Vedas and the Physics of Light revisited

Indigo, no offense, but your huge chunks of text make it impossible to hold a discussion unless I hover constantly over the keyboard (and I don't have time to do this.) The points and counterpoints run into staggering amounts of text, and I know that's hard for others to follow.

I don't agree (as you know) that the Indus civilizations were remarkably advanced beyond that of the rest of the world -- particularly when you considere the accomplishments of the ancient world. So I'm going to take bits and pieces that I want to discuss with you and post those to separate message threads.

The Physics of light

The first physics of light in the modern world was proposed by Sir Isac Newton, that demonstrated that light can be split by a prism into it's component rays/colours, however he believed light to be of infinite speed. His physics of light was rejected by mainstream science at the time.

Actually, you're way off, here. Leonardo da Vinci wrote a whole treatise on optics in his Notebooks (including notes on how we see and how we perceive things.) Europeans were making use of optical discoveries with the Camera Obscura and other devices in the 1300's and earlier:
www.sumscorp.com...

Aristophanes (400 BC) mentions use of a "burning glass"/lens that the Greeks were already using, which means that they could both produce lenses and knew that you could focus light through it and burn thigns with it back in 400 BC.

It is mentioned (probably not credibly) that Archimedes used one such device against the Roman fleet. I tend to doubt that he actually sat any ships afire with it, but he most certainly drew up plans for such a weapon.
www.absoluteastronomy.com...


...now I'm going to snip the stuff about the eye (I have a whole boatload of material on it, however) and get to that in another post. But let's get back to light and physics.

"Seven horses draw the chariot of the sun, tied by snakes". Rg Veda 5. 45. 9

The above poetic verse is extremely interesting, because not only does "horse" mean rays of light in this context, but the motion of a snake is curved, and it would therefore imply they knew light did not travel in straight lines, but in a curved path, which is a predicate of relativity that space-time is curved. This can be further corroborated by a verse in the Athara Veda, that says: there are seven types of sun's rays -

I don't find this believable, particularly after seeing all the paintings of the chariot of the sun. "Horse" might mean "ray of light" (I have no reference one way or another on this) but the horses of the sun aren't rainbow-colored. They're white.
www.sanatansociety.com...

While Newton and others listed the individual colors, I don't see any Vedic references about seven colors of horses and the sun.

And the "snakes" don't hold up, either. As depicted in all the art I've ever seen, they wrap the horses like a harness. I don't know if you're trying to imply wavicles here or gravitational light bending, but niether works given the position of those snakes in the paintings. They are a harness and don't move as the horses move.

The "snakes imply light didn't travel in straight lines" is an answer that one gets ONLY after one knows some other physics.

If you allow such linkages, then we could claim that "Thou rollest up into the horizon, thou hast set light over the darkness, thou sendest forth air from thy plumes, and thou floodest the Two Lands like the Disk at daybreak. " from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to mean that the Egyptians understood that there was an Old World and a New World and therefore knew about the Americas... in spite of a lot of evidence to the contrary.

So, if you're going to claim that they knew light traveled in curves (which it doesn't, unless the universe is curved (or are you trying to describe wavicles?)) then you will have to show stronger proof than it "implies" an answer or property that you already know about.

As, they understood light so well, as well as the abilities to reflect and refract it, it would seem logical therefore that some kind of lens devices would have been devised, such as telescopes.

I agree. But where are the ancient devices?

...such a device has in fact been fabricated by Indian scientists from directions in it.

Again... long after the fact, right? This makes me suspicious, because in Europe/Greece/etc there are a lot of lenses around that date back to 200 BC and more. This physical evidence shows that they principle was understood and adopted and used. To deduce something from poetic verses thousands of years later does not mean that they actually knew how to make and use these devices.

Now... it honestly wouldn't surprise me to find out that they did have lenses, because they did have pottery kilns and eventually had glass technology by the 4th century BC (possibly via China, which had glass bead technology in 600 BC.)
www.infinityfoundation.com...

Another hole in the theory comes from that above site which states "In India, however, glass did not have a social value similar to that of metals and pottery which was preferred to glass vessels in some religious functions, and in iatro-chemical practices as well. "

As you might be aware, pottery reacts with some chemicals (giving poor results) unlike glass, which is not very reactive (and this is why we use it for test tubes.) Optical quality glass is hard to make, and Subbarayappa says " Lenses, prisms, mirrors, glass tubes and vessels played a notable role in the new experimental methods that led to the growth of physics, chemistry and biology in the West. In Indian ethos, however, the importance of glass was hardly recognized (Subbarayappa 1999)."

