Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

page: 4
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainRon
the grammar being rightly followed till date


Now this is what I call Irony. Yes, the capitalization is intentional and justified.


This also indicates that at one point of time, Europe, middle east and North India were speaking one language i.e. Sanskrit. This points towards the existence of a vast interlinked community over the regions mentioned above.

What about Germanic influences on English? Does this mean that a large unified German empire held sway over England? The answer is no. It indicates that the people migrated and settled new areas- not under the influence of a large highly organized empire, much less a technologically advanced one.


Perhaps somebody who actually has an education in linguistics should weigh in on this issue before we go making unwarranted conclusions based on the existence of large language families. In case you didn't know, Sanskrit isnt the only "parent language" out there. There are several language families with common origins.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Vagabond
This completely ignores the function of proof. The absolute non-existance of proof need not be proven. The point of proof is to defeat the initial assumption that what is evident is true, which then puts "the ball in somone's court" as it were. If you understand the legal concept of prima facie evidence it would be helpful. (god i hope i didn't spell that wrong).


So you are basically using this discussion not for the merit of it but just so that you can get some *points* to "throw the ball at the other court"? How quaint.


The absolute non-existance of proof need not be proven.

It should. I and others who are reading this thread will determine what prima facia you've got. Merely defeating the initial assumption only goes to prove your debate skills - it however does not deny the actual existence of proof.

Anyway not to sidetrack the thread, continue your "debate" please. Don't think either of you can make a convincing argument though. As I said, absence of proof is not lack of proof.



[edit on 14-1-2005 by aryaputhra]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra

Vagabond
This completely ignores the function of proof. The absolute non-existance of proof need not be proven. The point of proof is to defeat the initial assumption that what is evident is true, which then puts "the ball in somone's court" as it were. If you understand the legal concept of prima facie evidence it would be helpful. (god i hope i didn't spell that wrong).


So you are basically using this discussion not for the merit of it but just so that you can get some *points* to "throw the ball at the other court"? How quaint.

Think really had about this genius. You are trying act as if your case had prima facie evidence; meaning that at a glance it was assumed true and the burden of proof were on the opposition. The fact is however that your statement about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, while true, is not prima facie evidence of presence.
This is a discussion of how evidence should be viewed. "points" (of logic) are all that there is.



The absolute non-existance of proof need not be proven.

It should. I and others who are reading this thread will determine what prima facia you've got. Merely defeating the initial assumption only goes to prove your debate skills - it however does not deny the actual existence of proof.

Anyway not to sidetrack the thread, continue your "debate" please. Don't think either of you can make a convincing argument though. As I said, absence of proof is not lack of proof.
[edit on 14-1-2005 by aryaputhra]

Let me acquaint you with the nature of this debate. We are discussing whether or not something happened. It did or it didn't. There isn't a 3rd option to be taken if nobody made a convincing arguement- it's like dividing by zero.
When it comes to historical theories, the negative is prima facie true- otherwise conflicting multiple histories would be logically proveable.

The negative arguement need not be proven absolutely; it must only be defended against any evidence raised by the affirmative side.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
This is in reponse to all of the unfounded criticism and misconceptions on Sanksrit and ancient Indian atomic theory. I will also discuss even further proofs that support my proposition that there is absolute proof of an advanced ancient Indian civilization.

Sanskrit Language

Will Durant - “India is the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of European languages. Sanskrit was the mother of our modern philosophy.

Sankrit is not a secret, alien, language. That is simply not the case, and if this was not true, there would not be thousands of sanskrit scholars in the world. Sasnkrit is actually an easy language to learn and there exists several dictionaries for it. Further, Sanskrit was not lost, and nor were the treaties on science and physics. If they were lost, I would not be able to produce them. Ancient Indians have been able to preserve their culture, sciences and heritage against all odds, despite repeated invasions, internal corrosion, looting and pillaging by greeks, romans, arabs and europeans for centuries. However, in this process, knowledge of them were lost. It is fortunate that there still exists enough records to re-learn them. Further, Sankrit texts have suffered at the hands of white-supremist, racists translators who have only deliberately mistranslated the texts.

In the vedic times, knowledge was dictated in oral form, not written form. It was only the Maharishis that penned their knowledge. It was not that writing did not exist, it's just that ancient Indian schooling was so advanced that they could remember their lessons by memory. This may sound like a seemingly impossible feat of human intelligence. However, it is known, that memory can be trained and certain people have the ability to completely memorize entire books. I recall the case of a 7 year old who had commited to memory the entire Koran and could recall any verse.

Sanskrit is recognized as the mother language of all Indo-European languages. It is the most advanced ancient language in existence, some even say(forbes) the most advanced language today. In 700 BC Yasaka wrote on book on etymology and in 500BC, Panini compiled a treatise on grammer. They both attribute their sources to vedic times.

You can see how English words can be traced to their sankrit roots:

Manu the first person gives us man, manual, manhood.
Pitru gives rise to pater, father
Matru to mother;
Bhratru to brother
Dohitru to daughter.
Devapitru - the godfather becomes Zeuspater and then Jupiter.
Timir the darkness is to be feared and gives rise to timid and timorous. Janma, Janani are birth and mother who gives birth and from it stem gene, genesis, generate.
Mrut, Mrutyu are dead and death and hence mortis, mortal, mortality. Sarpa is to slide or slither like a snake, so serpent and serpentine.
Madhu, Madhur are honey and sweet and from them we get mead and mellitus.
Gnana is the basis of spelling knowledge with a K, and hence gnosis, Gnostic and ignorant.
Agni is fire and hence the English words ignite, ignition, igneous.
Raaj is rule and from it come regis, reign, royal, regina, regal, ragnar.
Sthaan, Sthit, Sthiti meaning position, stable and condition, give rise to stand, stance, state, static.
Vijaya becomes vici and then victory and invincible.
Yoga, Yukta give yoke
Bandha, Bandhan are the root of bind, bound, boundary, bond and binding.
Pada gives root to podia, podiatry, peddle, pedlar.
Surya - Sun
Akasha - Air
Naas is to Nose and Nasal
Danta is to teeth/tooth and the origin of dental, dentine and dent
Rudra is red and from it comes rubro, ruby and ultimately red
BARBARA, "barbarian, one with long hair" (BARBER)

The Sankrit numbers(2-10) Dwi, Tri, Chatur, Pancha, Shat, Sapta, Ashta, Nava, Dasha

The numbers in other language, there is only some interchangability:

The Hindi numbers: Ek, Do, Tin, Char, Panja, che, sat, aat, nuo, das

The French numbers: Une, Deux, Trois, Quatre(catre), cinq, six, sept, huit, neuf, dix

The German numbers: eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht, neun, zehn

The Latin numbers: unus, duo, tres, quattuor, quinque, sex, septem, octo, novem

Hindi is the first descendent of Sanskrit and English is a much later one:

Manu - Manav - Man
Pitha - Pitah - Pither - Father
Mutra - Matra - Mother
Gnana - Gyana - Gnosis
Agni - Aag - Ignite
Vijaya - Vijay - Victory
Surya - Suraj - Sun
Bhratu - Bhai - Brother

So, all sankrit words can be translated by comparing it to other Indo-European languages, especially Hindi and comparing it to known Sankrit docments. As I said Sankrit is not an unknown language. It is the master language in fact.

Ancient Indian atomic theory

There is no wrong way to catagorize elements. Not all cultures in the universe would catagorize them by their atomic number in a periodic table like mendeleevs. To only accept this kind of catagorization is fundamentalism, and oh, it's more intellectual arrogance. Moreover, it is maybe our own elemental theory that is lesser developed than the Indian one. If only matter is an element, then what is light and energy? Modern science has propounded many theories on light and energy, where they are either waves, particles, or a particle-wave duality. However, according to quantum mechanics, energy is comprised of discreet multiples, or photons, tiny packets of quanta, or particles of light. We cannot observe them, but that does not mean that they do not exist. If light was not made of particles then certain quantum mechanical effects would not exist, like the photoelectric effect. I

n the end the physical universe is physical, all that exists within it, has physicality. We assume that energy has no mass, because we cannot observe it, however if energy has no mass, why does it have finite speed. If energy has no mass, why does it condense to form mass? There is no explanation of this, other than a magic higgs field that turns on and matter forms.

In multidimensional QM theory, such as superstring, the universe is not 3D. Relativity only works in the 3D universe. QM effects like quantum entanglement does not occur in the 3D universe and henceforth have infinite speed. Perhaps, relative to a higher dimensional universe, QE is finite speed. So all of the physical universe is duality.

This is the crux of ancient Indian metaphysics which accords with modern quantum mechanics, in particular the holographic theory of the universe. That is that the physical universe is is a dual-existence, and therefore an illusion of the absolute existence or the absolute reality, the Brahman. In ancient India all technology was called "maya" which means "illusion" so while ancient Indians were an advanced scientific civilization, they were also a spiritual one. Unlike our western civilization, technology was not an imperative, end all and be all of life. It was used as a means, not an end, to their spiritual growth.

Today, we are experiencing the same transformation from physical to the metaphysical thought - from NM and GR to QM. Further showing that relative to Ancient Indian civilization, we are a developing civilization.

I actually think the Indian catagorization of the elements is a far more advanced view of the physical universe. It accounts for the main states of matter, solid, liquids and gas, as well as energy and light and the vacuum field. The western view of only saying matter is that which only has mass, thus only matter is an element, is very lopsided and also inaccurate. Matter is that, that occupies space-time. Does light and energy not occupy space and time?

Ancient Indian atomic theory was an empirical science, not just a theoretical science. Kanada simply systematized the knowledge from the vedic times in his vaisheShika sUtras in 600BC(2600 years ago) Here is a detailed and complete look at his postulations.


All elements that comprise the physical universe, except ether, are made up of atoms

All substances are a combination of atoms

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.

In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.

The forces to be considered are an external force, gravity, that with causes attraction of particles, that which causes repulsion of particles and the internal movements of them in matter.

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction

The diversities of the movement of an arrow are due to the consecutive changes in the components of the acting forces. The stored energy provides the propulsion to the arrow and this causes it move further to a high point. This component keeps reducing while that of gravity increases resulting in its fall.

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it.

Once the work against gravity ceases then the body reaches an energy-less state falling under gravity.

