Mechanical Engineering in Ancient times

And I think they didn't exist. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt and will defend this point strongly and passionately.

You're entitled to that. I think the evidence favours that they existed, rather than the opposite. Your argument for then not existing is a fallacy anyway. The absence of physical evidence of these aeroplanes does not mean the evidence of absence of these aeroplanes.

Suppose I was having this discussion with you before the antikeythra mechanism was found. I claimed that the ancient texts describe an analog mechanical computer as a real machine that was used by people. You say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth" Then later the actual contraption is found.

The same ancient texts describe an aeroplane as a real machine, replete with instructions on flight, engine etc. Again I say to you that the ancients describe an aeroplane as a real machine that was used by people. Would you again say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth!"

Now suppose that we did actually find remains of an ancient aeroplane. The ancient texts also describe robots as real machines. Again I say to you the ancients describe robots as real machines that people used. Would you again say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will spell the point out for you. If we would only base our knowledge of the technology of the ancients on just finding physical evidence then we could only ever know whatever we are lucky to find. Such an approach is stupid and means our knowledge of history would progress at a very slow rate subject to finds, and of course we may never find some things.

An intelligent person like myself would be able to infer the rest. It's a bit like building a jigsaw. As pieces come together, the picture is starting to form, so we don't need to know all the pieces to finish it. An unitelligent person(like...) would need to know every piece to form the picture.

Let's just say I have enough pieces of the puzzle of history to see the whole picture, that I don't need anymore.

Actually in general and I have come to call it the ATS syndrome which tends to affect skeptics, there is enough pieces out there to solve many puzzles(UFO's, NWO, paranormal) but they are not intelligent enough to do it with the number of pieces they have

[edit on 19-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Let's just say I have enough pieces of the puzzle of history to see the picture, that I don't need anymore.

There it is! That's the ugly truth about why people who are dogmatic in their views make discussion redundant. It'd be considerate of you to add it to your sig. It's a cool idea. All your threads and posts would only gain agreeable replies. Circular logic and confirmation bias...ahem...cough...

Here you go....copy and paste...don't thank me

"Let's just say I have enough pieces of the puzzle of history to see the picture, that I don't need anymore. I believe India invented everything thousands of years ago first."

reply to post by Kandinsky


lol, it is not a belief and nor is it a dogma. It is based on evidence, only that I do not limit my evidence to only physical evidence. I accept all evidence as valid. I do not pick and choose my evidence.... unlike some people....

Let's not forget the only physical evidence we do have actually favours my argument that the ancients were at modern levels of science and technology.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

to the OP:

Since you know what I WOULD say, on pretty much any subject, AND since you established the "fact" that you are smart whereas someone else is not, I will leave you finish this nice conversation between you and you. I am NOT to be quoted on anything in this thread below THIS post, whatever you "suppose" *I* say from now on is purely you, your worldview, your assumptions (with or without "evidence" or evidence), your beliefs, mixed in with some ancient Indian aircrafts/spaceships/nuclear bombs/robots/digital computers/whatever else my limited intelligence may fathom.

Thank Krishna (isn't this the individual who is refered to as flying in one of the 747's of ancient India?) there's a way

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Okay Kandinsky, I admit to being a little narrow in my world view and understanding of history. In future, I'll try harder. I'll read other opinions. I won't just use 'India' as a default term in all my searches. It's true that simply looking to confirm my ideas is sorta self-limiting. You're really great Kandinsky, can I date your sister?

That's really good news Indigo. There's so much to learn out there. I often use Google Scholar to check the peer-reviews. Thanks for the compliments, really appreciate it. My sister? No way, she's in a long-term relationship! Maybe you oughta learn about boundaries too? Sheesh!

Found it for you

posted on 12-1-2010 @ 11:37 AM

1) They are describing real historical people such as kings, major religious figures, who are utilising these machines. We do not find references to real histoical people, say George Bush flying in starships do we? If we found a record saying, "George Bush was flying in the sky in his aeroplane, airforce" We are likely to infer it is a real event and not a fictional event, correct? In the same way finding records like, "Then Krishna flew up into the sky on his airship" means it is likely a reference to a real event and not a fictional event.

(emphasis mine)

So, what kind of REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE was this Krishna guy?