In other words, glass was of so little value that Indians did not use this technology or develop it as much as the West did.

Byrd,

No, I am not saying the Indus civilisations were more advanced than other civilisations in the world. I am saying that ancient civilisation was advanced relative to modern civilisation. As the references to advanced technology are in every culure, it is just that the Vedas have more clearer records.
No, the physics of light was not understood till Newton. You know - the principles of reflection, refraction. Now, although it is quite new to me that Leonardo Da Vinci had discussed optics in his treatise, quickly glancing over the article, it appears it was not from a scientific perspective, rather from an inventors perspective. The actual physics, the nature of light as a wave and the physics of waves and light as a particle was not understood till late into the modern age

"Seven horses draw the chariot of the sun, tied by snakes". Rg Veda 5. 45. 9

This just a poetic verse describing the nature of light as being composed of 7 rays and the snake symbolises it's curved path. Now, it's meaning is clarified for us the Athara Veda, where is tells us there are seven rays of the sun. Now, these colours are actually descirbed as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, Indigo and violet in the Ramayana, the yoga sutras and the Vedic Upanishads. So it becomes quite clear that this is indeed refering to the 7 colours of light. As I said this was not discovered in western science till Newton split light into it's 7 colors by a prism.

The nature of space-time as curved is actually described in the Shiva Purnas where it said that the universe is shaped as a sphere. A further anaology is how the universes are all described as bubbles emanting from Mahavishnu.

So, I think it stands proven that light is understood. Light is a very important "element" in the Vedas.

Now, the ancient light spectrometer, which is one of the devices that utilises the principles of light already discussed in the Vedas, that is)

1. The light spectrum
2. Light as a wave and particle
3. The principles of reflection and refraction

However, this kind of device is very advanced and is really 21st century physics of light. One of the lens needed for this contraption is made of an ultra-modern infrared absorbing material.

Now, lens prisms and mirrors did indeed exist in ancient India. The person you are quoting is just stating an uneducated opinion A lens/prism is called a "mani" a glass is called "kanch" and a mirror is called "darpana" These terms reoccur in the Vymaanika Shastra and the metallurgical formulas are given for all kinds of lens, prisms. There are also directions in the Amsu Bodhini, the cosmological text, which is the source for directions for the spectromemter.

The lens are made of a variety of substances, most from pearls, human eye pigment, eagle eye pigment and fish eye due to their high optical senstivity. At least two of these ancient lens have been fabricated and documented. Now to further corrobrate that lens existed in ancient times, physical lens have actually been found all over the world from ancient times, one such from Egypt around 2000BC and is stored in Cairo's museum.

Personally, it does not surprise me in the least that the Vedic Indians performed light spectroscopy. As everything is in place in the time-frame to do that: namely - the physics of light, lens and the materials. The actual chain and axel mechanism is just a basic gear and pully system. However it is operated electrically.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
No, I am not saying the Indus civilisations were more advanced than other civilisations in the world. I am saying that ancient civilisation was advanced relative to modern civilisation.

Okay... we can agree with that. Folks seem to have forgotten just how sophisticated the ancients were, when it's well documented.

No, the physics of light was not understood till Newton. You know - the principles of reflection, refraction.

The mathematics weren't, no... but every single artist in the world knew the principles. There's a lot of paintings showing this.

Now, although it is quite new to me that Leonardo Da Vinci had discussed optics in his treatise, quickly glancing over the article, it appears it was not from a scientific perspective, rather from an inventors perspective.

Well... not quite. If you'd like to read the whole notebooks (including the section on light) they're here:
www.gutenberg.org...

Much of it is discussed from a painterly/artistic standpoint, but it does apply to physics.

The actual physics, the nature of light as a wave and the physics of waves and light as a particle was not understood till late into the modern age

We can certainly agree on this!

"Seven horses draw the chariot of the sun, tied by snakes". Rg Veda 5. 45. 9
This just a poetic verse describing the nature of light as being composed of 7 rays and the snake symbolises it's curved path. Now, it's meaning is clarified for us the Athara Veda, where is tells us there are seven rays of the sun.

Okay, now here's where we go astray, IMHO. This is claimed... but it is never said directly in the verses.

