In the previous seven articles of this series, Oak’s dating of the R??m??ya???a to 12209 BCE has been refuted. There are four Astronomy Poison Pills for the dating of the R??m??ya???a according to Oak [1]. The first Astronomy Poison Pill of “Caitra being in the ??arad season” was refuted in Part 2 [2]. I pointed out that according to the evidence in the R??m??ya???a, Caitra was in the Vasanta season. I refuted the second Astronomy Poison Pill — that of “????vina month being part of the Vasanta season” in Part 4 [3]. I pointed out that Caitra, not ????vina month, was part of the Vasanta season based on clear evidence in the R??m??ya???a. I refuted the third Astronomy Poison Pill — that of the “Sun setting near pushya during Hemant season” in Part 3 [4]. I pointed out that Ara???yak????????a 16.12 in the R??m??ya???a does not specify the position of the Sun. I refuted the fourth Astronomy Poison Pill — that of “the description of Brahmar????i/Vega/Abhijit as pole star” in Part 5 [5].
Refutation of Nilesh Oak???s Astronomical Dating of Mahabharata to 5561 BCE
The observation of Alcor (Arundhat??) moving ahead of Mizar (Vasi??????ha) as described in Mah??bh??rata Bh?????maparva 2.31 is central part of the dating of Mahabharata…