Mysteries surrounding the downfall of Indus Valley Civilizations

Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been ill this weekend. I'll take it in sections.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Let us first define history: History is a chronology of past events, events that are agreed upon by those who write it, by a certain point of view. History is also political. That is that the events that accord with a particular politics. I am sure you have heard of the adage "history is written by the victorious" this basically summarizes the subject for history for us.

Oh dear. We're going to start with some assumptions, I see.

While it's true that the Official Textbooks Of Any Country's School System certainly are all the above, that doesn't make them the whole of what is known about history. So I'm perfectly willing to concede that this is all you know about history since I know we both went through some sort of public school system.

However... you can stop right there.

You assume that scholars like myself don't actually go to original sources or do any research when looking for historical material. That's false.

Yet it is fact now that the Eastern civilizations were far more advanced. Barely anything is taught about them. Are we taught of ancient Indian atomic theory, mathematics, production of zinc and steel, and the schools of science and logic and medicine and surgery?

Yes, I agree that you probably had a public school education that emphasized the history of your country. Every country does this. Read some of the material from China to see how unaware they are of the history of Egypt or Venezuela or Canada, etc.

This doesn't mean that we don't know anything about Neanderthals performing surgery (they did) or the ancient Egyptian medical books (which they had and we've translated), etc, etc. It means that YOU haven't encountered them before hitting some of the sensationalistic sites out there.

And by the way, you've managed to ignore the Greek writings on atoms.

What does having a degree in history mean today? It means you're indoctrinated. You have been conditioned with thoughts and political facts and methodologies of thinking. You've been taught what is wrong and what is right - you've been taught dogma.

Okay, you claim to be a rationalist with a scientific approach, right? So...
1) Do you know the above because you have a BSc/Masters/PhD degree in history?
2) Do you know it because a family member that you're close to has such a degree?
3) You know it because of some sort of screed in these books that you read?

I'm betting it's the LAST one, right? Some person with a book or a website TOLD you that scholars scoff at him and that they really don't know anything -- am I correct, here? And you went for it because the person is a "little guy" like you and not some "snobby scholar" ... and you checked the sources he said to check and didn't check the snooty nasty scholars because you knew they were just going to debunk your new hero and he'd set you up for those Horrible People telling you that he was wrong.

Right?

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Byrd]

And now that we've finished with history...

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I made the proposition that had you not known about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic blasts, and went there on vacation, would you know?
No, you wouldn't have.

Oh. You wanted the FULL reasons we'd know it was there? Heck, I thought you were just challenging the archaeological evidence. If you want the full reasoning, yes, we'd know
1) personal memories of people in the area
2) official Japanese documents (millions of documents)
3) official US documents (millions of documents)
4) newspaper stories (millions of resources)
5) memorials around the world (I visited the one in Seattle)
6) evidence in graveyards around the area
7) exhibits in global museums
8) roads that led to the site
9) landform changes of and at the site
10) knowledge that is mentioned and reflected in societies around the world
11) cultural artifacts like films/documentaries/the rise of the "radioactive beast" film genre at the time.
...I can go on and on and on. All these will be available a hundred years from now and a thousand and more years.

Yet, you bring up an interesting point. As an archeaologist, however, you would find evidence of blast, vitrified rock, metal, changes to the ground and irradiated corpses and skeletons.

Does that sound like what has been found in Mohenjadaro and Harappa? Vitrified rocks, irridated skeletons scattered about the streets, some holding hands as if a calamity had befallen. As well as the radiation poisoning of the villagers there.

Trouble is, you didn't bother going to the archaeological reports to see if any of this was true. You accepted that anything to the contrary would be a lie.

But, if you look at your sources, you'll see that they have to juggle a lot of lies. They don't mention the first book on the slaughter (Wheeler) which has pictures nor do they mention that the deaths are caused by Brozne Age axes (some of which where found). They take one fact and fail to report the rest. They also don't talk about what's been found SINCE then at those sites, because this information also knocks holes into their Dramatic Atomic Attack:

Note that there's a kiln that had vitrification... but this is hardly unusual. It's a kiln. They do vitrify.

www.harappa.com...

www.geocities.com...

(etc, etc, ad nauseum, including library books)


So it doesn't bother you that the sites that trained you to be contemptuous don't bother to followup and explain the findings that were cataloged afterward? Or that they don't present you the full truth?

It'd bother me!

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Byrd]

I had to respond to this thread. IMHO, Indigo Child is making WAY too many assumptions about Hindus and their past, and in essence really taking the stuff mentioned in texts out of context.

"Supposedly in these vedic times, the demi-gods or devas use to appear frequently to people and gave them technology and knowledge, they also interbred with people. The Rishis were the keepers of the highest science and knowledge and they learnt this from a "divine source" The vedas were said to be revealed by a non-human source.

Some examples of mortal and gods interaction:

Kunti got all her sons from the gods. She learnt how to summon these gods from a Rishi who gave her a mantra for each god. Also, Kunti's fathers grand father was actually a naga(shape shifting serpent)

Krishna's city of Dwarika and Ravans city of Lanka(ceylon)was built by Vishwakarma, who was the chief architect and engineer of the demi-gods. Vishwakarma was also to transport entire land masses. He also revealed the art of mechanical engineering and architecture to humans. And made the weapon "Agneyastra"

The demi-god Indra was where Arjuna(who was his son) obtained all his celestial futuristic weapons and his vimana(aeroplane)

Krishna, was "not of this Earth" and he knew all the demi-gods very well and they all reveered him. In fact Krishna was implanted into the womb of mother of Krishna by a ray of light from the sky(virgin birth)

There are many more interactions between gods and mortals. I am sure a resident Indian or Hindu should be able to tell you more. "

I have to wonder if Indigo Child actually READ the texts or is going by some author's interpretations of the text instead.

First of all, the rishis DID get their knowledge from a non-human source. But it wasn't "extraterrestrials", IMHO, as Indigo Child is so eager to believe in. It was Brahman. They got this knowledge from looking within, meditating. That's the entire key to Hindu spirituality. What can be found outside, can also be found inside. When meditating, the rishis gained whatever knowledge they were looking for (not unlike in the Matrix trilogy where characters would get info uploaded into them from an operator whenever they needed it. Their eyes would be half-open half-closed, in a meditative manner, which is no coincidence as the Matrix trilogy was heavily based on Hinduism).