The Rig Veda goes on to describe the horses of the sun as:
"the fleet-footed dappled Horses of the Sun"- www.sacred-texts.com...
"The strong Bay horses of the sun" - www.sacred-texts.com...
and also "Let thy Bay Horses bring thee hither as the Sun, as every day they bring the Sun"
www.ishwar.com...

Horses are also referred to (in English translations) as "coursers" (which is a type of horse; very fast and strong and able to jump well... a horse you would use for hunting):

He, Pavamana, high o'er man yoked the Sun's courser Etasa To travel through the realm of air.

And those ten Coursers, tawny-hued, he harnessed that the Sun might come Indu, he said, is Indra's self.

www.ishwar.com...

So now we've got not seven, but ten horses and they are bay/tan/tawny in color. I could live with the variable numbers of horses (different people see rainbows in different ways) -- BUT -- the horses aren't different colors. They're all the same color.

So I don't see how you can state that they're fractionalized light since the colors aren't associated with each different horse.

I get a little confused here with some of the verses but I think the breed of horse is called the Etasa, if I'm interpreting the verses correctly.

Further, in Book 8, Sura wounds the horse and I don't think there's anything that wounds light. There's several references to the chariot wheel following the Etasa -- and there is no light model that I know that has wheels or wheel-like things following it around.

I think the evidence points to it being real horses... perhaps I'm looking at the wrong section and there's more evidence in the verses around it that indicates the horses are "rays of light"?

Now, these colours are actually descirbed as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, Indigo and violet in the Ramayana, the yoga sutras and the Vedic Upanishads. So it becomes quite clear that this is indeed refering to the 7 colours of light. As I said this was not discovered in western science till Newton split light into it's 7 colors by a prism.

Actually, it was discovered a very long time ago by everyone. Those are simply the colors in a rainbow. What I don't see (perhaps you can cite the verse) is the text that shows a direct splitting of the light into 7 colors?

The nature of space-time as curved is actually described in the Shiva Purnas where it said that the universe is shaped as a sphere. A further anaology is how the universes are all described as bubbles emanting from Mahavishnu.

Now we're getting off light... but I should point out that the universe is saddle-shaped and not round. The concept of the round universe is quite old; remember the "celestial spheres" of the Greeks and so forth.

Now, the ancient light spectrometer, which is one of the devices that utilises the principles of light already discussed in the Vedas, that is)

1. The light spectrum
2. Light as a wave and particle
3. The principles of reflection and refraction

However, this kind of device is very advanced and is really 21st century physics of light. One of the lens needed for this contraption is made of an ultra-modern infrared absorbing material.

Now, lens prisms and mirrors did indeed exist in ancient India. The person you are quoting is just stating an uneducated opinion

The person I was citing is an Indian archaeologist who has spent many years researching how glass was made by the ancient Hindu civilizations. He's written a number of reference books, including one on glass.

A lens/prism is called a "mani" a glass is called "kanch" and a mirror is called "darpana" These terms reoccur in the Vymaanika Shastra and the metallurgical formulas are given for all kinds of lens, prisms. There are also directions in the Amsu Bodhini, the cosmological text, which is the source for directions for the spectromemter.

Could you give me some sources for this so that I may look it up (and the spectrometer in particular?) I'm not having much luck with google. The Vymaanika Shastra was "channeled" and I'm betting that the formulas will be consistant with the time period (1908 or so.)

All I can find are your messages mentioning this.

The lens are made of a variety of substances, most from pearls, human eye pigment, eagle eye pigment and fish eye due to their high optical senstivity.

Erm... perhaps we mean different things by the term, "lens"? I'm using the term, lens, from the dictionary: " a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images"

Forgive my lack of imagination, here, but calcium carbonate doesn't make a very good lens... nor do eye pigments. This is extremely fragile biological material.

Now to further corrobrate that lens existed in ancient times, physical lens have actually been found all over the world from ancient times, one such from Egypt around 2000BC and is stored in Cairo's museum.

Don't doubt it one iota. I was familiar (slightly) with glass-making technology of the area. If I understand the documents correctly, though, these are "lenses of eyes" (polished clear stone.) The first "practical lenses" (lenses that could be used for magnification or light manipulation) appeared around 1000 BC.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Byrd]

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Byrd]

The Vedas are written in poetic verse and vedic Sanskrit - they are a collection of Mantras to be remembered and sung and in Vedic Sanskrit and in a sort of encrypted and coded language, and utlise the name of "gods" to denote phenoemna. Actually, the "gods" actually denote natural phenomena. Meanwhile, other Sanskrit texts, like the sutras, Bhagvad Gita, Puranas, Itihas(history) and the technical texts are written in normal Sanskrit.

