No they were attatched to the outer sphere itself which turned upon the axis.
This is a model that differs to the Indian version only via Plato's terminology of 'soul' and the distinction between outer and inner planets. While the precessional movement is noted by Plato he uses the outer stars to denote this while there is no such direct separation of stars in the Indian model. That the precessional movement was recognised in an earlier India is not in doubt but Plato does differentiate between stars and planets with those moving slowly backward against the annual forward movement being noted as such.
Plato doesn't mention precession nor do the Indians, to say there is no doubt that they did contradicts the history books...
Plato was familiar with the skies. That is accepted. I have tried to find an explanation for all the various elements in the tale. It seemed to me that if he was using the Hercules constellation as in the Indian description as a dating tool then other elements would be allegory of a similar nature. Hence we have the stars of Hercules making a singular island. Other constellations would therefore be other islands but surrounding all is a continent...that could only be the Milky Way as here we would have a mass of land from all those stars packed closely together. This in fact does encircle all as he states the continent does in the narrative
The Milky Way has been seen by many ancient cultures not unsurprisingly as a waterway, you're going against one of the most fundamental aspects of ancient skylore in comparing it to a continent, and whilst your main concern seems to be ever India, you've just trashed their comparison of the river Ganges to the Milky Way.
So if one bit is right the remainder falls into place. This then covers the descriptive elements that are missing from the conventional model...almost. There is one element that I cannot understand and that is also missing from the conventional model. This is the muddy shoal outside the Pillars of Hercules that supposedly is all that is left of Atlantis. Physically this does not exist as we are aware so we are left wondering to what he is referring...and we are still wondering. While I do have some ideas they are not firm enough to be mentioned here and I have no constructive evidence so I leave them out of the pic
Platos Atlantis scenario is just rumour piled upon unsubstantiated rumour of his time, his grasp of history and geography is comparable to that of his cosmology...ultimately flawed.
The pillars are debatable in that not all versions give a number. However, the implication is there for pillars as supports and if these pillars are associated with the constellation Hercules then the direction west is also involved as this approaches from the west .
The constellation rotates anti-clockwise, but the pillars of Hercules were hardly thought of as rotating thus, they were fixed mythological abstractions associate with Atlas...whose job was to stay in the same place.
But you do admit that there is an association when the city with its circular canals and the Hercules constellation with the rings made by circling stars are compared. The justification is merely to demonstrate the possibility, to show that indeed here is a pattern that against all odds of matching in fact does just that within acceptable limits. So effectively this is not a matter of 'projecting his measurements anywhere', they are applied to a very specific location and they fit. The chances of this happening are pretty slim.
No i just recognise you have created such, one could do so with any number of constellations with the same accuracy or lack of it, the odds are that you will always be achieve such when scaling is arbitary.
There is no doubt that precession was noted earlier than Plato. You do not accept that the Indian works date to the earlier periods that have recently been ascribed to them but in any case there is little doubt that even the accepted older material contains some very early observations. This is confirmed with external evidence in the form of climate records from Ice Cores in Chapter 10 of Deluge. In Chapter 9 is seen an astronomical description that dates to 6681 BC, a description of the comet Encke in 3649 BCin Chapter 10 confirmed via the accurate descriptions of other things in the cosmos such as the stage of lunar phase that complied to the day with the pass of the comet. This is found via astronomy software and is accurate, there is only one such occasion that fits the description. There is a description of the period of cold known by climatologists as the 8000 BP event which is very accurately fixed via a new interpretation of the yugas that while it is different in fact also confirms the viability of the traditional models again, this is in Chapter 10.
Hence there is ample evidence of astronomical observation and recording in an accurate manner a long time prior to Plato. What I think needs to be taken into account is that most of the recording of astronomy and math comes after writing became the norm for the educated. The earlier material was often recorded in the form of stories that gave information in allegorical manner with people taking the place of a stars for example. This was before writing. What we have is an easy to remember tale that has all the elements that required being remembered but disguised in story form. This is what happened with the flood story and if I am correct it is what Plato did with his Atlantis tale.
The case you would make is based upon interpretation of mythological texts, the type of evidence that is beyond doubt is scientific or astrological treatise in conjunction with illustration such as those known from Babylon and much later Greece.
What would happen if one of us made the announcement that Pythagorus was the first to discover a right angled triangle? We would be laughed off the site I would imagine as the idea is nonsensical. He formulated a mathematical proof regarding its properties but did not 'discover' it. Hence we have to accept that numerous other elements of knowledge were also well known, precession among them. That they were known does not mean understood just that they were observed and their properties known, no more than that.
Well yes Hipparchus observed the effects of precession without fully understanding the mechanics, nobody has a problem with that.
Indian merchants had traded with Mesopotamia and Egypt since the early dynasties of Egypt and probably even earlier. Indian concepts were known in Egypt as the Mitanni who were involved with rulership of Egypt at one era were of Indian / Iranian cultural background. [ Please note I stated 'involved with rulership' and not 'ruled'...I see no justification for stronger statements made by Kak here.] There can be little doubt of people learning from each other and cultural ideas were widely dispersed and adopted, blended and generally one group learned from another group. The astro model for Atlantis that I am proposing would have been well known over 2500 years before the time of Plato in India and certainly was not lost. So the chances of Plato meeting with the description are in fact pretty high. Because such knowledge is not recorded in Greek annals does not mean he was unaware...just that he and his compatriots did not write about it. As with right angled triangles...the knowledge was pre-existing. Anyway, why should the Greeks write about another culture's folk memory? This would have been just another version of events in the past to them which was recorded in other places but remembered by the Greek seers. Plato could easily have utilised this story for his own ends.
The Mitanni weren't Indian or Iranian, even if a case is made for a greater Aryan connection, i'm not aware they are considered to have understood precession and advanced cartography.
Sorry but all is not well understood or all the varying factors such as the continent and islands would be explained in the conventional model but they are not. The circular canals would have a definitive meaning that is easily explainable but that is not the case..etc etc. The conventional model only goes partway in its explanation hence I have attempted to find a solution that makes sense in the context of what may have been meant via the information that was available to the people of the time. Apart from the muddy shoals which may in fact be a 'throwaway line' and not have any real meaning, I think my interpretation covers all the points that Plato made. That it does not gel with what Plato is commonly thought to have thought makes no difference as none of us can read the mind of a living man never one who died over 2000 years ago and consequently we have no idea whatever of what his ideas were. The only information we can work with is knowledge that existed and what he wrote. Any acceptance or rejection of any theory based upon this is only opinion of the interpretation of the evidence no more than that. All models that comply with Plato's writing and explain all his points [let us leave out the muddy shoals for the sake of argument] are viable until proven otherwise but how can we prove any to be wrong when we cannot get inside the mind of Plato?
There's as much point and equally likely chance of success in finding a Universe that matches Plato's description as there is in finding his sunken City of Atlantis, his grasp on history was hopeless...all that can be said is that he sort of tried.