Author of the Month :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world.

So, in a nutshell, your position is that the Rate of Precession is a constant with minor fluctuations.

Does this rule out the possibility of Sun being in a Binary System, but with a circular orbit?

The reason that I ask this is because no one except for Corpuscles has, this month, attempted to challenge the outcome of Newcomb's Formulae purely on the impossibility of a body starting from a null position and spinning wildly out of control millions of years later based on Lunisolar Theory.

The Vedic point of view is that the Great Year is a constant, but doesn't agree that its length is approx. 26 000 years long with their calculations being 24 000 years. However, they maintain that Sun is a binary star.

The problem, of course, lies in the maths.

If the currently accepted 71.6 years per degree is a constant, then the Vedic Great Year cannot be 24 000 years long.

However, if the number of years per degree varies, but averages out at 66.666 years per degree, the model remains in tact. And this variation may be due to, as yet not fully explained, forces which act upon binary bodies in eccentric orbits.

In actual fact, once the Start Point of the Great Year has been established, no further astronomical measurements are really necessary, except for confirmation of the progress of the cycle. One could merely count solar years, or full moons or even days and check at solstice/equinox annually.

The Vedics claim to know the Start Point. I'm unsure whether, or not, modern astronomers make an equal claim.

And, so far, no one seems interested in why we even need to measure precession.

Does this rule out the possibility of Sun being in a Binary System, but with a circular orbit?

The reason that I ask this is because no one except for Corpuscles has, this month, attempted to challenge the outcome of Newcomb's Formulae purely on the impossibility of a body starting from a null position and spinning wildly out of control millions of years later based on Lunisolar Theory.

The Vedic point of view is that the Great Year is a constant, but doesn't agree that its length is approx. 26 000 years long with their calculations being 24 000 years. However, they maintain that Sun is a binary star.

The problem, of course, lies in the maths.

If the currently accepted 71.6 years per degree is a constant, then the Vedic Great Year cannot be 24 000 years long.

However, if the number of years per degree varies, but averages out at 66.666 years per degree, the model remains in tact. And this variation may be due to, as yet not fully explained, forces which act upon binary bodies in eccentric orbits.

In actual fact, once the Start Point of the Great Year has been established, no further astronomical measurements are really necessary, except for confirmation of the progress of the cycle. One could merely count solar years, or full moons or even days and check at solstice/equinox annually.

The Vedics claim to know the Start Point. I'm unsure whether, or not, modern astronomers make an equal claim.

And, so far, no one seems interested in why we even need to measure precession.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.