Byrd, first and foremost. I would scrap sacred text.com as your source for translations of Vedic texts. All of the texts are poorly translated by 19th century imperialist schoars, in most cases, deliberately mistranslated by Christian missionaries. I suggest you get some modern translations from vedic scholars. You can actually see this quite clearly if you read the Atharveda translations, which is what the entire science of Ayurveda and Indian medicine is based on. The translator, Maurice Bloomfield, basically belittles legitimate directions for preparing herbal remedies for curing a range of ailments and even weapons and war strategies, as charms and sorcery to gods. Such is the myopia and distorition by these self-proclaimed Sanskrit scholars.

I particularly found this amusing from the translation on Rig Veda:

Battle-charm for confusing the enemy.
Agni, our skilful vanguard, shall attack, burning, against their schemes and hostile plans! Gâtavedas shall bewilder the plans of the enemy, and deprive them (of the use) of their hands!
2. This fire has confused the schemes that are in your mind; it shall blow you from your home, blow you away from everywhere!

Agni means fire. As in agney-astra, which is a fire weapon. This part of the Atharva veda is dealing with weaponary. Here it is talking about using fire as a weapon against the enemy. The translator is so confused, that in the 2nd line they even use "fire" but they don't seem to recognise Agni IS the source of fire. This is not an incantation to some god "agni" it's a description of how fire can be used as a weapon in war.

All of the gods symbolise natural phenomena. Sanata Dharama(the real name of Hinduism) is a completely monothestic faith. The various gods are simply a manifestation of the same energy of god. Yet, they are reveered as celestial beings, because it is believed each aspect is actually a conscious being in a the higher states of reality. We will see this in a
few passages from the vedas

Indra Kratuvidang sutanm somang harya purushtut
Piba vrishaswa taatripim

May the bright God drink glorious Soma-mingled meath, giving
the sacrifices lord unbroken life He who, wind-urged, in person guards our offspring well, nourishes them with food and shines o'er many a land.


What this really says is that thunder/electricity grants power to help extract Soma, to take and to drink, praised by many, showers on satisfaction.

So, the imperialist translation is rubbish. Soma is not actually being prepared for a god. It's talking about how thunder is used as a power to extract soma.

Word for word: Indra(thunder/electricity) Kratuvidang(granting power) sutam(extract) somang(part of Soma) harya(to take) purushut(praised by many) piba(to drink) vrishawa(showers) taatripim(satisfication, delight)

Here is another poor translation:

Nav Yo Navati Puro bibhed bahvotjasaa Ahi Cha vritrahaavadheet

Him who with might of both his arms broke nine-and-ninety castles down,
Slew Vritra and smote Ahi dead.(refering to Indra)

Even more rubbish. What it really says Thunder/electricity, that with the energy of it's arms breaks 99 places, destroys the storm cloud on earth(thus causing rain)

Word for word Nav Yo Navati(99) Puro(places) bibhed(breaks) bahovotjassa(energy of arms) ahi(on earth) cha(and) Vritarahaavadheet(destroys the storm cloud)

Incidentally there is a myth about this. Vritra-ahi the demom of the clouds, captures all the clouds and causes droughts. Then Indra, uses his weapon vajra, a lightening bolt to slay him and the rains are caused. All this verse is refering to how lightening cause rain.

Your point of contention is that the 7 horses that draw the sun's chariots is not not referring to the rays of the sun. Fair enough, then. However, it is most likely it is. As it relates the 7 x's to the sun and in another Veda, it says the sun has seven rays, and the Yoga Sutras and Upanishads speak of the 7 colours. All I want to put across was that the nature of light has formed of seven rays was understood. The verse in the Atharaveda says that without the poetic verse, when it says there are 7 types of suns rays. Further, can you acutally prove that it was understood in the west that light was composed of 7 rays. Because as far as I know Newton was the first to demonstrate it and even then it was not accepted. The 7 colours are very important in Vedic metaphysics, because they refer to the electromagnetic field of the aura, which is composed of 7 energy centres/vortexes corresponding to the electromagnetic spectrum.

Here is a more reliable translation of the sun's chariots part: sanskrit.safire.com...