Very good stuff thanks for all the info. The obvious conclusion to me is if some of the weapons described were nukes or an equivalent thereof. Than there must have been an easier way to make them than our version of splitting the atom etc. This would lead me to believe maybe the old secret was found but covered over as anyone who learns the secret recipe in his garage with a hammer and few mixing bowls suddenly becomes a world power. Mostly musing out loud here. As this section is clearly not my strong point just wanted to thank everyone for their knowledge and a kick for me to become more educated in ancient civilizations.

There is an easy way to make a nuke, if you can amass the amount of Uranium-235 needed (or, to put it otherwise, enrich the uranium you find in nature to a point that it is less than 20% U-238 when in nature it is about 99.3% U-238). Once you have enriched enough uranium you can have your atomic bomb (be careful not to keep ALL the enriched uranium in one "pile", it will start the process on its own and you'll be toast!). You will need a "trigger" to provide the neutrons to start the fission and establish the fast paced chain reaction (not the slower paced, reactor-type reaction), a thin Lithium disc can do as trigger.

The hard part is to make it, in paper it is not that hard (and of course, if it appears on paper it is a given that almost anyone can do it!)

Drift393,

It is described in the ancients texts that even a blade of glass could be turned into a nuclear weapon(Brahmastra) Sort of makes sense, as even a blade of grass is made up of atoms and each atoms holds an immeasurable amount of energy. If you knew how you could turn anything into a nuclear weapon. I doubt splitting a radioactive isotope such as Uranium is the only way of releasing atomic energy. There must be other ways that will become known to future science.

I am sure that even more destructive weapons are possible than nuclear weapons. Imagine if we could release the vast amount of zero point energy from the quantum vacuum. That would come very close to how the ancient "nuclear weapon" is described, "containing the power of the universe"

reply to post by drift393


On second thoughts, disregard what I said. After all it is only our own way of making atomic bombs (not thermonuclear or hydrogen or neutron bombs, plain old atomic bombs like the Hiroshima one). If you really want answers and technical details, go read the Vedic texts. It's all in there for you, how to make them, how they work. If you are baffled by the "severe penance" mentioned somewhere, concerning the weapon carrying "all the power of the Universe", don't be. It is a proved and tested method the ancient Hindus used to obtain all their nuclear goodies, among other things. So, go!

reply to post by Maegnas


The hard part is to make it, in paper it is not that hard (and of course, if it appears on paper it is a given that almost anyone can do it!)

You said it yourself. The same principle was followed there as well. Not everyone knew the method to obtain one, and even if they did it required a lot of hard work, severe penance,that too had different methods, might have been one of them which may sound easy on paper but might be harder than what we need to do today. In fact many of those weapons were available to very few people and even rules were imposed to one such weapon that it should be used only once in a lifetime by that person. It sounds like they were more responsible than us in the use of these weapons but still ended up using them. So imagine where the world is headed today with these thousands of nukes and the indiscriminate mining of Uranium. Kinda makes sense why any scripture on making such weapons is not found. Must have been an oral tradition so that they dont have a North Korea of their times.

Why is it so perplexing that nuclear weapons can be achieved in another way? Energy is such a fluid thing.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Karmaverick]

Energy IS fluid but it has some laws. To achieve nuclear fission you need to do some things first. It doesn't matter if those things are written in ancient Hindu texts, they still need to be done (and they leave some kind of trace).

Until SOME trace is found I will remain skeptical. For me, it is not enough that someone wrote something about it (without providing technical details or scientific proof, as is the mindset of the ancient Hindus, right?). But, that's just me

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

And I think they didn't exist. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt and will defend this point strongly and passionately.

You're entitled to that. I think the evidence favours that they existed, rather than the opposite. Your argument for then not existing is a fallacy anyway. The absence of physical evidence of these aeroplanes does not mean the evidence of absence of these aeroplanes.

As usual, it is your "perfect Indian Logic" that fails here.

That is, unless you intend to imply that there can be no evidence for a thing's nonexistence.

After all, the only evidence for nonexistence is an absence of evidence.

Suppose I was having this discussion with you before the antikeythra mechanism was found. I claimed that the ancient texts describe an analog mechanical computer as a real machine that was used by people. You say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth" Then later the actual contraption is found.

In fact, no ancient "analog computer" of any kind has ever been found.
The Antikythera mechanism has been erroneously described that way, I realize. However, that mechanism is a clockwork mechanism that performs only one set of functions (more like a simplistic computer program than like any kind of computer) - completely different from an analog computer which can be "programmed" to perform any number of different types of functions.

