99*1730) – (8*21397) =94; T = (235*1730) – (19*21397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and

(ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574

M-2= [(99*15570) – (8*192574) =838 & T-2=[(235*15570) – (19*192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455

These results do not fall in the range.

KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate.

15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle.

KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this list and Brij seems to ignore it. See

http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of this work.

KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the subject rather than education.

Karl

10(14(22

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more.

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Re: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 5*47 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE:

2009-11-10T08:05:39Z