A researcher wrote, critiquing and (slightly) objecting to my methodology….
Most astronomical phenomena of the type in the MBh and Ramayana is recurrent. Now, had unique events like novae or supernovae been recorded, that would be a different matter.
So, as a first approximation, one obtains the LCM (least common multiple) of all the recurrence times as the estimate of how long ago all the observations coincided. That is a long time ago. The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.
Anyway for innovation to occur, the spirit is supposed to be “yes, and also” and not “no, but”. So may the research continue.
A casual reader would not understand the criticism embedded in this message. Therefore I will dissect these comments into short pieces, as relevant, before responding to them.
Most astronomical phenomena of the type in the MBh and Ramayana is recurrent.
This is true and corroborates the statement of my theory – “All astronomy observations of MBH and Ramayana are visual/facual/actual observations of the sky”
It is very critical though to remember that there are few observations which are, although, recurring, can only be explained for a certain time interval during the long cycle of ‘precession of Equinoxes’ of ~26000 years.
And it is even more critical to recognize that, by luck, some of these observations, are so unique that they happened only once (say in last 20 million years) (e.g. AV observation) in the past.
Now, had unique events like novae or supernovae been recorded, that would be a different matter.
It is amazing how much one misses even after multiple readings of Mahabharata or Ramayana. So, there is always a possibility of finding recorded events of Novae and supernovae. I have not found them. Of course, it does not mean that they are not there. This is a team sport and all are welcome to investigate.
As to a unique event, AV observation beats and would beat any ‘perceived’ unique events due to Novae or supernovae.
AV observation is an unique event par excellence!
So, as a first approximation, one obtains the LCM (least common multiple) of all the recurrence times as the estimate of how long ago all the observations coincided.
If this is a layman question, then layman answer is ‘More or less.. yes”. The reality is far more complicated.
That is a long time ago.
These observations lead to 5561 BCE in case of Mahabharata and to 12209 BCE in case of Ramayana.
“Long time ago” is a relative word.
Many with dogmatic ‘views’ are upset that this did not lead to millions of years in antiquity, as desired by them.
Many pseudo-Indic researchers are upset that it did not fit the new perceived reality (perceived and imagined by them) of ~3000 BCE (for Mahabharata) and ~5000 BCE (for Ramayana) they were hoping so as to convince all and sundry.. by appearing reasonable and keeping up with other pseudo-models for civilization, domestication, agriculture, archaeology, languages etc. worldwide.
The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.
I hope this naivety was not driven by two sets of data.. 215+ observations of Mahabharata leading to 5561 BCE and 575+ observations of Ramayana leading to 12209 BCE! (More observations means further back in the past!!)
For fun, note down coincident relationship between number of observations…..
If 215 corresponds to 5561 BCE, using triangulation formula, 575 should correspond to ?
= (575 X 5561 )/ 215 = 14872.44 (12209 is not that far from 14872.44)!!!
The reality is far from such naivety. When one sits on these data sets and aspires to fit them as jigsaw puzzle, not only the initial reaction, but a recurrent reaction, as one goes on solving it, is predominantly ….Whaat the XXXX?
Anyway for innovation to occur, the spirit is supposed to be “yes, and also” and not “no, but”.
“Yes and also” refers to preserving the successes of the exiting successful theory. If there are any successes, they must be preserved. So far so good.
On the other hand…
Any revolutionary theory and thus innovation is always accompanied by conflicting outcome, and for that very reason leading to ‘growth’ of our knowledge.
Ptolemy- Copernicus-Tycho Brahe-Kepler-Galileo-Newton-Lagrange-Faraday/Mawell-Plank-Poincare-Einstein are good illustrations of the ‘innovations’ and ‘revolutions’
In the words of Karl Popper:
In order that a new theory should constitute a discovery or a step forward it should conflict with its predecessor – that is to say, it should lead to at least some conflicting results. This means, from a logical point of view, that it should contradict its predecessor: it should overthrow it. In this sense, progress in science – or at least striking progress – is always revolutionary.
So may the research continue.
This is a trivially true statement (albeit important one) of a scientific and rational quest.