This makes it very clear that Surya, the sun, 7 mares/horses, can only be it's rays of light.

Okay... we can agree with that. Folks seem to have forgotten just how sophisticated the ancients were, when it's well documented.

Yes, they definitely were.

The mathematics weren't, no... but every single artist in the world knew the principles. There's a lot of paintings showing this.

Well, that's not physics or mechanics of light. That's aesthestics of light.

Well... not quite. If you'd like to read the whole notebooks (including the section on light) they're here:
www.gutenberg.org...

Much of it is discussed from a painterly/artistic standpoint, but it does apply to physics.

I really do not have time to read it all. Can you excerpt the relavant sections that show a proper understanding of the physics of light.

He's written a number of reference books, including one on glass.

Again, we know glass existed in that time-frame, as did lens. We also know the vaiseshika sutras discuss refraction, absorption and reflection of light by certain materials and light as composed of 7 colors is also understood. Finally, we even have sanskrit words for glass, lens and crystals/prisms. The researcher is only speculating on the basis of physical glass artefacts found.

By the way, this particular researchers papers are published in the same science journal, in which the spectromemter is published too.

Could you give me some sources for this so that I may look it up (and the spectrometer in particular?) I'm not having much luck with google. The Vymaanika Shastra was "channeled" and I'm betting that the formulas will be consistant with the time period (1908 or so.)

All I can find are your messages mentioning this.

Yes, you can obtain the reports from INSA and perhaps e-mail contact with the director of NML, India.. As you are a archaealogist and have a scholary interest, I think you will be able to obtain them.

Here is a link to find them:

54. P.Ramachandra Rao,” The Study of Various Materials described in Ansubodhini of Maharsi Bharadvaja,” 1997-99. Report submitted. Publication in the IJHS.

(i) (With N.G. Dongre and S.K. Malviya) “Prakasa Stambhanabhida Lauha of Maharsi Bharadvaja (a novel transparent material of range 5000 to 1400cm-1),”33.4 (1998) 270-80.

www.insaindia.org...

What I have done is basically referenced from a report of it on a Hindi web site, and had it translated. You can have this link too:

www.abhyuday.org...

If you do get it completely translated, please post it here. I only had some sections translated, as it was too big and too difficult for my friend. I would also appreciate your research into the journals.

Erm... perhaps we mean different things by the term, "lens"? I'm using the term, lens, from the dictionary: " a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images"

Forgive my lack of imagination, here, but calcium carbonate doesn't make a very good lens... nor do eye pigments. This is extremely fragile biological material.

The lens are made from glass, except they are augumented with other substances and are based on exact mellurgical formulas. Even biological materials are used and that is because they have very high opticial sensitivity.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Well done Bryd

A thorough and scholarly debunking.

I think you may be banging your head against a wall with this one though. Indigo has made up his/her mind that the ancient Idians had a "hi-tech" society and will twist the evidance in every tortuous manner possible to "prove" that this is the case.

One point though:

Byrd, first and foremost. I would scrap sacred text.com as your source for translations of Vedic texts. All of the texts are poorly translated by 19th century imperialist schoars

Whoah! I seem to remember you posting extensive links from sacredtext.com on your previous threads to make your point. Are you never going to use them again? Or only when it suits you?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Well done Bryd

A thorough and scholarly debunking.

Me and Byrd are have a friendly and open-minded discussion here - a "scholary discussion" if you will. Please, don't ruin that, thank you.

Oh, boo hoo.

I've not broken any rules or directly insulted anyone. I've simply stated which side of the argument I believe is correct and the fact that I think you bend the evidence to suit you - so what is your problem exactly IC?

I notice that you haven't responded to my point regarding sacredtexts.com - the source that you use all the time but for the purposes of this thread should be completely disregarded.......

Bryd and Indigo_child,
Having just read this very interesting discussion (and I commend both of you for your efforts, time, and well presented positions), I noticed this mention by Bryd:

as posted by Byrd
Aristophanes (400 BC) mentions use of a "burning glass"/lens that the Greeks were already using, which means that they could both produce lenses and knew that you could focus light through it and burn thigns with it back in 400 BC.

Having remembered an email that a friend of mine had sent me in the past mentioning the Greeks and the photon stade, cosmic photon foot, and natural photon finger in relation to ancient structures that were built, namely the Parthenon and Great Pyramid, I remembered trying to bring this to light for open ATS discussion with little commentary. I did some digging and found it: Encoding of the speed of Light?