The same ancient texts describe an aeroplane as a real machine, replete with instructions on flight, engine etc. Again I say to you that the ancients describe an aeroplane as a real machine that was used by people. Would you again say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth!"

Now suppose that we did actually find remains of an ancient aeroplane. The ancient texts also describe robots as real machines. Again I say to you the ancients describe robots as real machines that people used. Would you again say to me, "Preposterous! There is no physical evidence of such a contraption existing. It is a myth"

The airplanes would require an industrial base, would they not? I mean, a single plaything like a clockwork man (which here you're calling - for some unknown reason - a "robot") could be built by an individual. But the Vimanas claimed in Vedic texts are far too numerous for that. The evidence for this industrial base has to be there - but it is not - so it never existed, hence no vimanas.
[quote]
I will spell the point out for you. If we would only base our knowledge of the technology of the ancients on just finding physical evidence then we could only ever know whatever we are lucky to find.
Oh. I see. So we would need to use your method, and accept the existence of things for which there is not even a shred of evidence.

In fact, much of what you claim here as "Vedic knowledge" is simply your interpretation of the words in these texts. Interpretations you have made with an eye toward spinning it into something similar to the minute portion of science that you betray yourself to be aware of.

Most of these texts only parallel modern science in the most vague ways - and then only if you purposefully read your own meanings into them.

In short, you, Indigo Child, are (mostly) making this stuff up as you go along. You appear to be motivated by some warped sense of nationalism - as if India isn't responsible for it's share of modern society. Why do you persist in this inferiority complex and why do you not realize how obvious it is to readers here?

Harte



Such an approach is stupid and means our knowledge of history would progress at a very slow rate subject to finds, and of course we may never find some things.

An intelligent person like myself would be able to infer the rest. It's a bit like building a jigsaw. As pieces come together, the picture is starting to form, so we don't need to know all the pieces to finish it. An unitelligent person(like...) would need to know every piece to form the picture.

Let's just say I have enough pieces of the puzzle of history to see the whole picture, that I don't need anymore.

Actually in general and I have come to call it the ATS syndrome which tends to affect skeptics, there is enough pieces out there to solve many puzzles(UFO's, NWO, paranormal) but they are not intelligent enough to do it with the number of pieces they have

[edit on 19-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

Wait for it Harte, he's going to "quote" proofs from the Vedas for things that don't exist to "prove" there's a good reason why they don't exist.

To Indigo:

Can you point me to the exact book in the Vedas where all this perfect sciences are discussed? Is it the Rig Veda, is it the Hymns to the Maruts, Rudra, Vâyu and Vâta, is it the Hymns to Agni, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur Veda (either black or white), is it the Atharva Veda, is it in the Upanishads (if so, in which exactly?), is it in the Puranas (also, which one?)? Is it maybe in some other text, like the Laws of Manu, the Sacred Laws of the Aryas, the Institutes of Vishnu, the Minor Law Books, the Satapatha Brahmana, the Grihya Sutras? Or maybe in one of the Epics? The Mahabharata (including in its 6th book the Bhagavad Gita), the Ramayana? Or maybe in the Vedanta Sutras? I don't think it is in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or the Hatha Yoga Pradipika but it won't hurt to ask.

So, which of all these is it (or are they)?

As usual, it is your "perfect Indian Logic" that fails here.

That is, unless you intend to imply that there can be no evidence for a thing's nonexistence.

After all, the only evidence for nonexistence is an absence of evidence.

We cannot say something does not exist, because to negate the existence of something, we need to know what that something is. It is like the atheist fallacy "god does not exist" To say god does not exist, means that first you must know what god is. This is why atheism is a belief in the non-existence of god.

It is a hard truth for a skeptic to accept, but you cannot positively say something does not exist, because you cannot be certain of that. Can you positively say with 100% certainty that there was NOT a nuclear war in ancient times?

We have reason to believe there was a nulear war in ancient times, that alone is an evidence for such a possibility. As I said before, I do not pick and choose my evidence, I accept all evidence. Everything, even a myth from ancient times is a piece of the puzzle The trouble with you guys is, you deliberately ignore evidence. Then you pretend there is no evidence.
Well, I do not ignore evidence.

An engineering text like the SS talking about an actual aeroplane, with an engine that is similar to what we built today, is a very solid piece of evidence. It does not stand on its own either. There is another large piece that connects to it, the fact that the entire range of Sanskrit literature describe aeroplanes. There is yet another piece the fact that the Vedic people have modern levels of scientific thought and technology. The picture that is forming gets clearer and clearer.

