பீட்டா இந்த மொழி புதியது, இயந்திர மொழிபெயர்ப்பு செய்யப்பட்டது, எனவே சில சொற்கள் முழுமையாகச் சரியாக இல்லாமல் இருக்கலாம். கணிப்புகள் எல்லா மொழிகளிலும் ஒரே மாதிரியானவை. இதில் படிக்கவும்: English · हिन्दी
தொகுதி 10 · பாடம் 2 · The ethics of Jyotish

What the evidence shows

Jyotish's calculations are astronomy and can be checked; its interpretations are tradition. The platform's own back-test found its timing windows hit no more often than chance.

பிரீமியம் · 4 நிமிட வாசிப்பு

பிரீமியம் தொகுதி, தற்போது அனைவருக்கும் இலவசம்.

Jyotish is a traditional knowledge system with astronomical calculation at its core and a large body of interpretation built on top. Being honest about it means asking two separate questions: are the calculations correct, and do the interpretations predict anything? The answers turn out to be quite different.

Calculation and interpretation

The Panchang's calculations are astronomy. A tithi is fixed by the angle between the Moon and the Sun, a nakshatra by the Moon's position, and sunrise by the Sun's place below the horizon. All of these can be checked against public astronomical data from bodies such as the US Naval Observatory (USNO) and NASA. For example, every Amavasya on the site should contain the moment of astronomical new moon that USNO publishes; if it did not, the engine would be wrong.

Interpretation is tradition: what a nakshatra signifies, what a dasha (planetary period) is said to bring, when a gochar (transit) is thought to matter. These are claims of a different kind. They cannot be checked against a telescope, but some of them, especially claims about timing, can be tested against real lives.

The platform's back-test

On 30 September 2026 the platform tested the timing windows its Kundli shows. It used 139 people whose birth times are reliably recorded (rated AA or A on Astro-Databank's Rodden scale, the two highest grades) and 432 documented events in their lives. The question was simple: do the events fall inside the windows more often than they would by chance? 114 events fell inside. About 106 would be expected by chance alone.

பின்-சோதனை: 139 நபர்களின் 432 வாழ்க்கை நிகழ்வுகள்சோதிக்கப்பட்ட நிகழ்வுகள்: 432 432 காலத்திற்குள்114 தற்செயலாக≈106 பொருந்தியவை தற்செயலால் மட்டும் கிடைப்பதற்கு நெருக்கமாக இருந்தன 2026-09-30 அன்று இயக்கப்பட்டது; விவரங்கள் பாடத்தில்
The bar chart compares the number of events that fell inside the timing windows with the number expected by chance.

What 'expected by chance' and 'not significant' mean

The windows cover part of every life. Even if they had nothing to do with events, some events would land inside them, just as darts thrown blindfolded at a wall hit any painted patch roughly in proportion to its size. Working out how many hits that blind throwing would give is the "expected by chance" number: here about 106 of 432, roughly one in four.

Chance also wobbles. Toss a fair coin 100 times and you rarely get exactly 50 heads. The z-score measures a gap in units of that ordinary wobble. Here the gap is 8 hits and z ≈ 0.9, meaning the gap is smaller than the usual random wobble. Researchers generally want z of about 2 or more before calling a result significant. A z of 0.9 is well within luck, so the test found no measurable timing signal.

The individual ingredients were also tested one by one on fresh data: the relevance of the running dasha, Jupiter transits, Yogini dasha and Saturn transits. Each one came out at chance.

Why one test cannot prove a negative

Not finding a signal is not the same as proving there is none. 432 events are enough to notice a strong effect but could miss a small one, and other techniques, other people or other kinds of events might behave differently. So the honest summary is "this test found no measurable timing signal", not "Jyotish is false". The same honesty cuts the other way: with no evidence of a signal, nobody can truthfully claim that the timing windows are accurate.

Why tuning on the same data would be cheating

Jyotish offers many rules, and each can be weighted or combined in many ways. With enough adjustment, some combination will always fit 432 known events — like painting the target after the darts have landed. A fair test fixes the rules first and then checks them on held-out data: events that played no part in choosing or tuning the rules. That is why the ingredients were checked on fresh data, and why any future change would have to prove itself the same way.

Because of this result, the site labels its timing windows "traditional indications" and makes no accuracy claims. The methodology page describes the calculations and the test.

Using Jyotish meaningfully

None of this makes Jyotish worthless. For many people its value never depended on forecasting. It can be used in ways that need no predictive claim at all:

What matters is to avoid dependence. If you find yourself checking a chart before every choice, or feeling anxious about a transit, step back. Decisions are yours, made with good information, trusted advice and your own judgement.

வினாடி வினா

5 கேள்விகள். பாடத்தை நிறைவு செய்ய 4 சரியாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

1. Which of these can be checked directly against USNO or NASA data?
2. In the platform's back-test, how many of the 432 events fell inside the timing windows, and how many were expected by chance?
3. What does a z-score of about 0.9 tell us here?
4. Why would tuning the rules on the same 432 events be unfair?
5. Which is the honest summary of the back-test?

ஆதாரங்களும் மேலதிக வாசிப்பும்

தொடர்புடைய சொற்கள்

பயன்படுத்துங்கள்

ஜோதிடம் இங்கே ஒரு பாரம்பரிய அறிவு முறையாகக் கற்பிக்கப்படுகிறது. கணக்கீடுகள் வானியல், அவற்றைச் சரிபார்க்கலாம்; விளக்கங்கள் மரபு, நிரூபிக்கப்பட்ட முன்கணிப்புகள் அல்ல. சான்றுகள் என்ன காட்டுகின்றன

பிராந்தியம் மற்றும் பஞ்சாங்க மரபுக்கேற்ப நடைமுறைகள் வேறுபடலாம். நேரங்கள் தேர்ந்தெடுத்த இடம், நேர மண்டலம் மற்றும் கணிப்பு முறைக்குக் காட்டப்படுகின்றன.