Bhaskara_tycho Brahe Model_implied Heliocentrism

No Contention on known astronomical facts or different equivalences between modern methods and ancient eccentric-epicyle methods. Ascribing the Tycho Brahe model to Nīlakantha is a mistake – a mistake occurred by adoptying the AR Rajaraja Varma explanation on Bhāskara-II’s method to Nīlakantha’s work without acknowledging the Varma contribution and the general equivalence of the Siddhāntic model to Tycho Brahe model. When Varma’s Bhāskara-II model = Tycho Model thesis is placed against Nīlakantha = Tycho equivalence, Bhāskara-II = Nīlakantha and any claims of Nīlakantha revising the earlier planetary theory to formulate the Tycho Brahe model becomes infructuous. If Heliocentrism is correct with Nīlakantha, why he took Mean Sun as the centre of the Universe instead of true sun? Shall anybody create a physical model of solar system with an invisible point as the centre? Why did he compute latitudes with mean sun as referenc if he knew that the orbital planes actually passed through the visible true sun? In a physical model, in framing a real picture of the solar system, what role did abstractions like the Deferents played? Computations had to preserve the apperance and beyond that no reality got percieved before the time of Kepler. Epicycles were mathematically equivalent to preserve the appearance and beyond that no reality existed with epicycle. Mean planets had nothing to do with reality in the epicycle model. Nīlakantha’s Universe had mean Sun as the centre? 1. I have no difference of opinion on the astronomical facts which you have explained. Not only Nīlakantha’s method but also Bhaskara’s method can be shown to have parallels with the modern geometric representation and derivation of longitudes.
You have concluded on slide 30 that the Planetary Model of Nīlakantha was the same as that of Tycho Brahe. For this conclusion, no innovation was required on Nīlakantha’s side. The ancient Indian planetary model long before Nīlakantha as discussed by Bhāskara-II in his Golādhyāya and Gantādhyāya is shown to depict or imply the Tycho Brahe model was shown by AR Rajaraja Varma in his book.
If Bhāskara-II model can be shown to be Tychobrahe model in 1896, and if it is shown in 1994 that Nīlakantha model is Tycho Brahe, Bhāskara-II minus Nīlakantha is reduced to zero and any claims of revision by Nīlakantha towards heliocentrism becomes meaningless.


Why Āryabhata had to term the mean Mercury and Venus to be Śīghroccam? Mercury and Venus periods were determined from observations of the Planets and he knew that the difference of their revolutions with the sun also had astronomical significance. Without substantial thinking Āryabhata would not have drawn a distinction between Mercury-Venus and Mars-Jup-Saturn. Every computed period had an observational significance and certainly there were factors that inspired distinctive methods from planet to planet. These distinctive methods shows that there was no general planetary theory.




It can be argued that Mean Planet in the case of Mars-Jupiter and Saturn for Āryabhata was heliocentric mean position and therefore the application of Śīghra correction to the Mandasphutagraha. Role of sun had been the same as that of the apogee and perigee with sun and moon – hence the sun was called Śīghrocca, point where the correction was zero.




Nīlakantha said that what is called in tradition as Śīghrocca in the case of Mercury and Venus are heliocentric mean planets as is the case with Mars-Jupiter-Sat. He changed the terminology ignoring the ancient rationale of the term. True longitude is that which is visible and mean planet is that which leads to the true planet. As such the tradition, termed mean Sun as the mean planet for Mercury and Venus.




Bhāskara is quoted by Varma and he gives a description of the equivalence of Siddhāntic model with the Tycho Brahe model in the following words:

ªÉκ¨ÉxÉ ´ÉÞkÉä §É¨ÉÊiÉ JÉäSÉ®úÉä xÉɺªÉ ¨ÉvªÉÆ EÖò¨ÉvªÉä -
v.

When a great scholar like AR Rajaraja Varma could establish in 1896 that Bhāskara-II’s method imply Tycho Brahe model, what is the claim of Tycho Brahe model with Nīlakantha?

2. Does the equivalence of the epicycle model and elliptical orbits mean that the epicycles implied the elliptical orbits? I hope the quote I gave above from Varma shall dispell all your doubts regarding fact that the Siddhāntic -Tycho Brahe equivalence had proponents 100 years before 1994. The man who initiated the Nilakantha-Tycho idea from Varma’s book (which was available along with Āryabhatīya bhāsya by Nīlakantha from KU Publication dept) took you people for a ride by hiding the work of Varma. From your presentation I feel that the equivalence of geometrical constructions for computational purpose is getting exaggerated to convey that Nīlakantha had revised the planetary theory to approach the vicinity of Kepler. All these kinds of equivalences have been discussed in the past by scholars and your group is heaping all the credit on Nīlakantha at the cost of great scholars like Rajarja Varma who did the original work. K. Chandra Hari