I never take evidence as stand alone. I take evidence as a whole. Perhaps you should do the same.

In fact, no ancient "analog computer" of any kind has ever been found.
The Antikythera mechanism has been erroneously described that way, I realize. However, that mechanism is a clockwork mechanism that performs only one set of functions (more like a simplistic computer program than like any kind of computer) - completely different from an analog computer which can be "programmed" to perform any number of different types of functions.

This is just quibbling over semantics. The Antikeythra mechanism has an 18th century level of miniturization and engineering. Many sources agree with this. Such advanced mechanical computers appeared around that time. It is a modern level of technology in ancient times. This alone is enough evidence to completely transform our views on what the ancients were capable of.

And don't forget the 21st century computer grammar of Sanskrit. This is something even the top linguistis have conceded.

The airplanes would require an industrial base, would they not? I mean, a single plaything like a clockwork man (which here you're calling - for some unknown reason - a "robot") could be built by an individual. But the Vimanas claimed in Vedic texts are far too numerous for that. The evidence for this industrial base has to be there - but it is not - so it never existed, hence no vimanas.

There is evidence of an industrial base actually. Read Kautaliya Arthshastra quoted earlier. It describes a highly organized and semi industralized econony. But, I do not actually claim that Vimanas existed in the times of Kautaliya. They existed way before then. If you pay attention to what I am saying. I am saying an advanced civilisation existed in pre-glacial times tens of thousands of years ago. The survivors from there migrated from there and populated the various lands, one of those groups were the Vedic people that established the Indus valley civilisation. The Indus valley was at large a low-tech civilsiation, but it had an advanced knowledge tradition preserved as an oral tradition that only the elite had access too.

These Vimanas existed in the pre-glacial times. This is why we do not find remains of them. All we find are oral traditions that describe them.

Do you think my account is impossible? That it not possible at all that what I described really did happen?

In fact, much of what you claim here as "Vedic knowledge" is simply your interpretation of the words in these texts. Interpretations you have made with an eye toward spinning it into something similar to the minute portion of science that you betray yourself to be aware of.

Most of these texts only parallel modern science in the most vague ways - and then only if you purposefully read your own meanings into them.

It is not purposeful at all. They describe the same things. Have you read what Erwin Schrodingr said, one of greatest pioneers in quantum mechanics and arguably the founder of quantum mechanics? He said that his wave mechanics was putting Vedic metaphysics(Vedanta) into modern words.

I have read these texts. They describe modern things. We are not simply reading these things into them. I have read many of them myself and I can clearly recognise the advanced content. I could give several examples, but I will give one for now: Panini's grammar really does use meta-rules, transformations, recursions, auxilary symbols, algorithms and formal language. This is a widely accept fact. Even modern linguists such as Naom Chomsky has derived one of his theorems from the Panini and has even called it, "Panini's theorem"

In short, you, Indigo Child, are (mostly) making this stuff up as you go along. You appear to be motivated by some warped sense of nationalism - as if India isn't responsible for it's share of modern society. Why do you persist in this inferiority complex and why do you not realize how obvious it is to readers here?

In that case Volataire who said mathematic, science and philosophy in general has all come from India must also be an Indian nationalist? No, in that case I am not a nationalist either. If the evidence shows you it has come from India, then you go with the evidence. If the evidence shows it has come from China, then you go with the evidence.

I think I would have a stronger argument that your denial that these things have not come from India, when there is clear evidence they have, is actually motivated by nationalism. You want to ignore the evidence, this obviously shows an agenda. You don't like the fact that the Indians were an ancient superpower do you?

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

Asked earlier, not yet answered, will ask again and again until I get a straight answer:

To Indigo:

Can you point me to the exact book in the Vedas where all this perfect sciences are discussed? Is it the Rig Veda, is it the Hymns to the Maruts, Rudra, Vâyu and Vâta, is it the Hymns to Agni, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur Veda (either black or white), is it the Atharva Veda, is it in the Upanishads (if so, in which exactly?), is it in the Puranas (also, which one?)? Is it maybe in some other text, like the Laws of Manu, the Sacred Laws of the Aryas, the Institutes of Vishnu, the Minor Law Books, the Satapatha Brahmana, the Grihya Sutras? Or maybe in one of the Epics? The Mahabharata (including in its 6th book the Bhagavad Gita), the Ramayana? Or maybe in the Vedanta Sutras? I don't think it is in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or the Hatha Yoga Pradipika but it won't hurt to ask.