As for Krishna, he was God incarnate. Like Christians have Jesus as Son of God, Krishna was God himself come down to Earth to restore dharma, at the transition of Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga. He wasn't "of this earth" because he was God. I resent anyone's implication that he was extraterrestrial, as I find it insulting to Hindus (such as myself) and their religious beliefs. Of course, Krishna could see the demigods, since he was God himself. He was born with the full set of siddhis (supernatural powers). He was the most perfect incarnation of God. Rama was the perfect man, Krishna was the perfect manifestation of Brahman.


By the way, I don't see where Indigo Child is saying that there are NO "Indian" gods around anymore. Has Indigo Child realized Brahman? Does Indigo have an active kundalini and can actually see spirits? I know of Brahmins who commune with "Indian" gods, with Brahman, so they are obviously not gone. What has changed since the Mahabharata is the onset of Kali Yuga and the lack of spirituality or an active kundalini in the majority of people. Only few can see the demigods, and commune with them and Brahman.


Also the whole thing about demigods interbreeding with people, this may have been possible in some way. I don't know how, but it's true that upon meditation there are instances where sexual arousal occurs, and some woman tempts the person meditating away from his meditative practice. This is what is meant with the stories of how Mara (Maya) tempts Buddha with women, or when Vishnu meditated and there was a woman who tried to tempt him, and instead of succumbing to her, Vishnu created a woman named Urvashi who was by far the most beautiful woman out of his hands or something to that effect. On the other hand there are stories of how many yogis succumb to temptation, and marry the woman that appeared before them, in essence stalling their spiritual progress. They just were not ready for full realization of Brahman as they still had desires left unfulfilled.

Perhaps in this same way, there was interbreeding of demigods and humans back then, though it sounds farfetched. I don't agree with the idea they were simply extraterrestrials though, or that they sought to rule humans or anything of the sort.

Also, the same stuff goes for demigods giving humans technical knowledge, and mantras, etc. This was done through meditation, astral projection or whatever, but I don't believe it was because they were "beamed" into a spaceship, transported to a planet, etc.

Of course, it's possible some of what Indigo Child says is right, though I really doubt it. There's not much in the texts to indicate the demigods were extraterrestrials aside from the mention of vimanas. At the end of the Mahabharata, the Pandavas want to go to Krishna after he's left Earth so they walk up a mountain, and as they walk, one by one, they die. Only THEN do they meet Indra, go to hell and then go to heaven. It's not like they travel in their own bodies, like space travel would presumedly occur. Heck, Dharma (a demigod, Yudhishtira's father) turns out to be a DOG, following Yudhishtira till he dies, testing to see his loyalty to his family before he rewards the Pandavas a place in heaven.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by bhagavadgita]

That's what we've been trying to tell Indigo Child, Bhagavadgita -- that if you know the culture it simply doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure we'll ever convince Indigo Child or explain how offensive these views are to Hindus. I don't know how much Indigo has read -- I haven't read all the books, though I have read some of them and have read a lot of things about India. And I have friends from India.

I hope that what we can do is offer a good enough explaination to others that they will (instead of swallowing everything and scoffing at the scholars) go out and actually talk to people from India and go read the stories and legends for themselves and will become a little more familiar with the culture and the place.

There's so many wonderful things there, and so many great stories and rich traditions. It's sad to see them kicked aside and sectioned up to be used in wildly imaginitive fantasy when the reality is so much more magnificen.

Originally posted by Byrd
I'm not sure we'll ever convince Indigo Child or explain how offensive these views are to Hindus. I don't know how much Indigo has read -- I haven't read all the books, though I have read some of them and have read a lot of things about India. And I have friends from India.

I don't think they are that offensive. Even though I am a Hindu I rarely practice it, if ever. As I read more and more about this stuff I am beginning to think that Erik Von Daniken (the guy who began this all) isn't a psycho as previously thought. Ofcourse some of the ideas are farfetched, but there is some truth in them.

Who knows, maybe some day we will uncover some artifacts that show ancient Gods were astranauts.

And could we get to the matter at hand, which is Indus Valley Civilization.

Surf

[edit on 2/14/2005 by surfup]

You assume that scholars like myself don't actually go to original sources or do any research when looking for historical material. That's false.

Nope, I don't remember saying what. However, I do assume, and rightly so, because it is just human psychology, that scholars like yourself would mould your findings to conform with your preconceptions. The alternative is going against them, and very few have the courage to challenge their education. And I cannot blame them, because that would mean ridicule and losing your job. You do not strike me as a non-conformist.

For instance, if you "scholars" found a battery in Baghdad. Your first reactions as per your methodologies of thinking which uphold the sanctity of your knowledge is the following:

It must be a hoax. Most of you will not get past this. Some of you will label it a mystery and leave it to conspiracy mongers. Some of you will be willing to test it scientifically.

When it is proven by scientific analysis that it is not a hoax. You will accept that they knew about "batteries" and possibly used it for electroplating.

What you will not accept is that they knew the theory behind electrochemical reactions. You will hesitate to call this proof of "advanced technology" even though it IS and is thousands of years of ahead of the discovery of the modern battery by Volta. Rest assured, this tidbit of knowledge will not be included in mainstream western educational texts.

Later, you find a Sanskrit text in India, that elaborately describes the production of hydrogen for hot air ballons from electrolysis. Even though you know that a battery was discovered in Baghdad in ancient times, your first reaction will be it is a hoax. After it is proven the document is authentic. You will argue the interpretation is flawed and wishful thinking. Most of you will leave it at that. After a team of Sanskrit scholars analyse it and verify it's literal meaning, Those of that have remained to the end will conclude it to be "science fiction" even though it is science. Again rest assured, this tidbit of knowledge will not be included in mainstream western educational text. However, perhaps in a "critical thinking" classes to train students how to discriminate between true and false information

Every other textual document will follow the same methodology:

1. Hoax
2. Misinterpretations
3. Science fiction

There will always be that "crackpot" amongst you, who will be a real critical thinker and have the courage to challenge your dogma. He will end up writings books for conspiracy mongers.

This is true in nearly every knowledge discipline in education. In history, the outlawed subjects are about advanced ancient civilizations and extraterrstrial involvement. In Science, it is about metaphyics, spirituality, psychism and paranormal. You "scholars" are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in preserving your school - your doctrines. You are indoctrinated.