In the absence of all forces the Samyoga binding(gravity) still exists.

The guna(direction of force) prevents the magnitude from being obtained.

The nature of air is formed of the collision of gases.

Despite of being made of atoms and occupying space, air fails to show orderly movement, so it's form cannot be perceived.

Solid's occupy space and assume form because of a coglomeration of constituent particles.

In a liquid the particles possess energy, the heat bearing rays provide the particles the energy to form and rise into gas.

Some substances, like tin, gold, wax and ghee are in reality liquids conjoined by "heat" once they are supplied with heat energy they are disordered and they become liquid.

A substance cannot arise from nothing, it is formed from other substances and it's properties change.

A Dwinuka(binary molecule) retains the propeties/individuality of it's parent atoms.

Any fundamental entity can be a constituent of multiple substances.

Any substance comprising of two or more particle types requires a chemical reaction to generate it - the conjoining or breaking of pre-existing molecular bonds.

Forces are necessary to combine atoms or break bonds.

The combinations of particles that form Dwinukas results in substances that have very different states of matter from the original.

The mind can only be explained as being made of particles

Space and time are only a frame within which matter exists.

Space and time is particular in nature, like gas, and is also made up of constituents particles.

An unseen force adR^isShTam is responsible for the movement of a needle or bead(magentism)

Matter and energy are two forms of the same substance and are therefore interchangable

Sources:

www.geocities.com...
home.no.net...

Ancient Indians from 5000 to 10,000 years ago, understood atomic theory, relativity, magnetism, newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics that even surpasses our own understanding. It seems evident that at least at an abstract level they understood sub-atomic physics. We know, that as soon as man conceptualized the atom and understood chemical and atomic theory, it was not long before he split the atom and discovered nuclear energy. All those prerequisites are present in ancient Indian science.
Further, calculating the exact speed of light(a process which itself requires lasers and modern measuring equipment) discovering the nature of atoms and chemistry was obviously not an abstract form of thought. It was an empirical science that they utilised.

We have evidence in terms of the records describing advanded technology in a practical and empirical manner and the general anecdotes from all the world of advanced technology. We have evidence of modern scientists designing new technology and materials using ancient Indian texts. There is even evidence of irradiated cities, vitrified rocks and gobules of glass that suggest nuclear weapons.

Finally, there actually existing structures from thousands of years ago that prove advanced atomic and chemical knowledge. A case in point: The corrision proof Iron pillar of Delhi more than 1,600 years ago. There was no corrosion proof metallurgical technology until stainless steel in the 20th century.

One of the criticism raised that because Indian elemental theory called water an element and Kanada said that all elements could subdivided, that it was not understood that water is a molecule of hydrogen and oxygen. It has already been shown from Kanada postulates that he understood the nature of air to be formed of a mixture of gases and that liquid become a gas when provided enough energy. He also understood that substances can be made of other substances and have different properties from the original.

The major appehension was Kanada's postulate that a dwinuka will take on the properties/individuality of the parent particles. This suggests that Kanada understood chemical bonding and resultant properties beyond modern chemistry. However, it is very easy to prove: a different combinaton(that is possible) would give a different substance with different properties. For example H20 is neutral and H2SO4 is acidic. CO2(carbon dixoide) is non poisonous, but CO is poisonous. Just the addition of a single oxygen atom makes CO non toxic. So, there is an inherentlproperty from each atom that forms the emergent properties of the combined molecule.

So chemistry is very much like human reproduction, which in itself is bio-chemistry. Where the parents genes are passed on to the offspring and from which the characteristics are determined.

Now to further prove that ancient Indians did indeed know that water was indeed made UP of Hydrogen Oxygen and knew how to apply it. We can consult the [
i]Agastya Samhita from the vedic times. The Agatya Samhita is another sanskrit treatise on flying aircraft and energy generation. However, this time, it does not discuss advanced flying machines. It discusses a hydrogen balloon, called "chchatra" (umbrella or balloon) to be filled with hydrogen by extracting hydrogen from water with electrolysis. It describes it as a very primitive vimana to be used to escape from a city.

The process of extracting the Hydrogen, as well as the construction of a dry-cell batttery is described very elaborately:

Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel.
Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust.
After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of
an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will
be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A
chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active
and effective force."

ÄÄ Agastya Samhita

(Indian Princes' Library)

Pranavayu = oxygen air
Udanayayu = Hydrogen air(upwards air)
Mitra-Varuna = Cathode and Anode(friends of water)

An actual dry-cell battery was found in Baghdad 2000 years old. It is clay jar with a stopper made of asphalt. Sticking through the asphalt is an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. When filled with vinegar - or any other electrolytic solution - the jar produces about 1.1 volts. Scientists believe it was used for electroplating.

Ancient Indian cosmology

Ancient Indian cosmology is the most advanced of all ancient cultures, and some of the theories even foreshadow modern cosmological theories. Some aspects of ancient Indian cosmology is even new for modern science, such as the cyclical or oscillating universe and the many worlds hypothesis. In western civilization as late as 19th century scientists could not think of the age of the universe/earth multiple powers of tens. When western scientists were thinking of the universe as 6000 years old and finite and the earth as flat. Indians were dividing time into eons and ages and the universe into galaxies and mapping out the solar system. Yet, thousands of years ago, Indians were measuring time and distances in billions and trillions and even understood creation, evolution and microbiology. The following illustrates this:

Evolution and microbiology:

The first germ of life was developed by water and heat. Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. These are the transformations declared, from the plant to Brahma, which have to take place in the world."
' (Manusmriti - Book I, sloka 8,9)

' Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals.' (Manusmriti - Book III, sloka 76)

Man has passed through 84 lakhs (8,400,000) of birth as plants, animals, as an "inferior species of man" and then as the ancestor of the developed type existing to-day - a thought held in ancient India and also propounded by Sikh Gurus.

The Heliocentric model of the solar system

Ancient Indians had none of the absurdities in early western scientific civilization, like; flat earth; humans being the centre of the universe and the sun revolving around the earth. From as early as the beginning of Indian civilization in recorded history. Indians knew that the earth was an imperfect sphere, that revolved around the sun due to gravity, and the sun itself was a star. Not only that they, they also knew that about the poles:

The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side…Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets….” Aitareya Brahmana (3.44)

Markandeya Purana (54.12) speaks of Earth as being flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, that is, not perfectly spherical.

Again, as was the case with atomic theory, this is not just theoretical or philosophical thought. While, Kanada systematized the science of atomic theory in the vedic times. Gravitational theory was systematized under science of astronomy and gravitation in Surya Siddhantha in 400AD(1600 years ago)

An ancient Sanskrit couplet also contemplates the idea of multiple suns:

"Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaham Suryaha, Surya."

"There are suns in all directions, the night sky being full of them,"

The Laya Yoga Samhita stated that just as the beams of sunlight entering a room reveal the presence of innumberable motes, so infinite space is filled with countless brahmandas (universes).

The word "Brahmandas" is interesting. It means universe, however the individual constituents of the word, Brah and Andas, mean expanding egg. So the the universes in the superverse are expanding eggs. The expanding universe was only discovered when Hubble measured the red-shift in the universe.

Ancient Indian Mathematics

The concept of infinite sets of rational numbers was understood by Jain 2600 years ago. Algebra, geometry, logarithims, trigonometry, and calculus were all originated in India."Bakhshali manuscript", 70 leaves of bark dating back 500AD reveals fractions, simultaneous equations, quadratic equations, geometric progressions.

The Sulba Sutras, composed between 800 and 500 B.C foreshadow pythagoras theorem and shows the square root of 2 has two solutions - correct to five decimal system. The Kerala mathematician Nilakantha wrote sophisticated explanations of the irrationality of "pi" before the West had heard of the concept.

Ancient Indian Computer Science

We know that binary numbers are the essential mathematics for the digital age and the computer. The Pingala's "Chandahshastra" was a treatise written on music. Pingala constructs a "Prastara" or a matrix of binary number. The treatise also describes how to convert decimal numbers to their binary equivalent. This was discovered by B van Nooten of the university of California. Ancient Indians had also found mathematical techniques to present text as binary numbers.

It was noted by forbes magazine that Panini is the most suitable language for computers. It described the rules of grammar as described in the Panini Sutra to be as advanced(if not more) as Backus-Naur Form in Syntax of Formal Languages". Bakus was developed in 1970's by IBM. An article was also published by AI magazine in 1985 where a NASA scientist proposed Panini should be used to develop high-level languages for computers and robots.

Here is the article: www.aaai.org...

Note: Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader

So if Sankrit is indeed the most advanced language for computers and systems to represent texts with binary numbers existed. And as we have learnt that principles of atomic thoery was known. Then all prerequisites for developing a computer exist. So are there any records of computers in ancient India?

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. Not just computers, but aritifial intelligence:

Artificial intelligence was known as a yantra-purusa, which means machine-man. A machine man was described as human-like. There are many accounts of artifiicial intelligence in sankrit documents. As usual, they belonged to the elite or acharyas and maharihsis, however they were also used in the military. Some accounts:

In the Buddhistic Bhaisajya-vastu, in which a painter went to the Yavana country and visited the home of a yantracarya, or teacher of mechanical engineering. There he met a machine-girl who washed his feet and seemed human, until he found that she could not speak.

A robot palace guard stands at the gate with a sword, ready to "quickly and quietly kill thieves who break into the palace at night.

A complete city of mechanical people, presided over by a human being who manipulates them from a control center in his palace.

All the divya(celestial) aastras in the Mahabharata worked on the basis of artificial intelligence and psychotronic means. The weapons could be summoned by thought and a "mantra" a sort of password was recited and they would materialise. They would be then directed at the target and then fired and they would seek out their target and unleash the effects they are associated with.

In the often quoted battle between Salva. Krishna deploys a special weapon that seeks out sound(the weapon has it's own intelligence) While Salva Vimana was cloaked, it had not blocked out the transmission of sound from the two Danava soliders that were piloting the air craft and screaming taunts and insults. Krsna then dealt with them as follows: "I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound, to kill them, and the screeching subsided. All the Danavas who had been screeching lay dead, killed by the blazing sunlike arrows that were triggered by sound."
Now, it is fairly obvious the weapon had it's own intelligence and is not just a weapon with sensors. In a battlefield there would be sound everywhere. So how does the missile distinguish between the sound of Salva's Vimanas and the sound of everything else? It would have to be intelligent.