Now, when I read Bryd's mention (as quoted above) about Aristophanes and his work, it made me wonder as to whether he was trying to prove an already known quantity (the Physics of light: speed of light), was he simply trying to expand on a somewhat known knowledge, or was he discovering it (aspects of it)? The Parthenon's construction began in 448. I'm wondering if either Iktinos (designer) or Callicrates (builder) were aware of this and sought to "encode" this knowledge into the Parthenon structure, just as the Egyptian's did with specific information/knowledge when they built and "encoded" the Great Pyramid, etc.

Nonetheless, it is very interesting and implies that the ancients were admittedly far more advanced than many early and current would openly and academically admit, per se'.

Interesting disussion and hopefully the above information I have mentioned will add to this topic.





seekerof

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Seekerof]

The "burning device" supposedly created by Archimedes was debunked during on of the episodes of "myth busters." check it out for yourself

Apparently not, PtballDan.
Archimedes + burning device




seekerof

The temperaturestook way to long and it would take an awsome force to focus all of the light on one spot. Watch the episode. Also a website said, that through their calculations that is " concluded this classic story is no more than a myth."

www.iop.org...

It doesn't seem to be a particularly practical weapon, even if it was built. I'm a bit consfused though - are we talking about reflective mirrors or a giant lens?

Thanks, Seekeroff.

FatherLukeDuke, this is not a competition. It's a discussion. Further more, I have no idea what you're talking about, that I have been reliant on sacred-text.com for my information on the Vedas. I have not even referenced them. There was only time they were mentioned, and that was Ganguly's translations of the Mahabharata to cross-compare with the other translation quoted in Childress's book, and that too was brought up by someone else. If I recall correctly I was saying Gangully's translations could be biased. As far I am concered the translations on sacred-text.com are outmoded and cannot be used properly for any scholary discussion.


Regarding the Greek light weapon. It sounds like fiction to me. Using a giant lens to focus the sun's energy as a weapon by itself, sounds a lot like Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machines of people peddling on bikes to operate wings; ancient science fiction. However, I certainly do not doubt, that lens existed though, which is what Byrd was putting across. To produce an actual laser with the power to that, light is amplified in an enclosed space by mirrors and the photons become more exited and energetic, and are then released in a single phase. This can be done by a flash tube that flashes on a ruby or a gas, causing the emission of photo-electrons.

The actual technology is quite simple.

Here is are a few lens device from the Vaimanika Shastra:

27. Kriyaagrahana. : “By turning the key at the bottom of the vimana, a white cloth is made to appear. By electrifying the three acids in the north-east part of the vimana and subjecting them to the seven kinds of solar rays and passing the resultant force into the tube of the Thrisheersha mirror and making the cloth screen face the mirror and switching on the upper key, all the activities going on down below on the ground, will be projected on the screen.

Through a sequence of reflecting mirrors, images/ pictures are captured and developed in-situ through chemical process. Special reflector called chumbakamani having a property of absorbing reflection from objects is used in the contraption. Solar rays and electric current are made to act on an acid vessel containing the crystal Chumbakamani. Electrified rays from the crystal are made to impinge on a downward facing mirror and this in turn will scan the ground underneath to take pictures of mines and explosives. The pictures are amplified and communicated to the pilot on a specially prepared screen.

Tamogarbha yantra:
Thamo yantra (darkness capturing device) is dealt with in fair detail in English translation of Vymanika shastra.
The device is meant to protect vimana from poisonous fumes of Rouhinee or Kraakachaarimani rays projected by the enemy. This is in essence, achieved by creating a darkness around the vimana to make it invisible to the enemy aircraft (ground forces as well) and make their target-sighting impossible. In this contraption Thamogarbha loha plays a key role.
The device works with revolving two faced mirrors collecting solar rays, activation of acid in the vessel on the opposite side, of mirrors, allowing solar ray to enter the crystal in an acid vessel. By turning a separate wheel in the west, darkness-intensifying mirror begin to function. By operation of a central wheel the rays attracted by the mirror will reach the crystal and envelop it. By operating the main wheel at high speed, darkness will envelop the entire vimana making it invisible.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Why can't we dig up remains or shrapnel of these amazing devices ? Even a nuclear war will not evaporate all evidence of our civilisation. I have no doubt the Indian had a comparatively very advanced civililisation to be proud of in those times, but their established teclevel is reflected by artefacts we can see in musea. New discoveries might mean we have to review that.