Thanks!

P.S. I can start copy pasting the Vedas one by one, either in English or in Sanskrit (not all of them in Sanskrit though ). It may "flood" the board but as a last resort I will do it.

reply to post by Maegnas


Maegnas,

The Rig Veda(and other Vedas) I tend not to appeal to. The reason I do not appeal to them is because translations of them are controversial and differ from translator to translator. So if I did actually quote from them stating the exact verses, you could go and find another translation that says something else. How would you be able to verify which translation is correct when you do not know Sanskrit? I know enough Sanskrit to know which translations are more authentic as I have studied them for 10 years, but you don't. So it would be pointless me citing from them. Anyhow, the Rig Veda is indeed the master system from which all Vedic sciences originate. The various traditions that we know of Vedic sciences such as the atomists, the logicians, medicine, metaphysicians, grammar all stem from the Rig Veda. These are all very long traditions going back thousands of thousands of years which have been preserved in oral traditions in mystery schools. The Rig Veda cannot be read without decoding it using Vedic dictionary and grammars, known as "Vyakarna" It uses a system of precisely breaking down words into roots, prefixes and suffixes and precise metre. To complicate matters in different contexts the same roots can have different meanings. Some roots have as many as 19 different meanings depending on the context. The Rig Veda is also full of symbolism. This makes them incredibly difficult to translate. You need to invest a lot of time to read them and read dozens of commentaries. This is why in the tradtiional system it would require decades of training to learn the Vedas and also why there is so much controversy in translating them.

The Rig Veda is composed by hundreds of spiritual scientists known as Risis(literally seers) Each "hymn" has a "devata" or subject. This has been mistranslated by later translators as actual gods. So a hymn to Agni would be translated as "fire god" when in fact it is a discussion on the vital energy within us.

The Rig Veda is definitely not a technological text. It is a very profound spiritual text. It thus can only be understood by those who are experts in the Vedic tradition and spiritual. Neither you or I are experts, so we should not even bother talking about it.

What we can talk about, however, are the texts based on it. Known as the shastras, vedangas and upavedas. These have very long traditions but were written down relatively recently in Vedic history. For example the Arthashastra, Vaiseshika Sutras, Nyaya Sutras, Yoga Sutras, Chandrashastra, Vedanta Sutras, Sankhyakarika, Surya Siddhanta, Charaka Samhita, Sushratha Samhita, Ashtadhyayi. This is where you will find the perfect sciences.

Read up on the Ashtadhyayi if you do not believe me.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

After much reading, mainly on wikipedia (my time, unlike Brahma, IS limited ) I can say that in MANY cases I agree that the ancient Hindus were ahead of others. I wouldn't go as far as handing around the word "perfect" for everything Hindu in origin though.

Most of these texts, with the exception of the medical texts ascribed to Sushruta and Panini, are dated to the first millennium AD by most scholars involved in their study. This is as good as fact, until PROVEN otherwise, can we agree on this? (No, but I will continue anyway)

To claim that these texts "go back" many tens of thousands of years (not these texts themselves, their supposed origin texts, kinda like the "original Vedas", right?) is a leap like very few made so far by anyone. There is absolutely no solid ground to attest to this, just conjecture, supposition, stretched estimation and wishful thinking (wow, a LOT of big words from someone with no grasp of English). Given that the Rig Veda (something like the Hindu Bible, the way I understood it) is vague at best as to the times it describes it could be anything from 1,000 years to a Brahma year (now THAT would be cool to prove!!).

There are parts, Sutras, that are conveniently "unclear" as to what they mean. Given the complexity of the Sanskrit language itself, the complexity of some matters discussed and the ways they use to give proof about certain things (yes, they do provide proof for matters that CAN be proven), they could be interpreted as saying anything, anything ones WISHES to read in them (I am not counting leaps one wishes to make, that's another story). So, in themselves, they hardly constitute PROOF, the best I can live with is "indication", strong or not so strong from case to case.