Conclusion.

Ancient India was certainly a very advanced and sophiticated civilization. It is normally believed that technological development is a linear progression. However, the truth seems to the opposite. Everything begins to degrade from the Indian civilization of 10,000+ years ago. We can see from how IE languages devolved from the original master language.

A summary of the facts raised in this post and others.

A scientific understanding of atomic theory, relativity, newtonian mechanics and quantum theory

An understanding of binary nunbers and hashing algorithms for converting text to binary

An understanding of cyclic universe, multiple world theory, holograhic universe and the expanding universe(red shifts)

An understanding of the heliocentric model of the universe

An understanding of evolution and microbiology

An understanding of the exact speed of light and light as a particle

An understanding of the exact age of the Earth

An understanding of algerba, calculus, trigonometry, quadratic and simultaneous equations, geometric progressions etc

A practical knowledge of electricity, electrolysis and hydrogen airships

A practical knowledge of corrosion proof metallurgy

A practical knowledge of medicine and advanced surgery(including cataracts, plastic and brain surgery)

A language with such advanced grammar and syntax that it is suitable as a computer language for artificial intelligence.

A language that is the mother of Indo-European languages.

All the prerequisite understanding for advanced technology like computers, nuclear weapons, flight and lasers is present. Is there any reason why they could not progress that far? It took western civilization only a century to go from horse-driven carriages to space rockets. I reiterate that there is no doubt that this is a very advanced civilization. This advanced and sophisticated civilization calls the Ramayana and Mahabharata history, and we know that the Mahabharata does indeed have basis in history.

We can further corrobortate that the kind of technology described in the Mahabharat is described in other sankrit texts too.

The flying aircraft and wonderos technology becomes a natural progression allowed by the advanced state of ancient Indian science. Finally, we can refer back to the VS that describes all the yantras and materials in a high level of technical depth. The fact that Indian scientists have been able to fabricate technology from directions in the VS, and considering again, the fact that Indian science was advanced enough to progress to this technology, I submit that this is absolute proof that a more advanced Indian civilization existed.

I asked in another thread recently "Will Humanity become a Myth?" Well, yes, if the future inhabitants of this planet are as ignorant and arrogant as us.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

What about Germanic influences on English? Does this mean that a large unified German empire held sway over England? The answer is no. It indicates that the people migrated and settled new areas- not under the influence of a large highly organized empire, much less a technologically advanced one.

Don't know about your linguistics but u surely have trouble reading on the screen, or maybe u do this posting on forum stuff all day so u have developed a 'macro' to bash every post. Anyway, what will it take to make u get the catch here. "We are not talking about 'recent' history".
If you arent confused with history, the inhabitation of aryan race was from europe and central asia to Iran and North India. As matter of fact all Germans were speaking sanskrit at one time. Sanskrit was the language of the Aryans. The history of Aryans is not very concrete, like where they originated from etc. Apart from that we have Dwarika, the city of 7000BC, a period when Aryans were not even thought to exist. So all in all, the history of aryans which has been officially documented, don't make much sense here.



In case you didn't know, Sanskrit isnt the only "parent language" out there. There are several language families with common origins.

Yo, I know, but Sanskrit is a master peice of the human brain as is quoted. It's also one of the oldest languages... or maybe the oldest.
And I am quite surprised that u didnt consider mentioning a few more language families apart from sanskrit. Well for europe, Latin and greek have been the most influential languages. But again, this is a recent history scenario. Also Tamil language has a lot of follow ups. But as a matter of fact, Sanskrit had the biggest area coverage.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Hello, apologies for intruding on a fascinating subject but I felt perhaps I could make a small contribution of sorts. I have only recently started reading this forum and so am not completely familiar with the style of the various posters so forgive any inaccuracies in my judgement.

There is always this inclination to become emotive about a subject and this invariably destroys any effectiveness of a discussion. This leads to important points and issues for discussion being scattered amongst far more salient distractions which fuel the aggression rather than the curiosity in us.

It is true that those in the Western hemisphere are more likely to be sceptical about subjects that are as amazing and potentially life-altering such as these, but this is to be expected. There's always likely to be something missed, some angle not considered, some possibility, however outlandish, that makes whatever theory you like fit into place. It might be a crazy theory, doesn't make it wrong but how right it seems really *really* depends on where you're coming from. For someone who has been nurtured in Vedic philosophy, there is an element of understanding that seems to go beyond the cold empirical realiities of our modern world. However, this is not sufficient for someone who has been nurtured in the formal, rigorous mindset of modern science and it is largely unfair to expect those who fall in this category to suddenly abandon their understandable mental framework to believe something that you perceive from a totally different angle.

From my limited exposure to the writings on this forum (it's limited so I could be wrong) there seem to be an awful lot of people who are sceptical in a healthy, modern way but open minded enough to entertain theories that the majority would be embarrassed to have to face. They may have their own beliefs (*EVERYONE* does) but they make the effort not to show condescencion to those they entertain and while they might make it hard they seem open to change. Being an academic, I have been trained as such but I am always excited about the possibilities often perceived to be frowned upon as serious study in orthodox academia. People who are open minded and yet rigorous in a modern way are to be valued, not alienated with insults. Most of the sceptics in this thread I do not feel needed to be rebuffed in such a way. I understand this was a reaction to a perceived slight, but I feel this original perception was a misperception. Just as Indians look at things more spiritually, in the same way as the ancients did, modern Americans and Europeans look at things more mechanically, particularly since the beginning of the industrial and scientific age. Discussions on a forum such as this should be as much about understanding the mindsets of ancient cultures and the influence of these mindsets on issues such as city development, science, philosophy etc as about what actual achievements suc h cultures made. Efforts in this direction will break down the misconceptions and limitations in mindset required to truly unravel the possibilities in a hopefully *civilised* and *productive* way (and yes, modern science and scientific methods ARE productive - both sides of an argument should realise their limitations *and* benefits).

Just a final point. History as we all know is not exactly mathematics. Interpretations and mistranslations, limitations of dating, cultural misunderstandings, political motivations in history writing, personality-related influences of all sorts - these serve to make history as a subject very shaky indeed, on a fundamental level. Errors and inaccuracies can have a multiplicative effect on a final result under such circumstances. This is especially true when talking about "long lost" civilisations. For someone who relies on scientific empiricism and observation, it would be unacceptable to accept theories based on assumption after assumption after misunderstanding after mistranslation since by that point the uncertainty has increased exponentially. It is perfectly understandable for someone in this situation to take Occam's route and fall back on a more simple model.

Approaches to discussion will vary and cultural traits are always an influence on how things go, the important thing is to be understanding and appreciate that for healthy discussion it is important to try and understand that if someone disagrees with you it isn't always because he is biased/racist/fundamentally opposed to your people and everything they stand for. If the greatness of ancient Indian civilisation is to be fully uncovered and appreciated, it seems it will largely have to be in a way acceptable to the scientific community as well as the people at large. So don't fight the system.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It is a structure that no modern engineer or scientist has credibly explained.

What about www.theforgottentechnology.com do you not understand?
We know how the did it. Extremely clever use of very basic mechanical principles. If you would like to come to CA, buy the materials, and pay me suitable wages, my 2 brothers and I, construction workers all, will be happy to pour a series of large cement slabs and stack them in whatever pattern you like using counterweights, levers, and fulcrums. Otherwise just look at the pictures I have linked you to.


If that is not a \'shred\' I give up.

Very well, I accept your surrender.



You don\'t want proof, you want to think that no one ever was as great as us.....well I say they were far greater.

btw, should you find a legitimate plan for how we could copy it, please let me know....I haven\'t yet....in 20 years.


Well for one thing \"greater than us\" is a little subjective. I dont think of us as being that great culturally speaking. I just don\'t happen to think that past civilizations were around for long enough to have the technology we have. It\'s not a matter of greatness. I think that several civilizations of the past had such qualities as would quite possibly have enabled them to be our superiors if we did not have the benefit of coming much later and being able to expand on their discoveries.


should you find a legitimate plan for how we could copy it, please let me know....I haven\'t yet....in 20 years.
Vagabond, if you can email me a potentially viable outline of a plan, for one tier, I would try to raise those funds.
An architect friend of mine put his opinion this way, 'its stone age, a pile of rocks.
Why is it hundreds of times more precisely square than perceptible with the naked eye? This adds to the difficulty in a huge way.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

I have found that ancient legends from around the world are true. Some megaliths could have been set in place by as few as one man. I could build The Great Pyramid of Giza, using my techniques and primitive tools. On a twenty-five year construction schedule, (working forty hours per week at fifty weeks per year, using the input of myself to calculate) I would need a crew of 520 people to move blocks from the main quarry to the site and another 100 to move the blocks on site. For hoisting I need a crew of 120 (40 working and 80 rotating). My crew can raise 7000 lb. 100 ft. per minute. I have found the design of the pyramid is functional in it’s own construction. No external ramp is needed.


For lack of a stone quarry I would propose the use of conrete for a pyramid, however if we were to use quarried stone it may be necessary to smooth the stone faces by grinding with other stone.

The blocks can be transported by rolling assissted by ropes on a road which has had ditches cut into it to simulate the board example given at this link. This gentleman is shown rolling a 300 pound block of cement several feet with a single push by using a series of dips in the road. He claims to have moved 2 ton blocks by himself using only a small lever on such a road constructed in the ground.

Once blocks reach the site, they can be "walked" into the proper arrangement by use of wooden levers and fulcrums.
The pryamids shape is functional in the building of successive tiers.
See the last video on this link: www.theforgottentechnology.com...

In the above picture I am hoisting a 180 pound block, 10 vertical feet in 6 seconds, creating over 1/2 horsepower. I designed my hoist for a capacity of 2 horsepower.
If this technique was used at the Great Pyramid over 200 horsepower could have been created at any one time. For continuous hoisting at the Great Pyramid working a 40 hour week, 50 weeks a year, and for 25 years, only 20 horse power would be required.


The greatest difficulty would be the attention to detail required in grinding down the blocks to make a good fit. One possible explanation for some pyramids is that there are types of stone found in South America which can be ground up, mixed with water, and poured as cement just that easy. This opens up the possibility that some of these structures are mortared or even poured, although in most cases this may be unlikely.

