In the work The Àryabhatiya of Àryabhata, An Ancient Indian Work on Mathematics and Astronomy, translated by William Eugene Clark, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 1930), I found the following to be written:

"In a yuga the revolutions of the Sun are 4,320,000, of the Moon 57,753,336, of the Earth eastward 1,582,237,500, of Saturn 146,564, of Jupiter 364,224, of Mars 2,296,824 . . . " (page 9).

Given Jan. 1, 2000 astronomical constants and given the present day formulas to temporally adjust the astronomical constants, I calculated that Àryabhata's ratio was exact for 1604 BC.* The resulting data is presented in Table 1. The temporal variation formulas used can be obtained from my Astronomy Formulas page. The date AD 500 is the approximate epoch in which Àryabhata wrote. Àryabhata was born in 476 in Patna, India and died in 550. His Àryabhatiya was probably written in A.D 498. His sources remain obscure.
 

According to G. R. Kay, Àryabhata and the Paulisa Siddanta present the values below for the lunar periods. Kay's table of durations of sidereal and synodic months also quotes another ancient Indian authority of the era, Paulisa Siddanta. Obviously the accuracy of the ancient Indian astronomical data is not just coincidence. Note that the lunar orbit period of 27.321668 is accurate for the same epoch as the lunar orbit to earth rotations ratio quoted above. This is supportive of the suggestion that the information derives from an accurate ancient source.
 

Àryabhata wrote the Àryabhatiya in four chapters. The first chapter presents the astronomical constants and sine tables. Chapter II is mathematics required for computation. Chapter III discusses time and the longitudes of the planets. Chapter IV includes rules of trigonometry and rules for eclipse computations. Àryabhata's work in effect started a new school of astronomy in South India.

Àryabhata is the first known astronomer to have initiated a continuous counting of solar days, designating each day with a number. This 'count of days' is termed the 'ahargana.' His epoch began at the beginning of the Mahayuga. To avoid excessively large numbers, later astronomers changed the beginning of the epoch to the Kali era, commencing at midnight of 17-18 February of 3102 B.C.

The Àryabhatiya is a summary of Hindu mathematics up to his time, including astronomy, spherical trigonometry, arithmetic, algebra and plane trigonometry. Some of his formulas are correct, others not. The first appearance of the sine of an angle appears in the work of Àryabhata. He gave tables of half chords (sine tables).

To the best of my knowledge, Àryabhata's ratio represents the earliest known recorded astronomic ratio with such incredible accuracy. It surprises me that this fact has gone unnoticed to this date (to the best of my knowledge). I suspect that this oversight is due to our present day emphasis on days and years, rather than rotations and orbits. Few readers today would recognize the ratio of rotations of the earth per lunar orbit. Other author's have commented on the accuracy of ancient Indian astronomy, though typically the ratios were assessed in relation to the duration of the Mahayuga (4,320,000 years). It does not surprise me that such an accurate astronomic ratio may have been known to other cultures in earlier eras.

Àryabhata wrote that the apparent motion of the heavens was due to the axial rotation of our planet. Àryabhata taught that the earth is a sphere and rotates on its axis, and that eclipses resulted from the shadows of the moon and earth. Àryabhata's innovations were opposed by Hindu teachers. His teachings were not in accordance with the religious views of his era.

Àryabhata wrote, according to Clarke, "In a yuga the revolutions of the Sun are 4,320,000, of the Moon 57,753,336, of the Earth eastward 1,582,237,500, . . ." Given Àryabhata's value of 27.321668 days per lunar orbit period, the 57,753,336 lunar orbits represent 4,320,027.33 solar orbits (in AD 500), not 4,320,000. Why? Perhaps because the numbers are divisible by 60 and 6. The ancient Indians employed base 60 math. I have no certain answer for this question. Perhaps religious dogma had an influence in this matter. The accuracy of the ratios presented should be considered valid, even though they do not match the exact time intervals considered significant in Hindu cosmology. This inaccuracy poses a question regarding the planetary numbers. Should they be compared to the 4,320,000 years number or to the rotations and lunar orbits numbers?
 

* This date result is dependent on the accuracy of the obliquity of the ecliptic formula used. Modern, temporal-change-of-obliquity formulas merit closer analysis before reliance on their precision when date-reaching mechanisms are employed.

SOME QUESTIONS:

At this rewriting, Jan. 1, 2001, I still await some answers to the questions posed below. This may be indicative of the answers. To date I have found no indication of older accurate astronomical constants or published indications of modern writers noticing the accuracy of the data discovered in the Indian sources.

• Do you know of any source previously noticing and publishing the accuracy of Àryabhata's ratio?
• Do you know of any older record reflecting such an accurate astronomic ratio? From India? In Sanskrit? From other parts of the world?
• Do you know of any astronomic record reflecting such an accurate astronomic ratio prior to the last two centuries?
• When did modern astronomers first arrive at an astronomic ratio of comparable accuracy?

The WWW is interactive. You can contribute to this niche of knowledge. If you can comment on or answer any of the questions posed please e-mail me your data: Contact. If your contribution is used to update this material, you will be credited. I do not read Sanskrit. If you do, and you have read the original works, your contributions will be especially appreciated.

FURTHER COMMENTS

2007.08.22. In response to the questions above, I have received few replies in nearly a decade now. Today I received an interesting observation from Clive Ross. In part, Mr. Ross wrote:

Earth years 1,582,237,500/365.256336 = 4,331,855.04 years. Now we know that nobody recorded planet motion for 4,331,855.04 years, therefore the number is significant.it is relevant to something. Evaluating: Jupiter orbits the Sun in 4332.5 days .compare to the number of Earth days chosen by the author when converted to Earth years. 4,331,855.04 . 1000 times the days for Jupiter to orbit the Sun.!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since I first published this page several people have offered advice and encouragement. Some have asked for further information. In particular I wish to thank Dr. Vijay Bedekar and David B. Kelley for encouraging further research. This updated and expanded page has resulted. Thanks to Ramana Bhamidipati for his input and suggestions.

RELATED LINKS: