brihaspati wrote:Regardsing the shift of the ecllpitic, etc - for all concerned, the numerical models used in even the "most advanced" of software are tentative approximations. To kindly remind everyone:
(a) the planetary motions are not a two-body problem, but a n-body problem. Its nearly impossible to model all the point masses needed to be accounted for in the simplistic non-extended body version.
(b) the currently used multivariate PDE' systems are approximations, [the Lagrangians are approximated] and hence they are typically expanded in power series forms up to a required level of supposed accuracy. Note however that the coefficients are not theoretically computed but fitted from observed data. Hence every such equation set comes with a time-span of expected reasonabl accuracy. If you try to expand them to time periods they are not meant for - you will get very funny results.
(c) the stability of earths rotational axis, and relative shape of the orbit - is an assumption, based on other theoretical considerations such as the presence of the moon, etc. However, people do not rule out cyclical or other disturbances to the assumed stable shape and positions - beyond recent human experience.
Anyone claiming that so-and-so could not have been seen in such-and-such year should be as cautious of his claim as someone claiming that so-and-so must have been seen in such-and-such.
brihaspati garu,
At the moment, I think, accentuating and emphasizing the error factor is really shooting in one's own foot. Not all archaeo-astronomical calculations based on textual evidence would necessarily involve simulations and not all simulations would necessarily entail an error above acceptance level or would adversely affect the simulated dynamic that needs to be shown. Also it is unknown after which time period, the error adds up and becomes significant. It can be 1000 years or it could be 100,000 years.
However harping on this error factor would give detractors a handy lever to use to debunk all the astronomical dates that Indigenists may have arrived at pertaining to Rig Veda, Mahabharat, Ramayana, etc. In fact the "error factor" argument would be used much in the same way as AIT-Nazis and AIT-Sepoys today use "horse bones and spoked wheels" argument!
In the future we may develop astronomical software with a much higher level of accuracy, but I doubt there would be much difference in the outcome.
Even if one wishes to fly to the "Total Honesty" and "Satya" flag and in the shadow of this mast piss on one's own people (by no means am I saying that you are doing this), I think the demand should be him to prove that in the case of a particular calculation/simulation, the error was significant, and would have changed the outcome. We should never allow the AIT-Nazis to make the argument, "Aw, that astronomical software results are crap when one goes beyond 3500 years before present"!
The issue is that archaeo-astronomical evidence and its verification through astronomical software may be one of the best means for Indians to be able to stitch our Itihaas to a timeline, which is both truthful and underlines our claims to antiquity, and at the same time satisfies the requirements of scientific proof. And we should not unnecessarily undermine this means.