I can't say for certain this is how it was done exactly. I can only say that it is possible this way and that extreme levels of technology are not the only explanation. The attention to detail, mathematical, mechanical, and astronomical knowledge displayed in these structures is impressive without a doubt. I'm just saying that they aren't proof of nuclear war.

Semper Fi



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainRon
Its known that Sanskrit was the mother of all European and North-Indian languages.

Sanskrit is not the mother language. It branched off from the older IE languages a very long time ago.

Also we know the oldest city found till date is Dwarka which dates back to 7000 BC.

Since when is this known? Also, there are cities from 9,000 BC, very primitive ones indeed tho.

The race existing in North India and Europe were basically the Aryans. Sanskrit was the language of aryans.

There is no basis for making such statement. The people of northern india do not show any genetic linkage with the 'europeans'. As far as I know they are most closely related to asiatic peoples, which isn't surprising.

Apart from that Sanskrit is one of the toughest languages with the most detailed grammar, the grammar being rightly followed till date since the oldest found manuscripts.

The sanskrit of the ancient veddas isn't spoken today by anyone, except specialist preists who learn to sing/preach it from scripture. It's extremely unlikely that it hasn't changed since it was first written.

This also indicates that at one point of time, Europe, middle east and North India were speaking one language i.e. Sanskrit.

No. This does not indicate that. The european IE languages do are thought to have branched off from the older IE languages long after sanskrit and in a geographic area very much removed from northern india, which is the only place there is any evidence of sanskrit being used.

This points towards the existence of a vast interlinked community over the regions mentioned above.

The claim (that europeans spoke sanskrit) is baseless so this new claim does not stand.

which has been declared as the most suited language for scientific studies, specially computer science.

I would imagine germans claim the same for german and italians the same for italian.

Forbes Magazine of July 1987 termed Sanskrit as the most well suited language for computer programming.

Why should anyone care about anything that Forbes magazine has to say about linquistic matters?


> "The Panini grammar reflects the wondrous capacity of the human brain
> which till today no other country has been able to produce except India".

This, of course, is an opinion, and doesn't shed any light either way on some 'madrid to madras' kingdom.

On the IE/Aryan subject,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
here is a thread wherein some of us were discussing it recently. Perhaps you'd like to contribute there also?


indigo_child
If they were lost, I would not be able to produce them

You have not, however, presented the portions of the texts that have these formulas.


Sanskrit is recognized as the mother language of all Indo-European languages.

It is extremely important to recognize that this is simply not true. Proto-Indo-European is the re-constructed language that is the theoretical 'mother-tongue', the one spoken by the 'original' indo-european 'society'. Its not quite as simple as indians speaking sanskrit.


So, all sankrit words can be translated by comparing it to other Indo-European languages, especially Hindi and comparing it to known Sankrit docments. As I said Sankrit is not an unknown language. It is the master language in fact.

The fact that sanskrit words have parallels in other languages is meaningless, at least so far as being informative on the 'original language'. Latin and Sanskrit are extraordinarily similiar, apparently. But that doesn't let us know that one is older than the other. Simiilarly, the fact that many english or german words have forms that are similar in sanskrit merely means that they are all related languages, not that the one is an offshoot of the other.
[quote4]To only accept this kind of catagorization is fundamentalism, and oh, it's more intellectual arrogance
Sir, I have not insisted that mendeleevs table of periodically cycling characteristics of the elements is the 'correct' way to arrange them. However, to talk about the elements as 'earth wind water and fire' and then to say that one can talk about chemistry thereby is incorrect. If the vedic texts have chemistry in them, then they've got to have the atomic number elements, not 'earth wind water fire'.

If only matter is an element, then what is light and energy?

They are not matter. The distinction is recognized.

However, according to quantum mechanics, energy is comprised of discreet multiples, or photons, tiny packets of quanta, or particles of light

This is not correct. Electro-magnetic radiation is composed of photons. This has nothing to do explicitly with quantum mechanics.

If energy has no mass, why does it condense to form mass?

And who says it does this?

This is the crux of ancient Indian metaphysics which accords with modern quantum mechanics

The vague parallels between a theology/metaphysics and quantum mechanics are just that, vague parallels. These indian philosophers were not talking about discrete quanta, they might've talked about a dual nature of the universe, but they were not talking about the mathematical formulae and experimental evidence that supports the theory that light has a particle/wave duality to it. And if one wants to claim that they were, then one needs to find the portions of the text that actually talk about those formulae and experiments.

In ancient India all technology was called "maya" which means "illusion" so while ancient Indians were an advanced scientific civilization, they were also a spiritual one. Unlike our western civilization, technology was not an imperative, end all and be all of life. It was used as a means, not an end, to their spiritual growth.

If one accepts this take on their history, then one can only reject their worldview, as, for whatever the reason, it resulted in their absolute and complete destruction.

I actually think the Indian catagorization of the elements is a far more advanced view of the physical universe.

What 'chemical' reactions does one perform with earth/wind/earth/water?

Matter is that, that occupies space-time. Does light and energy not occupy space and time?

Matter has mass. There's a whole set of things out there in the world that have mass, and they are all apparently made up of these atoms. The only stuff that doesn't have mass are things that also happen to not be made up atoms. Its not an 'arrogant' distinction to seperate stuff this way. Heck, you've said that the earth/wind/fire distinctions are 'good' because they distinguish between gas and solids in the first place right? The atomic theory of the west accounts for those phases better

Ancient Indian atomic theory was an empirical science, not just a theoretical science

How is that? What record of experiments are had? Or would you say its as 'empirical' as the greek 'philosophers'?

All substances are a combination of atoms

But not earth/wind/water and all substances are not made up of their own unique elements. Rocks aren't made up of elemental rocks. Water is not made up of elemental water. The perception that they are, that when the substance is divided to exceedingly small portions and is no longer water or rock, is incorrect, its perception. These substances are of course made up of elements.

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.

And yet all forces are carrier by particles called 'force carriers'.

In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.

This is incorrect. A peice of flesh will rot without any application of outside force. Atoms, sitting 'still', have their constituent parts flitting around, without any outside intervention.

The diversities of the movement of an arrow are due to the consecutive changes in the components of the acting forces. The stored energy provides the propulsion to the arrow and this causes it move further to a high point. This component keeps reducing while that of gravity increases resulting in its fall.

I presume that this is something of a metaphor from vedic texts? Which of these texts exponds on the inverse square relationship between gravity and distance to an object? Which of them talk about gravity as actually being a warping of the space-time continuum? Its obvious that something is 'pulling' an arrow back to the earth. Whats not obvious are scientific facts and information about it. Without that information, and only the common place observation, then one cannot say that they had anything beyond a common place understanding of things like gravity.

In the absence of all forces the Samyoga binding(gravity) still exists.

In the absense of all forces then gravity, being a force, does not exist. In the absence of all other forces it certainly does, but that goes for anything.

Solid's occupy space and assume form because of a coglomeration of constituent particles.

this is hardly advanced physics here.

A Dwinuka(binary molecule) retains the propeties/individuality of it's parent atoms.

Again, this is entirely and wildly incorrect. Water, for example, is made up of oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are explosive and both of which are naturally gases. Water is not explosive and is not naturally a gas.

Forces are necessary to combine atoms or break bonds.

Some bonds, such as those in transition states, don't require anything to dissapate.

It seems evident that at least at an abstract level they understood sub-atomic physics

Since they had a fundamentally flawed atomic theory, this is highly unlikely.

discovering the nature of atoms and chemistry was obviously not an abstract form of thought

The indians did not discover the nature of atoms, by any means, and did not have an understanding of chemistry either, as has become apparent.

We have evidence of modern scientists designing new technology and materials using ancient Indian texts.

Again, you keep claiming this, but have not presented it. If you are aware of the section that describes it, why not simply present it? Why the runaround?

The corrision proof Iron pillar of Delhi more than 1,600 years ago. There was no corrosion proof metallurgical technology until stainless steel in the 20th century

And what is this?

It has already been shown from Kanada postulates that he understood the nature of air to be formed of a mixture of gases

Then by definition it is not atomic, indivisible. If kanada thought this then it is an inconsistency in his thought.

So, there is an inherentlproperty from each atom that forms the emergent properties of the combined molecule.

This does not follow. It only demonstrates the point that 'atoms' do not combine in anything liek 'dwinukas'. In your own example, the addition of one oxygen atom, which, of course is not an atom that kanada recognizes in your description of his theorizing, to carbon monoxide results in a lessening of the toxicity, but for hydoro-sulfuric acid the addition of three oxygen atoms is part of what makes the compound much more toxic.

It is evident from this forcing of the philosophy to the western understanding of chemistry that you are not thinking about this objectively nor reasonably.

Anything can be made into anything if one really needs to explain it that way. Why do you need to have ancient high technology in india?


The process of extracting the Hydrogen, as well as the construction of a dry-cell batttery is described very elaborately:

Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel.
Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust.
After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of
an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will
be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A
chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active
and effective force."



here is a short discussion on just that text. The questions that the author brings up there are of course relevant right now.


from it
What did the translator mean by "to avoid polarization"? The phrase
doesn't quite make sense to me, but my knowledge of electrochemistry
is rudimentary, and maybe it's obvious to other people. (All I see in
the zinc is that of course you need something much more
electropositive than copper for the -- um, cathode, reduction; anode,
oxidation -- the anode.)

How well established is the contemporary meaning of words used in it,
including those for copper sulphate, zinc, amalgam, and polarization?

All of thse are important questions.

Also, have you actually tried the above experiment?


These are the transformations declared

This and the rest outlined bear no resemblence to evolutionary biology. They are a theological interpretation of origins.

' Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals

I don't understand, why is this thought to be 'advanced'?

From as early as the beginning of Indian civilization in recorded history. Indians knew that the earth was an imperfect sphere

This of course was known by the greeks, and moreimportantly they emprically demonstrated it. How did the indians demonstrate it? I don't doubt that they didn't, but what documentation is there for it?

that revolved around the sun due to gravity,

What exactly do they say about it, and is the quote in a standard or non standard translation?

Markandeya Purana (54.12) speaks of Earth as being flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, that is, not perfectly spherical.

What is the reasoning given for this statement?

."Bakhshali manuscript", 70 leaves of bark dating back 500AD reveals fractions, simultaneous equations, quadratic equations, geometric progressions.

Calculus is a very specific thing invented primarily by Issac Newton. This page below on the text doesn't seem to indicate that they were doing calculus. I see no reason to think that they weren't doing the sorts of things mentioned in it, and certainly none of ti requires advanced technology.

sourceWhat does the manuscript contain? Joseph writes in [3]:-
The Bakhshali manuscript is a handbook of rules and illustrative examples together with their solutions. It is devoted mainly to arithmetic and algebra, with just a few problems on geometry and mensuration. Only parts of it have been restored, so we cannot be certain about the balance between different topics.



An article was also published by AI magazine in 1985 where a NASA scientist proposed Panini should be used to develop high-level languages for computers and robots.

This however has nothing to do with actually posessing computers.

Then all prerequisites for developing a computer exist.

Except electricity, vaccum tubes, processors, and all the rest.


A complete city of mechanical people, presided over by a human being who manipulates them from a control center in his palace.

This is just silly.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I'm not getting into this debate, because I know it will be pointless, but let me clarify something for you, Vagabond.
________________


Think really had about this genius.


I ACCEPT YOUR defeat then.



You are trying act as if your case had prima facie evidence; meaning that at a glance it was assumed true and the burden of proof were on the opposition. The fact is however that your statement about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, while true, is not prima facie evidence of presence.


No. Since you are not willing to let this die down let me wisen you. I did NOT assume anything to be true. If so, it does not constitute prima facia evidence. That is my point. there is no prima facia evidence for this theory, in either angles. Except perhaps the texts that Indigo child produced, which then opens the questions of the probability (which by all means is still a probability, because we cannot go back in time) of such an existence. All you are trying to do is debunk this, YOU on the other hand, do not have ANY prima facia evidence for the contrary. Yours is similarly a theory, but in the same as Indigo child's - JUST ANOTHER THEORY. With everything there is a grey area which both sides can or cannot prove. For you, you either need to call the kettle black or white. Not everything that happened in life can be called that way. There are millions of mysteries in life that have yet to be explained. So your western logic of dividing by zero (which in vedic maths is not existent btw) does not apply. ok?


This is a discussion of how evidence should be viewed. "points" (of logic) are all that there is.


Read above. You call the kettle either black or white. Speculation my dear friend, can make the kettle grey too.


Let me acquaint you with the nature of this debate. We are discussing whether or not something happened. It did or it didn't. There isn't a 3rd option to be taken if nobody made a convincing arguement- it's like dividing by zero.
When it comes to historical theories, the negative is prima facie true- otherwise conflicting multiple histories would be logically proveable.


Please don't pretend that you are on a high horse. It's laughable. I have read your similar posts on other threads, but I don't wish to "debate" with you for it will be a waste of my energy and valuable bandwidth.


The negative arguement need not be proven absolutely; it must only be defended against any evidence raised by the affirmative side.


You are letting yourself off lightly by saying the negative argument need not be proven absolutely. It must. It is not for you to define what must be proven absolutely or not, especially when you are one of the "debaters". That is for the rest of us to decide.

As I said, this won't prove anything to both sides. I will log on two or three weeks from now and still prove that nothing here can be proven.

Once again, in short, absence of proof is not proof of absence.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

All you are trying to do is debunk this, YOU on the other hand, do not have ANY prima facia evidence for the contrary.


Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no understanding of the concepts we are discussing related to evidence. Skepticism need not prove itself. The absence of a thing would fall under the legal term res ipsa loquitor and as such need not be supported until challenged by evidence. This is the very principle upon which "innocent until proven guilty" rests.

Where believers have presented what might be considered prima facie evidence (evidence warranting further discussion) i have contested that evidence reasonably. The believers have failed to provide evidence which speaks for itself though (res ipsa loquitor) which would then shift the burden of proof. (You might notice that I have confused the two terms in my previous post, which is a common mistake. )
en.wikipedia.org...



Once again, in short, absence of proof is not proof of absence.


This is true in this particular phrasing. It would be false if you replaced the world proof with evidence. To make the statement universally true would require the insertion of the word "final".
"absence of evidence is not final evidence of absence". For all intents and purposes the absence of evidence is evidence which speaks for itself until rebutted, and therefore can be the basis of conclusions in cases where a conclusion for some reason needs to be reached.

Last but not least, yes I am here to debunk this. Not because I walk around all day looking for a chance to lay waste to somebody's views, but because I strongly object to the precedent for "absolute proof" that would have been established if this thread had not gotten a good kick in the head.

Perhaps you would like for me to withdraw my opposition, embrace this new low standard of evidence, and use it to "prove" that my own narrowly defined religious beliefs are absolutely true to the exclusion of any ideas you may have, no matter how well evidence may support those? We could always talk to the mods and ask them to consider allowing such behavior. We could have a million threads with people claiming to have "absolute proof" of this or that fallacy- maybe even a "flat earth" thread.

It's been fun talking to you, but I'm done with this thread until someone other than myself and nygdan offers something intelligent.

Defy Ignorants. -Vagabond out.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Interestingly the same books that speak of nuclear battles also speaks of virgin birth with blessings from the Sun God.

Don't tell me that is true.

Like other ancient civilizations, the knowledge of them comes purely from couple of books and a few sculptures. For all we know those two books may be fantasy books for children of their age.

Btw, I am Indian too, but I think it is way too much to presume our ancestors as using vimana technology and fighting nuclear battles.

Surf



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no understanding of the concepts we are discussing related to evidence. Skepticism need not prove itself. The absence of a thing would fall under the legal term res ipsa loquitor and as such need not be supported until challenged by evidence. This is the very principle upon which "innocent until proven guilty" rests.


You seem to have some sort of a complex, in which you HAVE to HAVE the last word. Well hey, if you want to side track, fine. And in the process, you contradict yourself as well!

Just because you have thrown a legal jargon (*res ipsa*) does not suddenly make you an intellectual. I have come across several like minded people, who seem to be flashy with their internet posts. In fact on the contrary you seem to be more stupid. You speak of "innocent till proven guilty" but your thinking is the opposite, it's more like "guilty till proven innocent". You don't want to see/hear of any evidence that is subjected to you, hence you are saying that such a civilisation did not exist! So the initial poster was wrong in her assumption (in your eyes, that is). So your concept of prima facia goes something like ... "Guilty BEFORE proving innocence". HMMM there's some "res ipsa" for ya.


Where believers have presented what might be considered prima facie evidence (evidence warranting further discussion) i have contested that evidence reasonably. The believers have failed to provide evidence which speaks for itself though (res ipsa loquitor) which would then shift the burden of proof. (You might notice that I have confused the two terms in my previous post, which is a common mistake. )
en.wikipedia.org...


There you go again, with your legal jargon, Mr. liquitor, it still begs the question - what do you mean successfully contested? who determines that? You? You haven't scored "points" if that is what you're after. btw, i prefer simple english, not my mother tongue. As far as I am concerned, you are stuck in the same boat as defence in the OJ Simpson trial. You cannot prove that the opposite viewpoint is wrong.


Last but not least, yes I am here to debunk this. Not because I walk around all day looking for a chance to lay waste to somebody's views, but because I strongly object to the precedent for "absolute proof" that would have been established if this thread had not gotten a good kick in the head.


Ahaa, Well, true colours showing Mr. Liquidator.


Perhaps you would like for me to withdraw my opposition, embrace this new low standard of evidence, and use it to "prove" that my own narrowly defined religious beliefs are absolutely true to the exclusion of any ideas you may have, no matter how well evidence may support those? We could always talk to the mods and ask them to consider allowing such behavior. We could have a million threads with people claiming to have "absolute proof" of this or that fallacy- maybe even a "flat earth" thread.


No, i don't want you to change your viewpoint. I just want to express MY opinion. That's what threads and forums are for, aren't they? Or are they also some legal battle to "win" every time.

And what is with the "Flat earth" thread?? What for? What are you trying to get at? Is it your way of insulting one's IQ? That the opposite viewpoint is stupid and yours is not? Just because the Indophiles in this thread, back one type of logic (or at least are open to it) - you being the typical unwilling westerner HAVE to debunk it?? Typical flawed thinking of having to "put them in their place". C'mon admit it.


It's been fun talking to you, but I'm done with this thread until someone other than myself and nygdan offers something intelligent.


Uhm... not exactly fun "talking" with ya. Just "posting" our opinions.


Defy Ignorants. -Vagabond out.


Yes,same here. Pity you have to resort to contempt.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by aryaputhra]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

kindly quoted from wikepedia.

Prima facie:

Prima facie is often confused (even by legal scholars) with res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the legal doctrine which establishes that the evidence on its own is sufficient to establish the fact in question unless it is explicitly rebutted by other evidence or mitigating circumstances


Point 1:

"Evidence on its own is sufficient to establish the fact".

Yes, there are several "evidences" purporting ancient indian civilization was advanced. Not going to repeat them. You just have to scroll up.

Point 2:

"..unless it is explicitly rebutted by other evidence or mitigating circumstances".

Come to think of it, where is the rebuttal evidence? Where is the mitigating circumstance?? All you've done is just written off the proposed theory as rubbish. You haven't presented ANY rebuttal "EVIDENCE". It is just your opinion. And that in itself is not convincing enough. Nor have you shown any convincing mitigating circumstances?

C'mon, Vagabond.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence".

[edit on 17-1-2005 by aryaputhra]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra
You seem to have some sort of a complex, in which you HAVE to HAVE the last word. Well hey, if you want to side track, fine. And in the process, you contradict yourself as well!

1. When did defending my arguements against your ridiculous assaults become a complex?
2. You have failed to point out any contradiction. At times I have had to make minor corrections of detail and when I have done so I have pointed it out.
3. What side tracking have I done except answering points which you have raised?



Just because you have thrown a legal jargon (*res ipsa*) does not suddenly make you an intellectual. I have come across several like minded people, who seem to be flashy with their internet posts.