I am not accusing you, merely speaking the most logical truth. Have you ever wondered why scientists who make new discoveries are referred to as crazy?

Yes, I agree that you probably had a public school education that emphasized the history of your country. Every country does this. Read some of the material from China to see how unaware they are of the history of Egypt or Venezuela or Canada, etc.

This doesn't mean that we don't know anything about Neanderthals performing surgery (they did) or the ancient Egyptian medical books (which they had and we've translated), etc, etc. It means that YOU haven't encountered them before hitting some of the sensationalistic sites out there.

And by the way, you've managed to ignore the Greek writings on atoms.

First and foremost the western school of education is the standard model for most of the world. This is western civilization. Public education is the most important stage of education, because, this is the beginning of our learning. We are not learning about western civilization, Chinese civilization, Indian civilization; we are learning about humanity. Any educational instiute that teaches lies, half truths or biased truths has no value as an educational institute.

We are being taught lies in our acamedic institutes about the history of science and mathematics.. And I will gladly illustrate for you.


Q. Who invented atomic theory?
A. Atomic theory was invented by the ancient Greek philosophers around 500BC by Leucippus and Democritus. They speculated, further, that the observable properties of everyday materials can be explained either in terms of the different shapes of the atoms which they contain, or the different motions of these atoms.

Real Answer: Atomic theory was invented by ancient vedic philosopers 2000-4000BC who postulated that all the elements, including light is made of indivisible primodial particles called paramanus. The various paramanus aggregate to form other particles and finally the elements.

Q. Who devised the theory of thermodynamics?
A. The theory of therodynamics was invented by Sir Robert Boyle (1637-1691) who explained the states of matter to be a combination of atoms called molecules and differentiated between the compounds and elements and formulated the gas laws. It was not until 1798 that Count Rumford theorized that heat is a form of energy and 1843, James Joule experimentally demonstrates that heat is a form of energy. In 1874 Lord Kelvin formally states the second law of thermodynamics

Real Answer: The Theory of thermodynamics was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times, that all the gross elements are made up of of a combination of atoms, and certain atoms can be made to combine under an inherent(heat) urge to form dwinukas(molecules) He explained all atoms to conjoined by heat energy and energy must be provided to break the bonds, this provides the atoms energy and they disorder and form liquids, further energy, causes them rise into gasses. The nature of air is a collision of several gasses.

Q. Who devised the theory of gravitation and motion?
A. The theory of gravitation, motion and the inverse square laws was invented by Sir Isac Newton(1666) using geometry, algerba and calculus, he deduced the laws of gravitation and the laws of motion and related mass to the strength of it's gravitational field.

Real Answer: The Theory of gravitation and motion was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times. He postulated the following:

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 and 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.

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

Once the work done against gravity ceases, the body reaches an energy less state, falling under gravity

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

The earliest concept of gravity is stated in the Vedas(more than 4000+ BC) that said all the planets are held in their orbits by an attractive force.

Note: I will discuss the VS(Vaisesika Sutra) in far more detail later in the other topic.

Q. Who invented the first electrochemical battery?
A. The first electrochemical battery was invented by the Italian inventor Count Alessandro Volta(1799) Volta’s discovery of a means of converting chemical energy into electrical energy formed the basis for nearly all modern batteries.

Real Answer: The first electochemical battery appeared in Baghdad(Mesopotamia) around 2000BC. It consists of an earthenware shell, with a stopper composed of asphalt. Sticking through the top of the stopper is an iron rod. Inside the jar the rod is surrounded by a cylinder of copper. When filled with an alkaline solution it produces a current of 1.1 volts.

Q. Who discovered electolysis and electroplating?
A. Electrolysis and electroplating was disovered by by English chemist William Nicholson in 1800's and succeeded in decomposing water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. The hydrogen balloon

Real Answer: Electroplating appeared in Egypt around 2000BC and was discovered Dr. Colin Fink, the inventor of the tungsten light, that discovered a copper plate coated with antimony sulfide.

In India, the Sanskrit text Agastya Samhita, the construction of a dry battery is described:

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)

Q. Who were the first to build and fly a flying machine and what is the most modern engine today?

A. The wright brothers were the first to build a flying machine in December 17, 1903. It covered a distance of 120 feet. The most modern engine today is the solar- electric ion engine developed by Nasa and was launched in 1997 to steer a commercial satellite. The ion engine had been 50 years in the making. Current Ion engines provide very weak thrust.

Real Answer. The first to build and fly a flying machine was Indian scientist Dr Talpade in 1885 in Bombay(India) on Chowpathy beach, to an a large audience, including the Maharaja, state judge and leading press of the state. The plane, termed a Marutsakhti was powered by a mercury-ion engine and flew to an altitude of 1500 feet before crashing down. The plane was constructed, according to the scientists, by refering to ancient technical manuscripts in Sanskrit.

Q. Who first calculated the accurate speed of light?
A. The first speed of light calculation was by Danish astronomer Ole Roemer in 1670's, which was 2/3rd's too small. The first accurate speed of light was calculated by American physicist Michelson in the 19th centuery who used rapidly rotatings mirrors. Later, using lasers, the modern speed of light was arrived at.

Real Answer. The speed of light was considerd finite by the Vedic Indians. In the 13th century Sayana in his commentory on the anciet Rig Veda(4000+BC) mentioned the speed of light to be 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesa. According to the equivalent modern units, that computes to 186,500 mph and hence 99.9% accurate the modern speed of light.

Q. Who devised the theory of evolution?
A. The theory of evolution, stating that we all evolved from a common origin was devised by Charles Darwin in the 19th century and then later advanced by microbiologists.

Real Answer: The Vedic Indians(4000+BC) maintain that life arose from the reaction of water and heat, forming the single germ and then evolved over a course of 840,000 life forms before it became man.

Q. Who developed calculus?
A. Calculus was developed by Sir Isac Newton(1666) though German mathematican Liebniz, independently, developed a more advanced method of calculus in 1674. His notations are used today.