Doesn't it bother you hard evidence fails to show up? do you think archeologists will be able to find hard evidence in the near future ?

Some people on this board maintain high and low that the Egyption pyramids were nuclear reactors, while I think that those pyramids show amazing architect/organisational skills, i don't see where they would have dumped their nuclear waste ...

I think there is truth if you say that many missionairies in the past tried to give a christian twisted translation to scriptures of other cultures, in fact every dominant culture tries to mold other cultures to their worldview...but could the translators you prefer also not be slightly wishfull translating?

How about the Indians themselves ? I would think that the Indian army, would make it top priority to rediscover their own stealth technology, i don't see them digging for it.


[edit on 10-3-2005 by Countermeasures]

I think there is truth if you say that many missionairies in the past tried to give a christian twisted translation to scriptures of other cultures, but could the translators you prefer not be slightly wishfull translating ?

How do you mistranslate a text discussing how to make certain machines/devices and materials, and then actually end up with the machines/devices and materials specified.

The translations are consistent with all of the Sanskrit texts, discussing a range of arts, from flower decoration to physics. This is a very real phenomena.

I would think that the Indian army, would make it top priority to rediscover their own stealth technology, i don't see them digging for it.

They have, the Sanskrit texts are being studied by the Indian air force, the defence research labs, Aeronautics companies, space research organisations, metallurgical labs, technology insistutes and this is all commisioned by the government.

As I've mentioned countless times already, they have actually created new materials and devices and they're documented in science journals.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Regarding the Greek light weapon. It sounds like fiction to me. Using a giant lens to focus the sun's energy as a weapon by itself, sounds a lot like Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machines of people peddling on bikes to operate wings; ancient science fiction.

An odd point of view to take considering your own arguments I would think... Well, one person's ancient science fiction is another persons proof of an advanced ancient civilization.

Now say perhaps a greek citizen today were to 'channel' an anceint greek document containing directions on how to make such a giant lens. Stories of Zeus hurling thunderbolts? No no no, those are shoddy translations, what the stories REALLY tell are how the anchient greeks used to harness the power of electricity to help construct these lenses.

Maybe you can understand now why some have a hard time accepting what you present here. Don't get me wrong I think it is very interesting, but I need something a little more substantial than circular logic and very liberal translations and interpretations of very vauge symbolic writing.



[edit on 10-3-2005 by Donner]

An odd point of view to take considering your own arguments I would think... Well, one person's ancient science fiction is another persons proof of an advanced ancient civilization.

Yet, this itself is quite telling too. You see, science fiction is correlated with science of the time. Now, Leonardo Da Vinci, visualised flight as people peddling on bikes to operate wings. The greeks, in this account, who most probably did have lens and observed how it can focus the son's heat, visualised how giant lens could be used as potential deathray weapons.
Later on, it was thought that space travel could simply be done by firing someone with a huge cannon into space.

Yet, in what you are calling science fiction in Vedas, it reads like 21st century "science fiction" And that is what is very telling. We have time dilation, nuclear weapons, space travel, human cloning, multiple dimensions, matrix, consciousness embedded weapons systems, interstellar travel, artificial intelligence. If that is all science fiction, then what is the science that it is based on.

Now say perhaps a greek citizen today were to 'channel' an anceint greek document containing directions on how to make such a giant lens. Stories of Zeus hurling thunderbolts? No no no, those are shoddy translations, what the stories REALLY tell are how the anchient greeks used to harness the power of electricity to help construct these lenses.

No, because is a text was channeled today on how to construct a giant lens, it would not be advanced knowledge, in fact it would be primitive relative to current technology in lasers and directed energy weapons.

However, if the channeled greek texts, discussed something advanced, such as warping space-time per say to travel to other dimensions. Then I would be interested, and if was supported by a scientific investigation and actual facts. I would be discussing it here.

What you need to note that the technology in the VS was far ahead of the time it was channeled and beyond any science fiction of the time. The mercury ion engine that was flown in 1895 to 1500 feet, was just constructed again by NASA just a few years ago, and it still has not produced enough thrust.