You're right, the jargon isn't what makes me intellectual. The research is. I include the technical terms because they add clarity and imply judicial rules of evidence, which are sound rules which will serve us far better than Indigo's version of "absolute proof".
As for being flashy- that's just be having a good time. I try to be what I call "George Bush Serious"- I make funny faces and phrase things in odd ways while I'm delivering a serious message.



In fact on the contrary you seem to be more stupid. You speak of "innocent till proven guilty" but your thinking is the opposite, it's more like "guilty till proven innocent".

You're supposed to say "psych" afterwards so people will know you're only kidding.
Innocent until proven guilty rests on the premise that the falsity of a claim speaks for itself until it is supported by evidence. That's the application of the term res ipsa loquitur. If the truth of a claim were assumed to speak for itself it would be possible to convict 50 people of acting alone in the exact same crime. Only strong evidence of presence can challenge the absence which speaks for itself, and only EXTREMELY strong evidence (such as DNA or multiple eye witnesses) can be said to speak for themselves and shift the burden of proof to the arguement of absence (not guilty).
You have either made no attempt what so ever to understand my point or you are misrepresenting it.



You don't want to see/hear of any evidence that is subjected to you, hence you are saying that such a civilisation did not exist! So the initial poster was wrong in her assumption (in your eyes, that is). So your concept of prima facia goes something like ... "Guilty BEFORE proving innocence". HMMM there's some "res ipsa" for ya.


You seem to be trying, in spite of some difficulty with the english language, to argue that I have simply ignored evidence which would have spoken for itself. At best, the "evidence" warranted further discussion. I have given reasonable answers to these points. Note that you have blatantly misquoted me as saying that I have "successfully" contested it when I only said "reasonably". I intentionally avoided implying an absolute so as to be fair, which is far better than can be said for you and Indigo.
Nothing so concrete as to shift the burden of proof (such as the unearthing of a vimana) has been produced, and therefore the absence of an ancient nuclear war still speaks for itself and needs no proof beyond reasonable doubt.


There you go again, with your legal jargon, Mr. liquitor, it still begs the question - what do you mean successfully contested?

There's the misquote. I have really enjoyed watching the legal terms evolve since you got your hands on them by the way. You're not the Governator are you?



You haven't scored "points" if that is what you're after.

If we were in a court of law up to this point it is almost certain that the ruling would favor my arguement because your evidence has not held up.



btw, i prefer simple english, not my mother tongue.

Actually the part that threw you off the most was Latin. Anyway I will clarify something for you which aparently hasn't translated properly. I'm not using the word "point" as it might be used to relate to a scoreboard. I am referring to debating points, or the various issues which have been brought up within the larger subject. The "points" or arguements you have made would not hold up as arguements, while legally speaking it is likely that my defense against those would have.



As far as I am concerned, you are stuck in the same boat as defence in the OJ Simpson trial. You cannot prove that the opposite viewpoint is wrong.

Well I'm sure as hell never going to India now that I've heard that. Has anyone ever been found "not guilty" in your country? The defense team need not prove anything unless the prosecution presents evidence which speaks for itself. Innocense, the falsity of the claim, or absence (of guilt) is considered to speak for itself until it is rebutted by evidence, at which point a reasonable counter-arguement must be made by the defense. The counter arguement need not live up to "absolute proof" or "res ipsa loquitur" unless the prosecutions evidence did first. This, in addition to his celebrity status and perhaps a little bribery is why Simpson was not convicted.




Last but not least, yes I am here to debunk this. Not because I walk around all day looking for a chance to lay waste to somebody's views, but because I strongly object to the precedent for "absolute proof" that would have been established if this thread had not gotten a good kick in the head.

Ahaa, Well, true colours showing Mr. Liquidator.


Yes they do. I am a fiendish predator on ignorance and my assaults on false statements and flawed assumptions are a blight on ATS and its motto. Somebody really ought to ban me for that.
Really nobody knew my true colors for a long time because I shave my head. Finally I grew a goatee and everyone found out.




No, i don't want you to change your viewpoint. I just want to express MY opinion. That's what threads and forums are for, aren't they? Or are they also some legal battle to "win".


Not at all. You are welcome to your opinion and I'd be all to happy to let you voice it. Feel free. Just don't make or defend ridiculous claims about "absolute proof". All you ever had to do was cut me off at the beginning by saying "look, I know there is room for debate, I just want to talk about the possibility".
Now that you seem to have made it clear that your intentions are to do that, I'll leave you alone with your theory, true or otherwise. Start gaffing off at the mouth about it being 100% proven true however and I wont let it stand uncontested.



Uhm... not exactly fun "talking" with ya. Since we are just "posting" our opinions.


It's one of those subtleties of the english language my friend. Talking is often used to apply to other forms of communication, especially when it is real-time or near that, such as online.


Anyway, for your sake and mine you'll be on my ignore list now. Nothing personal, it's just that your child-like belief for such fantastic notions gives me a headache.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Nydgan, with all due respect to you, but your knowledge and arguments have been far surpassed in all areas with all of the evidence and expert studies presented. All that is left is dogma and denial and a lot of uneducated remarks. A lot of your remarks show that you don't even understand the very basic scientific principles taught in high school. It's ironic that someone who doesn't understand science will judge what is right or wrong in anothers science.

Your assertion: Sankrit branched of other IE languages:

Evidence:

Nearly all European languages and the number system can be traced to their Sankrit origins. As I have shown in my previous post.

Sankrit is the most advanced scientific language in existence. This is corroborated by Sankrit scholars and scientists.

Sankrit predates the European languages.

Your assertion: Cities from 9000 years ago were primitive.

Evidence:

The Mahabharata which speaks of a very advanced culture, not only records the construction of the city of Dwarika, but also it's sinking. Therefore the civilization 9000 years ago was not certainly not primitive.

Your assertion: the sanskrit of the ancient veddas isn't spoken today by anyone, except specialist preists who learn to sing/preach it from scripture. It's extremely unlikely that it hasn't changed since it was first written.

Evidence:

Sankrit was the standardized language for ancient India. It is known by thousands of Sankrit students and scholars. Further, there are hundreds of texts from the post-vedic times of ancient India that are written in sanskrit. Again, the IE languages have descended from it.

Your assertion: Scholars opinions and scientists commenting on Sankrit being the most advanced and master language - is just an opinion - and therfore meaningless.

That is one single word: ignorance. Not only are you not qualified to judge sanskrit and linguistics in general, you overstep the mark, when you judge the qualified experts. That just makes you look very ignorant.


The fact that sanskrit words have parallels in other languages is meaningless, at least so far as being informative on the 'original language'. Latin and Sanskrit are extraordinarily similiar, apparently. But that doesn't let us know that one is older than the other. Simiilarly, the fact that many english or german words have forms that are similar in sanskrit merely means that they are all related languages, not that the one is an offshoot of the other.


No, it is not meaningless. It is only meaningless to someone who wants uphold dogma and deny evidence. The fact that the family of IE languages can be traced to Sankrit, not just the similarity of words, but the fact that even the semantics are the same. Shows incontrovertibly that they have originated from Sankrit.

And it is a fact that the Indian civilization predates the Greek civilization. I am not going to debate the validity of facts with you. It's better you educate yourself.


If the vedic texts have chemistry in them, then they've got to have the atomic number elements, not 'earth wind water fire'.


"You've got" to. Is there any point even attempting to reason with your fundamenalism on this? It is plain as day that the ancient Indians understood chemistry and atomic theory. Simply, because they catagorized the elements in another manner does not negate the facts that they did. Kanada has explicitly explained atomic and chemical theory in an empirical manner.


They are not matter. The distinction is recognized.


No it isn't. It is only only a perceptive level that one can make a distinction between mass and energy. It was once believed that air was not matter, because it could not be perceived as having form. At one point it was believed that a vacuum has no matter, until it was discovered it was streaming with viritual particles

It was thought that light was a wave, till it was discovered that it also behaved as particles. Which, actually by itself contradicts your viewpoint that energy is not matter. Light, is after all, electomagnetic energy, and energy is composed of discreet units of quanta, or particles.

Matter, is that, that occupies space-time, and as energy exists in the frame of space-time, it therefore occupies it.

After all, I asked you, if energy was not matter, why does it have finite speed? If light has no rest mass, why does it slow down in certain materials with a high refractive index, such as a BEC(Bose-Einstein-Condesnate)


This is not correct. Electro-magnetic radiation is composed of photons. This has nothing to do explicitly with quantum mechanics.


What is a photon, it's a discreet and individual constituent of energy, i.e, a particle. And yes, it has everything to do with quantum mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect and lasers. Further, Kanada again explictly said that all elements are made up of their own individual particles.

Here is a further proof on ancient Indias understanding on light, this line itself appears in the Artharveda Veda(5,000 - 10,000 years+)

sapta surayasya rasmayah - Seven types of sun rays

The phenomenon is also described in a metaphysical poetic line bhujagana mita sapta turaga. The chapter on light says that there are seven colors in the white ray of the sun. It was only in 1800 that Newton discovered that white light is composed of 7 colors by refracting it through a prism.



If energy has no mass, why does it condense to form mass?


And who says it does this?


Einstein, in his famous equation E=MC2. That is, and something Kanada also said(2300 years before) that matter and energy is interchangable. This is also shown by Einstein explaining that when a mass accelerates, it gains additional momentum energy, part of which becomes mass, which is only perceptible when a mass accelerates towards the speed of light. This has been proven by high-energy physics. It is well known by real physicists that mass is just frozen/condensed energy.


This is the crux of ancient Indian metaphysics which accords with modern quantum mechanics



The vague parallels between a theology/metaphysics and quantum mechanics are just that, vague parallels. These indian philosophers were not talking about discrete quanta, they might've talked about a dual nature of the universe, but they were not talking about the mathematical formulae and experimental evidence that supports the theory that light has a particle/wave duality to it. And if one wants to claim that they were, then one needs to find the portions of the text that actually talk about those formulae and experiments.