Real Answer: Calculus was first developed In India is the course of developing a precise mapping of the lunar eclipse, by Aryabhatta(500) who wrote about the concept of infinitesimals - i.e. tatkalika gati to designate the infinitesimal, or near instantaneous motion of the moon, and express it in the form of a basic differential equation. Aryabhatta's equations were elaborated on by Manjula (900) and used concepts like (Sin[x+dx]-Sin[x])/dx=Cos[x] and Bhaskaracharya (1100) and Mahadhva(1300) finally had advanced to the point where they could apply ideas from both integral and differential calculus to derive the infinite series expansions of the sine, cosine, and arctangent functions. This was further developed by Nilkantha (15th C, Tirur, Kerala) extended and elaborated upon the results of Madhava while Jyesthadeva (16th C, Kerala) provided detailed proofs of the theorems and derivations of the rules contained in the works of Madhava and Nilkantha. It is also notable that Jyesthadeva's Yuktibhasa which contained commentaries on Nilkantha's Tantrasamgraha included elaborations on planetary theory later adopted by Tycho Brahe, and mathematics that anticipated work by later Europeans. Chitrabhanu (16th C, Kerala) gave integer solutions to twenty-one types of systems of two algebraic equations, using both algebraic and geometric methods in developing his results. Important discoveries by the Kerala mathematicians included the Newton-Gauss interpolation formula, the formula for the sum of an infinite series, and a series notation for pi.

The origins of calculus are pushed even further into the vedic times by the founder of the Vedic Mathematics system.

Q. Who developed the binary number system?

A. The binary number system was developed by Leibnitz in 1695 to help with his mechanical addition computer.

Real Answer: The Binary number system was developed by Pingala in 200-500BC in his text on music called "Chhandahshastra" meaning science of meters. Pingala (Chhandahshastra 8.23) describes the formation of a matrix in order to give a unique value to each meter. The system starts with 1. An example of such a matrix is as follows:

0 0 0 0 numerical value 1
1 0 0 0 numerical value 2
0 1 0 0 numerical value 3
1 1 0 0 numerical value 4
0 0 1 0 numerical value 5
1 0 1 0 numerical value 6
0 1 1 0 numerical value 7
1 1 1 0 numerical value 8
0 0 0 1 numerical value 9
1 0 0 1 numerical value 10
0 1 0 1 numerical value 11
1 1 0 1 numerical value 12
0 0 1 1 numerical value 13
1 0 1 1 numerical value 14
0 1 1 1 numerical value 15
1 1 1 1 numerical value 16

1. Pingala's system of binary numbers starts with number one (and not zero). The numerical value is obtained by adding one to the sum of place values.
2. In Pingala's system the place value increases to the right, unlike the modern notation in which it increases towards the left. This also proves that these two systems developed independently.

Pingala (Chhandahshastra 8.24-25) also describes how to find the binary equivalent of a decimal number. The procedure is as follows:

1. Divide the number by two. If divisible write 1, else write 0 on ground.
2. If first division yielded 1, divide again by two. If divisible write 1, else write 0 to the right of first 1.
3. If first division yielded 0, add one to the remaining number and divide by two. If divisible write 1, else write 0 to the right of first 0.
4. Continue this procedure till you get zero as the remaining number.

Q. Who developed the binonomial expansion theorem?
A. The bionomial expansion theorem was developed by Pascal in the 17 century.

Real Answer: The bionomial expassion theorem was developed by Pingala's Chandah-sutras (500-200 B.C.) which contains a method called meru prastara for finding the number of combinations of n syllables taken 1, 2, 3, ... n at a time. The meru prastara is the same as the triangular array known in Europe as Pascal's triangle. It really should be called Pingala's triangle.

Note: Nearly every branch of mathematics that is claimed to be developed in Europe was discovered several centuries or thousands of years before in India and whose antiquity can be traced as further as the vedic tmies.

Do you want me to go on, or is this enough? Western history is full of lies. I wouldn't even be surprised if the knowledge was stolen from India and other eastern countries when Europe invaded it and looted from it.

Okay, you claim to be a rationalist with a scientific approach, right? So...
1) Do you know the above because you have a BSc/Masters/PhD degree in history?
2) Do you know it because a family member that you're close to has such a degree?
3) You know it because of some sort of screed in these books that you read?

I'm betting it's the LAST one, right? Some person with a book or a website TOLD you that scholars scoff at him and that they really don't know anything -- am I correct, here? And you went for it because the person is a "little guy" like you and not some "snobby scholar" ... and you checked the sources he said to check and didn't check the snooty nasty scholars because you knew they were just going to debunk your new hero and he'd set you up for those Horrible People telling you that he was wrong.

No, I know because I have a brain and know how to think. Such knowledge does not come from outside. Unlike, a lot of the so called "scholars" I don't need to be told what to think and how to think.

I know you are being indoctrinated by the very fact that you are being taught rubbish - wrong history. I know that you have been indoctrinated, because despite the fact that I produced all the evidence that would compell a rational minded and objectivee person to conclude the Ancient civilization was indeed advanced, you are still steadfast with your doctrines. In fact you know that all the evidence I have presented on the VS alone, is so compelling, that you cannot debate with me any further on it.

Now, see an illustrated example of the kind of rubbish, dirty politics, deliberate misrepresentations and racism that was spouted by the most celeberated scholars of the school of western history on ancient India and forms the foundation of the modern school you refer too.(Example: Aryan myth still perpetuated)

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th Edition (1854), Volume XI.

“In architecture, in the fine arts, in painting and music, the Hindus are greatly inferior to the Europeans. ‘The columns and pillars,’ says Tennant, ‘which adorn their immense pagodas, are destitute of any fixed proportions; and the edifices themselves are subjected to no rules of architecture.’ He afterwards adds that the celebrated mausoleum at Agra has little to boast of either in simplicity or elegance of design.”

“The music of the Hindus is rude and inharmonious. They have numerous instruments, but those are preferred which make the most noise.” (p. 477)

“In the medical art: charms, incantations, exorcisms and the shallowest tricks are substituted for professional skill; and other imposters, generally Brahmins, practise astrology, and cheat them out of their money by pretended prophecies.”

“The literature of the Hindus has been generally rated very low by European writers, and has been represented as consisting in long desultory poems, inflated, and extravagant in their style, containing, under the idea of a history, a tissue of absurd fables.” (pp. 474, 477)

"Their religion is that of a rude people, consisting in an endless detail of troublesome ceremonies.”

“The state of morals among the Hindus is such as might be expected from a religion so impure.”
“The historical poem, the Mahabharat, is a tissue of extravagant fables.” (pp. 467, 470, 478)

“The Hindus are by no means a moral people. According to the observation of Orme, the politics of Hindustan would afford in a century more frequent examples of sanguinary cruelty than the whole history of Europe since the reign of Charlemagne.” (p. 472)

“The Hindu rulers, however ignorant in other matters, thus appear to have been familiar with all the most approved modes of plundering their subjects. Power was here a license to plunder and oppress. The rod of the oppressor was literally omnipresent; neither persons nor property were secure against its persevering and vexatious intrusions.” (p. 476)

Source: www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org...

The most celeberad of them all was Max Muller, the prounder of the Aryan invasion theory and whose false translations of the Vedas are the most referenced today. Yet, do you know what he was? He was an agent employed by the British government to deliberately mistranslate and misrepresent the Vedic texts and corrupt ancient Indian history and he was paid extravagantly for this - and here is your proof:

The Life and Letters of Friedrich Max Müller.” First published in 1902 (London and N.Y.). Reprint in 1976 (USA).

1. TO HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867.
“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”

2. TO HIS MOTHER, 5 NEWMAN'S ROW, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, April 15, 1847.
“I can yet hardly believe that I have at last got what I have struggled for so long… I am to hand over to the Company, ready for press, fifty sheets each year; for this I have asked £200 a year, £4 a sheet. They have been considering the matter since December, and it was only yesterday that it was officially settled.”

“…In fact, I spent a delightful time, and when I reached London yesterday I found all settled, and I could say and feel, Thank God! Now I must at once send my thanks, and set to work to earn the first £100.”

3. To Chevalier Bunsen. 55 St. John Street, Oxford, August 25, 1856.
“India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports… For the good of this struggle I should like to lay down my life, or at least to lend my hand to bring about this struggle. Dhulip Singh is much at Court, and is evidently destined to play a political part in India.”

To the duke of Argyll. Oxford, December 16, 1868.

“India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. Much has been done for education of late, but if the funds were tripled and quadrupled, that would hardly be enough… A new national literature may spring up, impregnated with western ideas, yet retaining its native spirit and character… A new national literature will bring with it a new national life, and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of.”

“The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?”

Source: www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org...

This will also explain to you why the Ion engine developed by the Indian scientist was stopped by the British government.


So, there you go, western civilization is built on lies and dirt, and anyone wanting to preserve these lies and dirts, cannot be anything but indoctrinated. As I said knowing this, it would not be surprising if all science and mathematics was stolen from India and the east. It is extremely fortunate, that despite the effort of Imperial Europeans, that enough records still exist for us relearn the glorious history of the vedic people and their astounding scientific achievements.

bhagavadgita,

Hello again. With the utter most respect to you, I ask you to stop thinking religiously and think more objectively and analytically. I know you're a very religious person, it's given away by your handle, and you have a vested interest in preserving your religious truths. I know the notion of materialism and the gods being extraterrestrials is blasphemy for you. However, as soon as you are willing to lock away your religious knowledge in a chest for a while and approach this with a lesser biased and scientific mind, you will see that in light of the evidence it seems very plausible.

Read this: The Nagas are shapeshifting serpent beings that inhabit the subterranean Earth.
Don't do this: The Nagas are a symbolism for bad people living on other islands.

Because if you do this, then this no longer makes sense:

Bhima was poisoned by Duryodhana and thrown into the ocean and he floated down into Naga Loka, where he was told by the king of Naga Loka that he was his mothers's father's grandfather. If you try to "demythologize" all the history(itihas) of your history just because as it stands it sounds too far-fetched, you will make it inconsistent and that is more disparaging for it's authenticity than the concept of mythical creatures.

Now, who do the "gods" of the Mahabhara time denote?
And who are the "extraterrestrials"?

The term extraterrestrials means anything that is outside of Earth. Here we use it as a blanket term for the occupants of the UFO's. However, perhaps the occupants of some of those UFO's are not extraterrestrials but extradimensional or perhaps they belong to subterranean races, or perhaps it's all three.

First, I would expect you to know this; the existence of extraterrestrials is considered a fact in Hinduism. It is stated that there are infinite universes, planets and life on them.

Therefore, why cannot the "gods" be extraterrestrials? Would it not make sense that highly advanced beings would be perceived by a relatively primitive culture, to be gods?

If we take a completely scientific perspective, the the most scientific explanation would be that they are extraterrestrials, given that the existence of more advanced races is almost certain statistically and given the evidence of the history of ET interaction with Earth.

Yet, acccording to you they were spiritual beings. This may well be true. Yet, if they were spiritual beings, the following seem incongruent:

1. They travelled in flying machines
2. They used weapons of mass destruction
3. They interbred with humans

Here are some descriptions:

While Dhruva Maharaja was passing through space, he saw, in succession, all the planets of the solar system, and on the path he saw all the demigods in their vimanas showering flowers upon him like rain. (Bhagavata Purana)

And the celebrated Arjuna, having passed through successive regions of the heavens, at last beheld the city of Indra. And there he beheld celestial cars by thousands stationed in their respective places and capable of going everywhere at will, and he saw tens of thousands of such cars moving in every direction. (Mahabharata)

And having vanquished his foe, Krishna furnished with weapons and unwounded and accompanied by the kings, came out of Girivraja riding on that celestial car . . . upon that car Krishna now came out of the hill-fort. Possessed of the splendour of heated gold, and decked with rows of jingling bells . . . always slaughtering the foe against whom it was driven, it was the very car riding upon which Indra had slain ninety-nine Asuras of old.(Mahabhatata)

Indra's vimana endued with great effulgence and driven by Matali, came dividing the clouds and illuminating the firmament, filling the entire sky with its roar . . . also propellers furnished with wheels, working with atmospheric expansion, producing sounds loud as the roar of great masses of clouds. . . Indra's vimana was whisked along with such speed that the eye could scarcely follow. (Vana Parva, Sec. xlii)

Why would spiritual beings use technology and breed with humans? I am finding this hard to make sense of, can you make sense of it?

Hinduism describes several types of beings that lived on Earth. The Devas(gods), the Asuras(demon gods) and the Nagas(the snake beings) that resided inside the Earth. Technically, the Asuras were not demons, but were constantly at war with the Devas(gods) and were described as more powerful than the gods and having better technology. That sounds a lot like positive and negative ET factions of modern ET theory, with the negative factions being more technologically advanced and the positive factions being more spiritually advanced. We see the same kind of descriptions in the bible of the war between the angels and demons. Interesingly, in the Vedas the Devas and Asuras are both described as being "gods" but in later vedic text the Asuras are described to be power-hungry.

Here is one such war that happened:

The Karna Parva is much more detailed in that Sankara (herein called Mahadeva or "Great God") is given an invincible aerial vehicle, called a vimana in Sanskrit, equipt with a celestial weapon containing the "power of the universe" Sankara ascends into the heavens in his celestial car, flying resolutely toward his enemies, the Danavas (Titans) and Daityas. Then Sankara, streaking from the skies in his radiant vimana, ends the ten year-long war by firing this god-given weapon straight at Tripura, totally destroying Triple City and sending the whole rebellious race of Asuras (including the evil tribes of Danavas and Daityas) burning to the bottom of the "Western Ocean".(Mahabharata)

So here a "god" is directly involved flying above Earth in his aeroplanes and using weapons to destroy a race of people. That does not sound "spiritual" does it?

At the end of the Mahabharata, the Pandavas want to go to Krishna after he's left Earth so they walk up a mountain, and as they walk, one by one, they die. Only THEN do they meet Indra, go to hell and then go to heaven. It's not like they travel in their own bodies, like space travel would presumedly occur. Heck, Dharma (a demigod, Yudhishtira's father) turns out to be a DOG, following Yudhishtira till he dies, testing to see his loyalty to his family before he rewards the Pandavas a place in heaven.

Yes, that is true. The Pandavas did actually die to go to heaven to meet Krishna. There was no space-travel involved. Yet, did you know that Krishna did not "die" he ascended into heaven. The same is true about Jesus, Buddha and Guru Nanank. Yet, there was another ascension that you have not mentioned, where space-travel is involved:

Causing the heaven and the earth to be filled by a loud sound, then Indra came to Yudhishthira on a car and asked him to ascend it.
Seeing his brothers fallen on the earth, King Yudhishthira the just said to that deity of a thousand eyes these words: "My brothers have all dropped down here! They must go with me. Without them by me, I do not wish to go to the celestial region, O lord of all the celestials. The delicate princess Draupadi, deserving of every comfort, should go with us! You should permit this."
Indra answered, "You shall behold your brothers in the celestial region. They have reached it before you. Indeed, you shall see all of them there, with Krishna. Do not give way to grief, O chief of the Bharatas! Having renounced their human bodies they have gone there, O chief of the Bharata race! As for you, it is ordained that you shall go there in this very body of yours."
[After a long debate between the two the following occurs.]

Then Dharma and Indra and the other deities, causing Yudhishthira to ascend on a car, went to the celestial region. Those beings crowned with success and capable of going everywhere at will, rode their respective cars. King Yudhishthira, riding on his car, ascended quickly, causing the entire sky to blaze with his effulgence.


This is rather enigmatic. Does this mean the spiritual realms can be reached through space travel as well, or does it mean when the body dies the soul awakens in another dimension that can be reached through space?

As for Krishna, he was God incarnate. Like Christians have Jesus as Son of God, Krishna was God himself come down to Earth to restore dharma, at the transition of Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga. He wasn't "of this earth" because he was God. I resent anyone's implication that he was extraterrestrial, as I find it insulting to Hindus (such as myself) and their religious beliefs. Of course, Krishna could see the demigods, since he was God himself. He was born with the full set of siddhis (supernatural powers). He was the most perfect incarnation of God. Rama was the perfect man, Krishna was the perfect manifestation of Brahman.

You're taking the religious fundamentalist approach. That is where the "son of god" or "god" is taken to literally mean this. Are you actually aware that according to Hindusim we are all god and Brahman is the one who realizes this? So, therefore Krishna is much like us; he is mortal and he is god. Yes, he could also be extraterrestrial. He was depicted as blue wasn't he? Ever seen a blue human being? Now, before you give me the usual "it was symbolism" for his dark skin tone. Please, do hear it from the horses mouth. As in the the leader of the Hare Krishna movement in his purpot in the Srimad Bhagvatam:

SB.3.28.13 Purport (exceprt)
The color of the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, is described here as nilotpala-dala, meaning that it is like that of a lotus flower with petals tinted blue and white. People always ask why Krsna is blue. The color of the Lord has not been imagined by an artist. It is described in authoritative scripture. In the Brahma-samhita also, the color of Krsna's body is compared to that of a bluish cloud. The color of the Lord is not poetical imagination.

SB: 10.2.35 Purport (excerpt)
Syama means blackish, yet they say that You are more beautiful than thousands of cupids.

CC: Antya.7.86
"The only purport of the holy name of Krsna is that He is dark blue like a tamala tree and is the son of mother Yasoda. This is the conclusion of all the revealed scriptures.'

Here is an artist impression:



I am choosing this picture because it shows the contrast in skin tone between Krishna and everyone else and montages many of Krishna pictures.

There is also a school of thought that says Krishna was Jesus. That is probably because there are so many similiarities between them. Incidenally they both said they were not of this Earth.

There is evidence contained within paintings from medieval Europe that depict Jesus and Mary with UFO or Vimanas. This suggests an extraterrestrial origin to Jesus. If Krishna and Jesus are indeed the same, would that not further imply an extraterrestrial origin of Krishna?


Finally, I don't know why you take objection to extraterrestrials. Extraterrestrials are nothing more than beings on other planets.

Finally, once we factor in all of world literature and evidence of contact from the time period of vedic times, again the origin of the gods is "extraterrestrial" Now, don't get me wrong, I am a spiritualist myself, and I believe in spiritual realms and spiritual beings. However, I am not going to let my beliefs come in the way of my objectivity, and all the evidence suggests that the "gods" were extraterrestrials, as opposed to spiritual beings.

Then again, perhaps some extraterrestrials are spiritual/discarnate beings? What is assured, whatever they are, they used technology and they interbred with people.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If one only considers the historical and archaeological evidence, then we get a civilization that is highly intellectual, has modern sanitation and irrigation systems; industrial level metal work of zink, iron, steel

There is no evidence for any of this, infact there is no evidencethat they worked with any metal other than bronze. All of the stuff you listed is no 'archaeological' evidence, but merely a re-interpretation of mythic texts.

Originally posted by Indigo_ChildFor instance, if you "scholars" found a battery in Baghdad. Your first reactions as per your methodologies of thinking which uphold the sanctity of your knowledge is the following:

No, we'd say "wow. look at the battery." But if we find a jar whose function is unknown and has unusual properties, we don't go running around claiming that it's a Vedic generator or a battery or a mana storage jar or a novel hiding place for copper scrolls without doing other analysis. And a few strange artifacts with no context and no documentation and no other similar items are "strange objects." We have lots of them in lots of collections and museums.

BTW, it's only 2,000 years old.

What you will not accept is that they knew the theory behind electrochemical reactions.

That's correct. There's not a shred of proof that they knew anything about chemical bonds and reactions and titrations.

You will hesitate to call this proof of "advanced technology" even though it IS and is thousands of years of ahead of the discovery of the modern battery by Volta. Rest assured, this tidbit of knowledge will not be included in mainstream western educational texts.

a) it's not that advanced. It's on par with the "strip of zinc and copper in a lemon." You get about 2 volts from them.

b) It's not "thousands of years ahead of Volta." It's about 1500 years ahead of Volta.

www.unmuseum.org...
c) It's not included in high school texts, no. There's a gazillion things that aren't there, including the sacking of Carthage that changed the course of modern history and the great Kings and Queens of Nubia.

Later, you find a Sanskrit text in India, that elaborately describes the production of hydrogen for hot air ballons from electrolysis.

Using those batteries? Really?

Let me issue you a challenge: go get a modern battery (more efficient than the old ones) or build you an old one. Put the electrodes in a large bucket of water and put a plastic bag over that to capture the hydrogen. Tell us how long it takes to get enough hydrogen to lift a bucket of water.

Furthermore, I'd like to see the text. Not some wild "we combine the energy of the breath with the strength of the heart" but "stick metal in water, put metal on battery, wait for 30 years" type of recipe. The Indians were quite capable of writing this detail and did so in their very famous treatise on architecture.

After a team of Sanskrit scholars analyse it and verify it's literal meaning,

That doesn't make any sense. It's an artifact. There's no "literal meaning." Furthermore, the scholars are from a different culture. Sanskrit wasn't used in Bagdhad.

Perhaps you could explain this better?

In Science, it is about metaphyics, spirituality, psychism and paranormal.

Because they're not sciences. They're religion.

I am not accusing you, merely speaking the most logical truth. Have you ever wondered why scientists who make new discoveries are referred to as crazy?

You mean like Hawking, Curie, Watson, Crick, van Luenhoek, Darwin, Erdos, Escher, Celsius, Ampere, Jenner, Mendelev, Aristotle, Avagadro, Rutherford, Boyle, Bacon, Pasteur, Faraday...

...and all these dudes:
www.almaz.com...
www.therai.org.uk...

Or all the ones whose names get in newspapers?

Labeled as loons, you say?

Mmm.

BTW, you've got the dates on Vaisesika Sutra wrong. It's 300 BC. I'll hold off commenting on it until AFTER I read the text. Do I find it impossible? Not really, considering that the Greeks and other ancients also had these ideas.

Oh -- the Hindus didn't describe evolution. Evolution is NOT about "how life started."

First and foremost the western school of education is the standard model for most of the world.

Uhm... model, yes. But they don't use our textbooks. I remember perfectly well what the Costa Rican history books look like and the German history books. Very different than ours.

As I said, each country teaches its own history. I feel pretty sure that the Indians don't get much about our French and Indian wars in their history books. Does that mean that their books are lies? Hardly. It means they're teaching the history of their own country.

Q. Who invented atomic theory?
Real Answer: Atomic theory was invented by ancient vedic philosopers 2000-4000BC

Sutra, please, and proof that it's that old. Vaisesika Sutra was written in 300 BC.

As to the rest of it, I'll wait till I read the Stura first.

I don't doubt that a lot of knowledge developed independantly in other countries. The Chinese had gunpowder long before anyone else did... BUT... they weren't using it in rifles or bombs and they sure didn't run around and teach the Europeans how to do it.

The Indian scientists weren't exporting their knowledge to the West. It's one thing to come up with an idea, and quite another to develop things with your ideas and to export these ideas and devices to other countries.

...meanwhile, I'll go look up that sutra.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If one only considers the historical and archaeological evidence, then we get a civilization that is highly intellectual, has modern sanitation and irrigation systems; industrial level metal work of zink, iron, steel

There is no evidence for any of this, infact there is no evidencethat they worked with any metal other than bronze. All of the stuff you listed is no 'archaeological' evidence, but merely a re-interpretation of mythic texts.

Sorry, but it is fairly obvious you have problems reading. You're a lost cause and I am not going to bother.

Well, since no scientific research is being presented to back up the spurious claims of ancient indian advanced tech, and since htere is already a thread on it, lets focus on the actual history of the indus valley, as surfup recommends.

Here is a 75 page pdf file titled The River Sarasvati:Legend, Myth, and Reality. The location of this important river in the vedic stories is in much dispute. Some say it no longer exists, others that the descriptions in the texts are more like iran or even afghanistan than northern india, and still others that its a river inside 'india proper'. Page 50 has 'Section 8 Evolution of Indian Civilization and Vedic Culture. Page 34, "Section 6 6. Language of the Indus People: Vedic with Para-Munda substrate". Page 58 is "Section 6Migration of Ailas" aka the 'Aryans'.
The author doesn't seem very kook like, tho he's a banker by training and employment. It does look like, in the blurb at the end, that he, or an org he is associated with, is 'yogic' if Yojana means such, but I tend to think, especially with such long rule by Nationalists in india, that yogic groups would be invovled with many groups. Regardless, the paper, which I have not read in detail, does seem to be well researched. Apparently its part of a group that is trying to actually 're-vivify' what they beleive is the dried up riverbed of the Sarasvati. Bizzare, to be sure, but perhaps not insane.

Here are some more references that I was able to google up with google scholar, as the above.