Adaptive camoflage, described in the VS, is only recently being developed by JPL, and it's identical to what the VS describes. In addition, lasers did not exist in this time, much less the exact mechanism of making them. This is why the VS is not science fiction. It's science. It's a real phenonema. Not only does it discuss onboard components, it gives exact metallurgical formulas for the materials and components. It gives war strategies, pilots diets, and amog other things. It's an entire treatise on aeronautics.

Further still, there is actual historical evidence of the VS existing in the past too from as early as 10th century there are references to it.

Maybe you can understand now why some have a hard time accepting[ what you present here. Don't get me wrong I think it is very interesting, but I need something a little more substantial than circular logic and very liberal translations and interpretations of very vauge symbolic writing.

What you don't understand, and I'm not sure you've read my posts, because I really covered it very extensively. That this is not based on some stories of advanced technology. It's based on real scientic research and ancient science text books.

I think you have the misconception, that I saw a story talking about lasers and spaceships, and therefore think it is real. This is not the case, because if it were, I would not be arguing for it and I would cite exactly the same reasons as you - that is baseless evidence. I am actually discussing real literary and physical evidence.

And from what we know physically, ancient civilisation was 2000 years ahead of current civilisation in so many areas. In engineering, physics, medicine and surgery, architecture, metallurgy, mathematics. There is a vast body of evidence that says loud and clear that they were more advanced.

Now, the evidence for the very advanced technology comes from the sanskrit texts and history of the Mahabharata. Such as the VS, Amsubodhini and other texts.

The Amsubodhini is also authored by Maharishi Bharadwaja and it is part of his materwork yantra Saraswana(all about machines) and this one was not channeled, it was discovered in oriential institute library. It is written in exactly the same manner as VS.

I don't know what else it will take for you or anyone else who is skeptical to accept this, but this is a very real phenomena and is being taken very seriously by scholars, researchers and scientists. It was not before, because Indian scientists were as skeptical as some here are, but now that 7 different materials and devices have been created from them, it is proven that they are genuine, and thus scientists are taking them seriously.

I personally believe the rumours of the Nazis excavating Sanskrit texts to build their pulse jet engines and other technology is probably real now. As these texts actually do mention pulse jet engines too, apparently.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
FatherLukeDuke, this is not a competition. It's a discussion. Further more, I have no idea what you're talking about, that I have been reliant on sacred-text.com for my information on the Vedas.

It's a debate as well as a discussion. You haven't used sacredtexts.com? What about the posts in your "Proof of advanced ancient civilisation" thread:

References:

www.atributetohinduism.com...
www.mic-d.com...
www.geocities.com...
www.hinduism.co.za...
www.geocities.com...
www.sacred-texts.com...
www.atributetohinduism.com...
www.crystalinks.com...
www.rootsweb.com...

and

Here are the relavant passages: www.sacred-texts.com...

"Endeavoured to be deceived by those wicked ones, those ascetics, with eyes red in wrath, looked at each other and uttered those words. Having said so they then proceeded to see Keshava. The slayer of Madhu, informed of what had taken place, summoned all the Vrishnis and told them of it. Possessed of great intelligence and fully acquainted with what the end of his race would be, he simply said that that which was destined would surely happen. Hrishikesa having said so, entered his mansion. The Lord of the universe did not wish to ordain otherwise. When the next day came, Samva actually brought forth an iron bolt through which all the individuals in the race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas became consumed into ashes. Indeed, for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas, Samva brought forth, through that curse, a fierce iron bolt that looked like a gigantic messenger of death. The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder..................

So they were good enough then but we should completely disregard them in this instance?

It's probably not my place to butt in, but I can't help noting that this thread was created to be a less cluttered venue for people who have a great deal of interest and knowledge on the subject.
Although I agree with FatherLukeDuke, Donner, and Countermeasures, I think it would be a very fine gesture for us all to make if we'd try to limit our replies and quoting unless we want to go into the kind of depth that Byrd and Indigo are going into.
This thread could be an outstanding read if we can respect it and let it continue to play out at a high level of quality and not interject with every thought we have on the matter. (God knows there is no dearth of threads on these subjects in the forum.)

I'll keep this short, as I am having a time reading it - quite an intertesting topic.

It is my understanding that this mirror was not made any where near to specs on Myth Busters, I don't watch the show anymore because I find fault with their testing methods, so I don't know Jack about what they showed.

In addition, I recall (somewhere) that it actually caused more than one Ship to "burn up".

The basics I got somewhere along the lines was that the miror was simmilar in apearance to a mini satalite dish, although 3 to 4 ft in diameter.