They were not vague at all. They recognized that the physical reality, mind and space-time is nothing more than particles and that they are a part of a greater whole, of the absolute reality, or the Brahman. As for experimental data and formulae, Indian physics and metaphysics was of a poetic form, in the form of song and dance. It was a fusion of science and music. That is, because they understood the universe beyond the physical senses and the physical universe, that it evolved into an art form. It does not matter, if you personally do not credit them, because the greatest physicists of modern times were greatly influenced by the Vedas, and acknowledge and credit it:

When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense. ~W. Heisenberg

Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries
~ Julius Robert Oppenheimer


This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the "whole"; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world. ~ Erwin Schrodinger(father of quantum mechanics)


Schrodinger's influential What is Life? (1944) also used Vedic ideas. The book became instantly famous although it was criticized by some for its emphasis on Indian ideas. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA code, credited this book for key insights that led him to his revolutionary discovery. According to his biographer Walter Moore, there is a clear continuity between Schrodinger's understanding of Vedanta and his research:

The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on superimposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.


Source: www.atributetohinduism.com...

Nicole Tesla and his fascination with the Vedas:

www.hinduism.fsnet.co.uk...

The Vedas were known to be revealed by god, and consider timeless knowledge. They are said to contain within them everything there is to know about the universe. They were which the ancient Indians reveered and built their great civilization upon. And, they are what modern scientists reveer and upon which is built the modern age of physics.


If one accepts this take on their history, then one can only reject their worldview, as, for whatever the reason, it resulted in their absolute and complete destruction.


I can't blame you for thinking that way, because you hardly know anything about Hindu theology(or linguistics or physics for that matter) According to Hindu theology, time is cylical. Human civilization begins in a golden age of knowledge, prosperity and peace, however as time goes by, it degenerates and becomes materialistic and hedonistic. The civilization of the vedic times, and the civilization of Mahabharata, are not the same. The Mahabharata was at the beginning of the Kaliyuga age, the age where humanity is the most degenerated. Hence, why they were destroyed.


How is that? What record of experiments are had? Or would you say its as 'empirical' as the greek 'philosophers'?


There are hundreds of records. Unfortunately, someone is too blind to see them, because they think it is "silly" and it is only silly because it does not agree with what they've been conditioned to accept. I have no sympathy for dogma.


But not earth/wind/water and all substances are not made up of their own unique elements. Rocks aren't made up of elemental rocks. Water is not made up of elemental water. The perception that they are, that when the substance is divided to exceedingly small portions and is no longer water or rock, is incorrect, its perception. These substances are of course made up of elements.


You are still preoccupied with the elementant view. Yet, seem to overlook(and you can't even say I did not show you it) that Kanada has explicitly said that all substances are made of atoms, and different combinations of like atoms, under reactions, form all the materials in the universe. He also said that the states matter change in a reaction. If you don't know this to be true, you're obviously not educated in atomic and chemical theory.

The following points I am going to address, show how little you know about known scientific principles and your ignorance about how revolutionizing these principles were.


In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.



This is incorrect. A peice of flesh will rot without any application of outside force. Atoms, sitting 'still', have their constituent parts flitting around, without any outside intervention.


Newtons first law: an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

And a peice of flesh will rot because of internal forces, that is that all matter that appears to be static, is comprised of dynamic forces.


I presume that this is something of a metaphor from vedic texts? Which of these texts exponds on the inverse square relationship between gravity and distance to an object? Which of them talk about gravity as actually being a warping of the space-time continuum? Its obvious that something is 'pulling' an arrow back to the earth. Whats not obvious are scientific facts and information about it. Without that information, and only the common place observation, then one cannot say that they had anything beyond a common place understanding of things like gravity.


Uh, no(disgusted) it shows that it was known that a force has a horizontal and vertical component and this is the basis of the mechanical mathematics behind calculating the trajectory of a projecticle, in this case an arrow is used as a model. And gravity is not obvious, it maybe obvious because you take it for granted, but until Galileo and Netwon it was not known, let alone mechanical theory.


In the absense of all forces then gravity, being a force, does not exist. In the absence of all other forces it certainly does, but that goes for anything.


No it doesn't. What that shows that in absence of all external forces acting on a body, the force of gravity still exists, because mass produces gravity, which is known as the samyoga binding of the atom. This was not known till the 20th century.



Solid's occupy space and assume form because of a coglomeration of constituent particles.



this is hardly advanced physics here.


It's advanced physics relative to western science, which only discovered the principles of thermodynamics thousands of years later.


A Dwinuka(binary molecule) retains the propeties/individuality of it's parent atoms.



Again, this is entirely and wildly incorrect. Water, for example, is made up of oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are explosive and both of which are naturally gases. Water is not explosive and is not naturally a gas.


"*Sigh* I thought I already told you it was understood that water was known to be divisble and made of gasses.


Forces are necessary to combine atoms or break bonds.



Some bonds, such as those in transition states, don't require anything to dissapate.


And how do they reach transition state, Einstein?


Since they had a fundamentally flawed atomic theory, this is highly unlikely.


The only one who has a very fundamentally flawed understanding of atomic theory, or science in general, is yourself.

Here is yet another proof that they actually did understand sub-atomic physics, at least, at an abstract level:

Yoga Vashista: "There are vast worlds all placed way within the hollows of each atom, multifarious as the motes in a sunbeam."


Then by definition it is not atomic, indivisible. If kanada thought this then it is an inconsistency in his thought.


No, rather is another one of those glaringly stupid remarks of yours. Kanada, understood air to be a mixture of gasses, and he understood air to be divisibe, something I have explained several times already to you.


This does not follow. It only demonstrates the point that 'atoms' do not combine in anything liek 'dwinukas'. In your own example, the addition of one oxygen atom, which, of course is not an atom that kanada recognizes in your description of his theorizing, to carbon monoxide results in a lessening of the toxicity, but for hydoro-sulfuric acid the addition of three oxygen atoms is part of what makes the compound much more toxic.


Isn't what I just said? The oxygen atom has an inherent property that neutralises the toxicity. Yet, oxygen itself is not a toxicity neutralizing atom. O3(ozone) has very different properties from O2(Oxygen) and can kill you if you breathe it in excess. Therefore it does follow that parents atoms do have an inherent property that they transfer to the combined molecule. As I said, genetics, is nothing more than biochemistry.


Why do you need to have ancient high technology in india?


We don't need to have ancient high technology in India. It serves no practical purpose for us to have this tid-bit of knowledge. It is not us who are attributing high technology to ancient India. Rather, we are looking at the proof and records, and there are no other conclusion to reach other than that ancient India was a hi-tech society. And it is important we accept this, because it is the truth and sheds more light on our human origins and the nature of the universe.


from it
What did the translator mean by "to avoid polarization"? The phrase
doesn't quite make sense to me, but my knowledge of electrochemistry
is rudimentary, and maybe it's obvious to other people. (All I see in
the zinc is that of course you need something much more
electropositive than copper for the -- um, cathode, reduction; anode,
oxidation -- the anode.)

How well established is the contemporary meaning of words used in it,
including those for copper sulphate, zinc, amalgam, and polarization?

All of thse are important questions.

Also, have you actually tried the above experiment?

First and foremost, the short discussion presented on this site, is by a non-sankrit speaking person simply asking questions. Again, the questions are basically whether the translations are valid. I am sure they are, otherwise, they would have been refuted by Sankrit Scholars by now. This translated passage appears on several web sites and even in books by other authors, such as "HAG" a book debating an ancient global cataclysm. I know some of the Sankrit words, so I can explain to you.

Varuna = Water(water deity)
Vayu = Air
Prana - Vayu = Oxygen Air
Uddan-Vayu = Lighter air

In Hinduism Prana is known as life force that we breathe in(you can ask worldwatcher to corroborate) and therefore pranavayu, is air, as in oxygen. Udan-vayu, means lighter air, and lighter air is hydrogen. As it specifically talks about building an airship from the Uddan-Yayu(ligher air) extracted from the water. It makes it pretty clear it is talking about electrolysis. The mention of Mercury is again interesting, because so many ancient Indians yantras used mercury. Further, the fact that an ancient battery has used been in Baghdad to be 2000 years old, shows that the ancients knew about generating electricity from chemical proceses at least.

On this website www.chyk.net...

An Indian quiz show mentions the voltage from the battery described in the Agastya Samhita as producing 1.138 volts. This is the same as the Baghdad battery, which gives 1.1 volts. It therefore becomes clear that electrolysis is indeed being described. There is no other explanation for it.



This and the rest outlined bear no resemblence to evolutionary biology. They are a theological interpretation of origins.


It bears no resemblence to evolutionary biology? Evolutionary biology states that life formed from a chemical reaction of gases in the atmosphere formed from the elements of hydrogen and oxgen produced by the sun, which formed water, and from water formed the first single celled organism, from which arose fish, and from the fish landlife.

In the vedas, it says, water descend from the sun, the first germ of life is created by heat and water, and from thereon life ascends from fish, snake, apes to man. I must say, there is quite a bit of resemblence there. Oh, but after all it's obvious isn't it? I mean you could have easily come up with this theory, right?



' Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals


I don't understand, why is this thought to be 'advanced'?


The theory of evolution completely revolutionized science and culture. It was no minor discovery. Yet, it was already known in the vedas thousands of years before. Anyone that overlooks or does not appreciate such a fundamental bit of knowledge like this, is obviously not educated enough to understand the implications of it.


From as early as the beginning of Indian civilization in recorded history. Indians knew that the earth was an imperfect sphere

This of course was known by the greeks, and moreimportantly they emprically demonstrated it. How did the indians demonstrate it? I don't doubt that they didn't, but what documentation is there for it?

It is demonstrated empirically in the Surya Siddhanta and in the Aryabhatiya, however this was in 500AD. There were many civilizations, such as the Babylonians, Egpytians, Chinese and Greeks who had discovered it and calculated the circumference and length of a solar year before then.



Calculus is a very specific thing invented primarily by Issac Newton. This page below on the text doesn't seem to indicate that they were doing calculus. I see no reason to think that they weren't doing the sorts of things mentioned in it, and certainly none of ti requires advanced technology.


Actually, it was not Issac Newton who invented Calculus. It was first founded by Aryabhatiya(500AD) then developed further by Manuja(10AD) and Bhaksara(11AD) Newton only developed it further. Indian mathematians predated him. However, although this shows that India had advanced knowledge in mathematics, it bears no relations to the Ancient Indian civilization of vedic times we are dicussing. I am only including this as an interesting piece for the history of mathematics. Further, you are right mathematics does not require advanced technology and nor is proof of advanced technology. There are many cultures in the world who have contributed to mathematics.