No doubt, many aspects of the modern culture we all participate in came from ancient India - not ALL, but many. What was, and remains, my biggest opposition to your posts, here and in the Vedic Physics thread, is the level of certainty about matters that cannot be verified, the way one shred of proof can apply to ALL matters under the sun, the "ferocity" of insisting on something you admitted cannot be proved by conventional means (since when "conventional" became equivalent to "evil"?), the "absoluteness" (is that a word?) of what you "preach" ("preach" here is not used in a bad way, this is where my English really fails me). Just because of some thing or some things (OK, quite a few things!) the Hindus did excel in centuries or millennia ago you leap and "expand" this excellence to ALL things, not budging an inch, not leaving a "crack" of doubt (I understand that there is enthusiasm involved but there's critical thinking too). That's why I "attacked" with such fervor, all I aimed for was this, the words "OK, this may not be exactly as i say". Of the many words and phrases in the English language, 4 words make a mountain higher than Olympus Mons, "I may be wrong"

P.S. Jokingly I said that if I stretched it enough i could get you to say that the Vedic "superculture" was tens of billions of years old. I apologize as I was dead wrong, if Brahma himself did write the very first "draft" of the Vedas and we can assume that Brahma is an adult, then boy, was I wrong!!!

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Maegnas]

I won't comment on your certainty about what *I* know or not know. I don't expect an apology on that (heck, i didn't and still don't expect an apology on the part where you said I was an idiot - subtly enough but yet clear enough to come across). I count myself lucky I stood in the presence of absolute knowledge. Perfection never apologizes

After much reading, mainly on wikipedia (my time, unlike Brahma, IS limited

) I can say that in MANY cases I agree that the ancient Hindus were ahead of others. I wouldn't go as far as handing around the word "perfect" for everything Hindu in origin though.

Well, I do not really want to turn this into Hindus are better than others discussion. I have good reason to believe ancient Sumeria, Egypt, China, South America were also just as advanced, only that we have no records from them. The main difference between Hindus and the others, is the Hindus were able to preserve their history, sciences and religion A LOT better than these other socieites. The main reason for this is the caste system. Also, because the Hindus were the centre of civilisation in ancient times. The home of the Aryans. The Aryans spread their culture all over the world.

(The Aryans themselves came from the Lemurians, the lost continent that sank tens of thousands of years ago)

Most of these texts, with the exception of the medical texts ascribed to Sushruta and Panini, are dated to the first millennium AD by most scholars involved in their study. This is as good as fact, until PROVEN otherwise, can we agree on this? (No, but I will continue anyway)

If scholars agree on something it is a fact? This is a rather naive view and an appeal to authority fallacy. In the past scholars agreed that the Earth was flat, did that make it a fact. I am not rejecting scholars, I am simplying point out the obvious that what scholars agree on is not entirely objective. Most of the time there are many agendas on what they agree on. And often scholars disagree with each other.

Anyway the texts I mentioned even by current scholars all fall in the first millenium BCE. These are the various dates given by scholars I have encountered in various publications

Vaiseshiksa Sutras: 600BCE, 200BCE
Yoga Sutras: 500BCE, 200BCE, 100BCE
Nyaya Sutras: 500 BCE , or 200BCE, 200AD
Chandashastra: 200BCE
Surya Siddhanta: 300BCE

In other words, we can clearly see the scholars are guessing and diverge significantly from one another. I have seen divergence for some texts ranging from 500BCE to 500AD. However, what we clearly know all of these traditions physics(vaiseshika sutras), yoga(yoga sutras), logic(Nyaya sutras) prosody(chandrashasra) and astronomy(Surya Siddhanta) come from very close to Vedic times. We know this because we see the key systems mentioned in these texts closer to the Vedic period(In the Upvedas and the Upanishads) And because these texts themselves record very long traditions going back to the Vedic period.

The dates given by scholars are actually wrong because they are based on false sheet anchors: Aryan Invasion of India and the dating of the historical Buddha. I have covered both of these extensively in my other thread "India: Ancient superpower" in Part and Part 2 respectively. The facts are

1) There was no Aryan invasion of India. This was a racist theory put forward by 19th century colonialists. It was not challenged by mainstream scholars, so it stuck for almost 200 years. It is rejected widely today. In other words as there was no Aryan invasion, it means the Indus valley civilisation was vedic. This means Vedic history can be taken back to the Indus(starts 9000BCE)

2) Budddha lived 1200 years earlier than is believed today. The error was in misidentifying Chandragupta Mauraya with Chandragupt Gupta. Chandragupta Mauraya reigned in 1500BCE and Chandragupta Gupta reigned in 300BCE. The scholars got it wrong so they put the Mauraya's in 300BCE and the Guptas in 300CE. The Mauraya descripions matches with the Indus period.

