Supporters of the original luni-solar causation had attempted to account for this annoying oversight with complex mathematics, concluding that equinoxes were attained slightly earlier each year – along Earth’s orbit. This idea was eventually defeated by observable phenomena such as the lunar cycle, which showed Earth to complete the entirety of its equinoctial year. This again cast doubts on the accuracy of the luni-solar model.
All was not lost, however, as luni-solar causation was about to get a shot in the arm; this time in the form of a new dark stellar companion to our Sun some 2–4000 A.U.s32 distant. This twinning effect was proposed to have a warping effect on our Sun’s great orbit about the galactic centre, forcing it to accommodate the demands of its distant binary.
In this revised model of precession, the Earth is constrained to a near-perfect circular orbit whereas our Sun now takes on a vastly accentuated elliptical orbit about its twin. The outcome for Earth is the effect of precession, which according to the laws of celestial mechanics predicts that objects in elliptical orbits accelerate to periapsis and decelerate toward apoapsis.
This last prediction has proved to be the theory’s most promising indicator of correctness, as the rate of precession is anything but constant and does indeed appear at this time to be accelerating. See Section 1.10.
Earth nodes
Earth nodes/precession as proposed by astrologer Carl Payne Tobey. Earth’s ‘great’ solar orbit is here represented by 24 circles in increments of 15°. Individual circles represent Earth’s ‘lesser’ orbit or epicycle, moving clockwise in 15° increments. The faint grey inner circle represents the deferent. Position (1) marks the commencement of great and lesser orbits; position (13) sees epicycle and great orbit re-conjoin. As Earth returns to position (1) and closes its great orbit, its lesser orbit/epicycle completes imperceptibly quicker, making its great orbital plane precess; see position (A).
This explanation of precession was first proposed by American astrologer and mathematician Carl Payne Tobey. In his 1973 book Astrology of Inner Space, Tobey asks the question, ‘Is the axis of the Earth’s spin wobbling or is the whole orbit wobbling?’ In other words he seems to be asking: if the other planets (or for that matter any orbiting body) have nodes, shouldn’t the Earth have nodes33 also? Tobey had never encountered an astronomer who had considered the possibility of Earth nodes, but makes the observation that all ellipses are essentially epicycles or small orbits and that by moving in two different circles simultaneously a planet (or satellite) will automatically describe an ellipse (see diagram).
Here the black dot (representing Earth) orbits the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction. In moving from position 1 to 2 it travels 15° about its great solar orbit whilst simultaneously moving 15° anticlockwise within its lesser orbit. At position (7), 90° of both orbits have been completed by Earth and here it drops maximally inside its great solar orbit. At position (13) Earth is again synchronous with its great solar orbit, having moved 180° in both orbits. At position (19) 240°, Earth again moves maximally inwards on its lesser orbit. In returning to position (1) Earth finalises its great orbit but imperceptibly completes its lesser orbit ahead of the former – making its now elliptical orbital plane appear to precess, that is, slip backward. If we accept this precessionary model, Earth would begin its next great orbit 50 arc seconds back (or clockwise) from position (1), meaning that its polar axis would continually precess in seconds of arc with each successive solar orbit, which is exactly what we see at the spring equinox each year.
Tobey notes that to be a perfect ellipse the revolution of both orbits must be identical; however, planets and satellites do not move in perfect ellipses, hence they move in regressive ellipses. He also makes the observation that the elliptical shape of Earth’s orbit is being somehow mirrored by Earth’s ellipsoid profile, having a polar diameter of 7901 miles with a girth of 7926 miles (a difference of 25 miles). Lastly, special note should be made of the influence exerted by our rather unique (and intimate) companion the Moon, which is proportionally far larger than any other satellite (to its primary) in our solar system.
1.6 CALENDAR REFORM COMMITTEE
Note: This section concludes the information previously outlined in Section 1.3.
We are not aware how the Hindu savants determined Dhṛuvaka (polar longitude) and Vikśepa (ecliptic latitude), it appears they had a kind of armillary sphere with an ecliptic circle which they used to set to the ecliptic with the aid of standard stars like Pushya (δ Cancri), Magha (α Leonis), Chitrā (α Virginis), Vishaka (ι Libræ), Shatabhishak (λ Aquarii) and Revati (ζ Piscium).
Saha and Lahiri (1992)
In an effort to unify India’s many regional calendars,34 November 1952 saw an appointment of a Calendar Reform Committee or CRC whose principal task was ‘to examine all existing calendars being followed by the country and after scientific study of the subject submit proposals for an accurate and uniform calendar for the whole of India.’
Any reformed dates were then hoped to be adopted for both civil and religious purposes, ratifying the country’s numerous festivals, luni-solar calendars, Panchāng35 and of course Ayanāṃśa. Though not directly incorporating Christian/Gregorian or Islamic considerations,36 some indirect study of these calendars was also included.
The Calendar Reform Committee, chaired by Professor Meghanad Saha, comprised seven members37 hailing from varied backgrounds in higher education and the sciences. Together they laboured over the task for about three years, finally submitting their 279-page report to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 1955.38
N.C. Lahiri, whose surname ultimately hijacked Chitrāpakṣa39 (now popularly referred as Lahiri Ayanāṃśa), was one Sri Nimal Chandra Lahiri, then acting secretary of the committee. As well as being a meteorologist, Lahiri was by all accounts something of an astrologer/astronomer as well as (and most interestingly) a publisher of ephemerides.
During the course of investigation into ancient Indian calendrical systems, the committee considered modern astronomical data as well as examining a large number of classical works including Siddhântic and Vedāṅga Jyotish.40 Although concluding that ‘no definite values on the initial point of the zodiac’ were to be gleaned directly from the latter’s pages, it was felt the location of 0° might be inferred from the positions of junction stars (Yogatârâ) as presented in Chapter VIII of the Sûrya Siddhânta (generally agreed to be an authoritative and accurate Siddhântic work). Indeed, this text was to become their principal guide during the investigation. In the words of the committee: ‘Our modern Sûrya Siddhânta is a book of 500 verses divided into 14 chapters… A scrutiny of the text shows that it is, with the exception of a few elements, almost completely astronomical.’41
1.7 WHY CHITRĀ?
While attempting to uncover a true measure of ancient astronomical calendars, it soon became apparent that previous researchers had hit a similar impasse, concluding the initial point of the zodiac to be close to Revati’s Yogatârâ (ζ Piscium),