]Aryabhata (475 A.D. -550 A.D.) is the first well known Indian mathematician. Born in Kerala, he completed his studies at the university of Nalanda. In the section Ganita (calculations) of his astronomical treatise Aryabhatiya (499 A.D.), he made the fundamental advance in finding the lengths of chords of circles, by using the half chord rather than the full chord method used by Greeks. He gave the value of as 3.1416, claiming, for the first time, that it was an approximation. (He gave it in the form that the approximate circumference of a circle of diameter 20000 is 62832.) He also gave methods for extracting square roots, summing arithmetic series, solving indeterminate equations of the type ax -by = c, and also gave what later came to be known as the table of Sines. He also wrote a text book for astronomical calculations, Aryabhatasiddhanta. Even today, this data is used in preparing Hindu calendars (Panchangs). In recognition to his contributions to astronomy and mathematics, India's first satellite was named Aryabhata.

Brahmagupta (598 A.D. -665 A.D.) is renowned for introduction of negative numbers and operations on zero into arithmetic. His main work was Brahmasphutasiddhanta, which was a corrected version of old astronomical treatise Brahmasiddhanta. This work was later translated into Arabic as Sind Hind. He formulated the rule of three and proposed rules for the solution of quadratic and simultaneous equations. He gave the formula for the area of a cyclic quadrilateral as where s is the semi perimeter. He was the first mathematician to treat algebra and arithmetic as two different branches of mathematics. He gave the solution of the indeterminate equation Nx²+1 = y². He is also the founder of the branch of higher mathematics known as "Numerical Analysis".

After Brahmagupta, the mathematician of some consequence was Sridhara, who wrote Patiganita Sara, a book on algebra, in 750 A.D. Even Bhaskara refers to his works. After Sridhara, the most celebrated mathematician was Mahaviracharaya or Mahavira. He wrote Ganita Sara Sangraha in 850 A.D., which is the first text book on arithmetic in present day form. He is the only Indian mathematician who has briefly referred to the ellipse (which he called Ayatvrit). The Greeks, by contrast, had studied conic sections in great detail.

Bhaskara (1114 A.D. -1185 A.D.) or Bhaskaracharaya is the most well known ancient Indian mathematician. He was born in 1114 A.D. at Bijjada Bida (Bijapur, Karnataka) in the Sahyadari Hills. He was the first to declare that any number divided by zero is infinity and that the sum of any number and infinity is also infinity. He is famous for his book Siddhanta Siromani (1150 A.D.). It is divided into four sections -Leelavati (a book on arithmetic), Bijaganita (algebra), Goladhayaya (chapter on sphere -celestial globe), and Grahaganita (mathematics of the planets). Leelavati contains many interesting problems and was a very popular text book. Bhaskara introduced chakrawal, or the cyclic method, to solve algebraic equations. Six centuries later, European mathematicians like Galois, Euler and Lagrange rediscovered this method and called it "inverse cyclic". Bhaskara can also be called the founder of differential calculus. He gave an example of what is now called "differential coefficient" and the basic idea of what is now called "Rolle's theorem". Unfortunately, later Indian mathematicians did not take any notice of this. Five centuries later, Newton and Leibniz developed this subject. As an astronomer, Bhaskara is renowned for his concept of Tatkalikagati (instantaneous motion).


Source: www.ilovemaths.com...

There is, however, some claims that the actual vedas, the athar veda, does contain 16 rules and 13 sub-rules on doing all kinds of mathematical operation on trig, conics, quadratic equations, algebra, differential and integral calclus, kinomatics, by lightening fast mental arithmetic, called vedic mathematics. The rules in the vedas themselves do seem to be talking about mathematical operations. However, having said that, the rules themselves do not state how to do the operations or proof of the operations, it is only the founder of Vedic mathematics who claims the operations are written in the vedas. This cannot be proven, however, the fact that one single swami can re-invent an entire systems of mathematics more advanced than modern 20th century math, is definitely something to make one think.

There are verses in vedas, under the heating of Ganita(mathematics) that seemingly have nothing to do with maths, but when converted into numbers using a system to represent sankrit constonants by numbers(1-9) they will give constants, like pi, to 32 decimal places.

As it is said, in vedic times, knowledge was dictated in oral form in the form of poems or verses, or memory aids. It would make a lot of sense that they would use a system like vedic mathematics.

Here are two brilliant articles on the origins of vedic mathematics:

www.vedicmaths.org...
www.vedicmaths.org...



This however has nothing to do with actually posessing computers.


No, but it shows you that the language structure is so advanced, it could well be used for computers. Further, why would they want to calculate binary numbers and want to represent text as binary numbers?


A complete city of mechanical people, presided over by a human being who manipulates them from a control center in his palace.


This is just silly.


So you think it is silly that robots can exist? Okay.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Aryaputhra, congratulations you have also made it to Vagabonds ignore list by meeting the criteria of winning in a debate against him


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
Interestingly the same books that speak of nuclear battles also speaks of virgin birth with blessings from the Sun God.

Don't tell me that is true.


That's throwing away the baby with the bathwater. How do we know who the "sun god" was. In Hinduism, the gods are described as beings from other universes, whom traverse the skies in their own vimanas(which are described as more advanced than terran-made vimanas) and use yantras like we do.

Further, what is the mechanism behind virgin birth? It could be artificial insemination. The passage you are talking about where Kunti is given a son by the "sun god" when she summons him with a mantra. How do we know that intercourse did not take place?


Btw, I am Indian too, but I think it is way too much to presume our ancestors as using vimana technology and fighting nuclear battles.

Surf


It's only too much, because relative to what you have been told to believe about history, it is far out. It's sad to see an actual Indian deny their own glorious culture, because of what dogmatic westerners say. You probably don't even know that the the colonial Sankrit Scholars of the west, systematically and maliciously corrupted the heritage of Indian history with lies and disinformation, that has only recently been exposed. The Aryan invasion theory was a myth propogated by the Britsh Empire to justify their occupation of India, by making Indians believe they were not the original inhabitants of India.

The entire Aryan theory was a fabricated lie by Max Muller and the like, on the basis that Sanskrit and the stories of Krishna were too similar to European language and history, and therefore it followed that Indians must have migrated from Europe. And the dates they fabricated for the Aryans were quite literally from their arse. Max Muller was a Christian fundementalist, and held that Hinduism was a primitive religion, and inferior to Christianity. He was actively involved in spreading Christianity in India.

It's very ironic that you need to hear what your history is from foreingers. What is that? An inferiority complex?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The passage you are talking about where Kunti is given a son by the "sun god" when she summons him with a mantra. How do we know that intercourse did not take place?


Because the book doesn't describe it. The original deal was the Kunti questions the sun god, so he uses his powers to give him a son. I don't think the use of mantras is equal to having intercourse. And the reason why Kunti choose not to keep the child because she was afraid no one would believe that she got the child from the god, not through illegal affair. If she did actually have intercourse, that means that she is corrupt, which throws away her innocent looks.



It's only too much, because relative to what you have been told to believe about history, it is far out. It's sad to see an actual Indian deny their own glorious culture, because of what dogmatic westerners say. You probably don't even know that the the colonial Sankrit Scholars of the west, systematically and maliciously corrupted the heritage of Indian history with lies and disinformation, that has only recently been exposed. The Aryan invasion theory was a myth propogated by the Britsh Empire to justify their occupation of India, by making Indians believe they were not the original inhabitants of India.


So everyone is lying and you are correct about Aryans? Right, I bet the aliens told this to you about the aryans.


The entire Aryan theory was a fabricated lie by Max Muller and the like, on the basis that Sanskrit and the stories of Krishna were too similar to European language and history, and therefore it followed that Indians must have migrated from Europe. And the dates they fabricated for the Aryans were quite literally from their arse. Max Muller was a Christian fundementalist, and held that Hinduism was a primitive religion, and inferior to Christianity. He was actively involved in spreading Christianity in India.

It's very ironic that you need to hear what your history is from foreingers. What is that? An inferiority complex?


Just because I hear that my ancestors use vimana technology and all that modern tech doesn't mean that I have to believe it actually. What you are saying is that I should blindly believe in it because it shows my ancestors as being superior.

I don't blindly believe in everything I hear, unlike some people around hear.

Surf



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Because the book doesn't describe it. The original deal was the Kunti questions the sun god, so he uses his powers to give him a son. I don't think the use of mantras is equal to having intercourse. And the reason why Kunti choose not to keep the child because she was afraid no one would believe that she got the child from the god, not through illegal affair. If she did actually have intercourse, that means that she is corrupt, which throws away her innocent looks.


In the film profession, you can infer the act of sexual intercourse by simply showing a couple looking at each other intently and then cutting to them lying in bed having a smoke. Simply, because the text does not go into the nitty gritty of what happened between Kunti and the "sun god" does not mean the act did not happen. The "sun god" blessed her with a child.

It's either sex, artificial insemination or a technology of impregnation that is beyond our understanding. It does not really matter what the process was, what matters, is that the son was from a god, in this context, the god is a being from the universe.


So everyone is lying and you are correct about Aryans? Right, I bet the aliens told this to you about the aryans.


Who is "everyone"? All I am telling you the colonial Sankrists had an agenda. Have you forgotten that India was enslaved for hundreds of years under racist imperialists? As I said, it was exposed later that these colonial Sankrisits did indeed spread disinformation and mistranslate texts to undermine them.


Just because I hear that my ancestors use vimana technology and all that modern tech doesn't mean that I have to believe it actually. What you are saying is that I should blindly believe in it because it shows my ancestors as being superior.

I don't blindly believe in everything I hear, unlike some people around hear.


You don't have to believe Ancient India had Vimana technology. It does not matter, if you do or don't, because the experts that matter are convinced. All I'm showing to you, your reason for this, is simply because it does not accord with western historty. That is what is sad about it, seeing as you are an Indian, and would accept a foreingers point of view on your culture over your own. Even though it is a blatant lie. This is what has always fascinated me about the Indian people. It is the only culture that puts others before it. and is generally so ashamed of their own(I've seen a few of the recent Bollywood films) I've never seen this kind of submissive attitude in any culture. I do not want to offend the Indians here but perhaps this is why your country has been invaded over and over again.

Are you a Hindu btw? I am not being racist, I am just curious.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



new topics
 
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join