Buddha was born in 1800BCE. So roughly all the Sutra literature described above falls in the 2nd millenium BCE, but it is possible they are older. The Vedas themselves go back to the beginning of the Indus period.

Indian history has been ridiculously shrank, and it seems deliberately by colonial scholars, and the distortion has been kept since. It is changing now because we have a lot of growing evidence showing the Indus and the Vedic to be the same civilisation. Read part 1 and Part 2 in my India: superpower thread, there is enough proof in these threads to show this conclusively.

To claim that these texts "go back" many tens of thousands of years (not these texts themselves, their supposed origin texts, kinda like the "original Vedas", right?) is a leap like very few made so far by anyone. There is absolutely no solid ground to attest to this, just conjecture, supposition, stretched estimation and wishful thinking (wow, a LOT of big words from someone with no grasp of English). Given that the Rig Veda (something like the Hindu Bible, the way I understood it) is vague at best as to the times it describes it could be anything from 1,000 years to a Brahma year (now THAT would be cool to prove!!).

The vedic tradition goes back into unknown antiquity. My guess is it goes back to Lemuria more than 50,000 years ago. However the Vedic texts that we know were definitely composed mostly in India. This is because the Vedas describe India's geography. In other words they date from 9000BCE. This is roughly the time where some Indian records record the migrations of the Vedic people from the lost continent into India.

There are parts, Sutras, that are conveniently "unclear" as to what they mean. Given the complexity of the Sanskrit language itself, the complexity of some matters discussed and the ways they use to give proof about certain things (yes, they do provide proof for matters that CAN be proven), they could be interpreted as saying anything, anything ones WISHES to read in them (I am not counting leaps one wishes to make, that's another story). So, in themselves, they hardly constitute PROOF, the best I can live with is "indication", strong or not so strong from case to case.

I think you misunderstand what Sutra literature is. A Sutra is not a vague statement, it is a clear and condensed statement. The point of Sutra literature is outlining a system of thought with precise and key points. The Sutra literature were then expanded on within the tradition. Sometimes major expositions and commentaries were written inside the text expanding the Sutra. In the same way, how you have countless commentaries on major philosophical works in modern times.

Here are some examples from the main Sutra texts:

Yoga Sutras:

1.1 Now, after having done prior preparation through life and other practices, the study and practice of Yoga begins.

1.2 Yoga is the control (nirodhah, regulation, channeling, mastery, integration, coordination, stilling, quieting, setting aside) of the modifications (gross and subtle thought patterns) of the mind field.
(yogash chitta vritti nirodhah)

1.3 Then the Seer abides in Itself, resting in its own True Nature, which is called Self-realization.
(tada drashtuh svarupe avasthanam)

1.4 At other times, when one is not in Self-realization, the Seer appears to take on the form of the modifications of the mind field, taking on the identity of those thought patterns.
(vritti sarupyam itaratra)

1.5 Those gross and subtle thought patterns (vrittis) fall into five varieties, of which some are colored (klishta) and others are uncolored (aklishta).
(vrittayah pancatayah klishta aklishta)

1.6 The five varieties of thought patterns to witness are: 1) knowing correctly (pramana), 2) incorrect knowing (viparyaya), 3) fantasy or imagination (vikalpa), 4) the object of void-ness that is deep sleep (nidra), and 5) recollection or memory (smriti).
(pramana viparyaya vikalpa nidra smritayah)

Nyaya Sutras:

1. Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of the sixteen categories, viz., means of right knowledge, object of right knowledge, doubt, purpose, familiar instance, established tenet, members [of a syllogism], confutation, ascertainment, discussion, wrangling, cavil, fallacy, quibble, futility, and occasion for rebuke

2. Pain, birth, activity, faults [defects] and misapprehension [wrong notion] on the successive annihilation of these in the reverse order, there follows release.

3. Perception, inference, comparison and word (verbal testimony) these are the means of right knowledge.

4. Perception is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a sense with its object, and which is determinate [well defined], unnameable [not expressible in words], and non erratic [unerring].

5. Inference is knowledge which is preceded by perception, and is of three kinds, viz., a priori, a posteriori and "commonly seen."

None of these Sutras are vague in the slightest. It is clear what they are describing and it also clear how advanced their content is. The way they structure complex philosophical subjects, their brevity and preciseness is an instant give away of how advanced and scientific the tradition is from which they originate.