Analysis & Criticism: 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War (Part 7 of 10)

Prof. Achar and his testing of Raghavan’s date of 3067 BC for the year of MBH War – Part-7

I analyzed 4 of 12 observations considered critical by Achar and showed that none of them would lead to year 3067 BC.

In this part, I will analyze next 3 (of 12) observations

(5) Mars went vakri near Jyeshtha/Anuradha (Achar talks of Mars retrograde, but silent on location)

MBH text refers to Mars going ‘VAKRI’ near MAGHA and also neear Jyeshtha/Anuradha. None of this can be shown to be true for year 3067 BC. In fact, this observation can be used to FALSFIY 3067 BC as the year of MBH War.

But one must go much deeper than simplistic analysis of Vakri = retrograde. Mars goes retrograde only once in 2 years. On the other hand, Mars is described as going ‘VAKRI’ within a space of 6-7 nakshatr-7 as (out of 27). Since Mars travels through one nakshatra in ~20 days (when not retrograde), Mars would have traveled this space of 6 nakshatras in about less than 5 months. Thus one MUST look for another meaning of ‘VAKRI’ if one is going to make any sense of MBH observations. I have precisely done that in my book.

Back to Achar’s claim though. Mars going retrograde near Jyeshtha/Anuradhan in 3067 BC is simply false. Of course Achar is good with his usage of Planetarium software and his testing and he knows this fact very well. So where is the problem? You decide.

In fact this point is so critical and decisive for falsification of 3067 BC (other than of course AV observation, 20+ observations related to Bhishma Nirvana and 200+ Mahabharata observations completely ignored by Achar, each one of these observations also FALSIFY 3067 BC) that I have included simulation of Mars travel through Nakshatras over a period of ~5 years.. from 3070 BC to 3065 BC.

Mars goes retrograde near Hasta/U. Phalguni, near Vishakha/Swati in 3068 BC and near Shravana/U. Ashadha in 3065 BC. In none of these instances, and during this time interval .. which includes 3067 BC, Mars goes retrograde near Jyeshtha/Anuradha.

Here is simulation using Voyager 4.5

(6) Mars afflicted Chitra (Achar interprets this to mean ‘some graha’ afflicted Chitra and silent on explanation/identification of ‘graha)

The reference is to Mars afflicting Chitra. Both ref (5) and (6) are from Udyoga Parva, same chapter where Achar’s only corrborated reference of ‘Saturn afflicting Rohini’ also appears. This is the only reason, Achar had NO CHOICE but to include these references of Mars, albeit with great hesitation, in his list of critical observations.

reader may read my book for consistent explanation for these 2 Mars observations, along with additional 6 Mars observations from MBH text. BTW, Achar explains away some of the remaining 6 observations and show unawareness of few of those observations alltogether.

(7) Possible lunar eclipse on Kartika full moon, followed by Solar eclipsea at next Amawaysa, possiblity of 3 eclipses (2 lunar and one solar) and a pair of this lunar-solar eclipse separated by 13 days

Do we have 2 or 3 eclipses (2 lunar and 1 solar) is the issue here. All agree on 2. Achar is claiming 3. I am ok with either positions (one would have to read my book to see why). However Achar does deserve credit for exploring scenario for up to 3 eclipses. Readers may also want to look at work of S Balakrishna (2 eclipses separated by/within 13 days).

Quick Summary: 3067 BC is FALSIFIED BY observations (5) and (6). Observation (7) may corroborate 3067 BC, however it is not capable of leading one to yea 3067 BC.

To be continued…..


One thought on “Analysis & Criticism: 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War (Part 7 of 10)

  1. Pingback: Heavy Bakwas & Bogus Astronomy | Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s