Anaemia in the Ancient Indus Valley
Two of 29 crania recovered during the most recent cemetery excavations at Harappa display cranial lesions of porotic hyperostosis, suggestive of chronic anaemia. No lesions consistent with the effects of genetic anaemias were exhibited by any of the 92 individuals for which postcranial remains were preserved, however, suggesting that an acquired iron deficiency is the most likely diagnosis. This low prevalence of anaemia may be linked to a good nutritional base in a diverse ecological setting, and few gastrointestinal and other infections due to high standards of personal and community hygiene. A genetic anaemia may be responsible for an apparent higher frequency of porotic hyperostosis at Mohenjo-Daro

Spinal arthritis and physical stress at Bronze Age Harappa
It is proposed that the severe joint changes in the cervical spine result from trauma, perhaps accumulated microtrauma from activity stresses. There are no age or sex associated patterns in the frequency of arthritis although this result may be influenced by the small proportions of the total sample for which age and sex could be determined.

Urban Origins in India
I can't actuall cut and paste from this one for some reason. Its a short 5 page pdf, I am not sure who or what the author is, it reads like a basic review, which is probably helpful in and of itself. It also has a list of citations, which makes it very useful.

RIGVEDIC SARASVATI: MYTH AND REALITY
Only two years back Mr. M. M. Joshi, the Union HRD Minister, had proposed to a Conference of the education ministers of the States that they wanted to introduceintroduce Sarasvati Vandana (chanting prayers to the goddess Sarasvati) in all schools of the country. All the non-BJP ministers rejected
the proposal and it was discarded for the time being. The BJP minister however did not give in so easily. Now they are trying to create a new craze over the loss and discovery of the Rigvedic Sarasvati river and
relate it on the one hand with the Hindu goddess of learning and on the other with the existence of a Vedic civilization prior to Harappa. And then they want to float the claim that Harappa's was the epitome of the
developed Vedic culture.

This paper is interesting because it provides a counter peice to the top article, is also well researched, puts the whole thing in broader, socio-poltical context, is well cited, and, in particular, is updated with a list of contrary, critical papers. This is a great thing in itself.

Also, the political context can't be understated. The Nationalists, so recently thrown out of government by the socialists (with the italian ganhdi at the forefront) in india, were very much advocates of ethnic and social primacy of hindus and hinduism, over islam and christianity in india. You may recall a short while ago there were a series of riots in the north, primarily centered around an islamic shrine/holy site. This islamic shrine was claimed ot have been build upon the site of a hindu temple, one destroyed by islamisized mongols. So now nationalist supported hindus have clamoured for, effectively, the destruction of the muslim shrine and replacement of it by a hindu one. The government has even supported archaeological research that 'found' the remains of an ancient temple, whereas other researchers have not found any such remains. Spectacularly, some researchers have claimed that the temple was a shrine to Ram himself, the national hero of the epics. So that fits in even more snuggly with a nationalist agenda.

On the possible discovery of precessional effects in ancient astronomy.
The possible discovery, by ancient astronomers, of the slow drift in the stellar configurations due to the precessional movement of the earth’s axis has been proposed several times and, in particular, has been considered as the fundamental key in the interpretation of myths[...]

The paper is from arXiv, which, for anyone unfamiliar with it, is a collection of papers, not peer reviewed, pertaining to physics. Its a way fo disseminating information faster. But, its not peer reviewed, and rather poor papers have gotten into the archive before. Anyway, on page 4 of this 20 page document, is a small section on early india.

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan full paper
Haplogroup frequencies were generally similar to those in neighboring geographical areas, and the Pakistani populations speaking a language isolate[...] resembled the Indo-Europeanspeaking majority. [...]haplotypes revealed considerable substructuring of Y variation within Pakistan[...]These patterns can be accounted for by a common pool of Y lineages, with substantial isolation between populations and drift in the smaller ones.[...]The earliest evidence of Paleolithic human presence in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent consists of stone implements found scattered around the Soan River Valley in northern Pakistan [...]Evidence has been uncovered at Mehrghar, in southwestern Pakistan, indicating Neolithic settlements from as long ago as 7,000 B.C. (Jarrige 1991), which were followed by the Indus Valley civilizations (including the cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro) that flourished in the 3d and 2d millennia B.C

Not too much specific to harappan but there is a nice amount on the general migrational and biological context of the region.

The Indus tradition and the Indo-Aryans
The earliest Indian literature has astronomical allusions to events of the 3rd millennium B.C. and earlier [...]This later literature, starting with the Satapatha Brahmana, describes an expansion of the civilization outside of the original area of the Indus and the Sarasvati valleys[...]One of the most striking insights of the continuing studies is that "there were several ethnic groups in the Indus Valley throughout the third and second millennium B.C., of which the Harappan was only one. Rather than an area dominated by Harappan culture, the Indus Valley saw the development of a complex cultural mosaic of related but distinct ethnic groups" [(Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1989). Hydrological changes and the socio-economic evolution of the groups led to an abandonment of large areas of the Indus valley. The tradition continued in a state of decline to 1000 B.C. and perhaps later. A second urbanization began in the Ganga-Yamuna valley around 900 B.C. [...]

brief history of Indian alchemy
Minerals and animal substances were also prescribed but no compound preparations were in use. Alchemy in India, was started for the preparation of an elixir of life for imparting immortality and later for the transmutation process for converting base metals into gold. Indian alchemy derived its colour and flavour to a large extent from the Tantric cult. Then, during the iatro-chemical period all the previous accumulated alchemical ideas were put into something more practical and tangible. a number of preparations of mercury and other metals were evolved as helpful accessories in medicine

Tectonic Activity during the Harappan Civilization
The region [of harappa] is far from plate boundaries and, until recently, has been considered tectonically inactive. A combination of data from current and historic seismicity, marine seismic surveys, and prevalent geologic and tectonic features with archeological findings, historical and scriptural records, and GIS mapping of large scale areas shows: \begin[enumerate] Occurrence of earthquakes starting from the 26th January, 2001 event to as far back as 2500 BC Existence of an ancient river, Saraswati corroborated with historical records, GIS mapping, marine seismic surveys Sea level changes from archeological excavations of variations in fauna. We show how a cross-disciplinary study can provide ways of filling information gaps and providing new insights

ETHNIC CONFLICT IN SRI LANKA AND REGIONAL
SECURITY
At the ideological level, the response to Sinhala chauvinism was the emergence of Tamil chauvinism and extreme forms of nationalist mythmaking. According to Radhika Coomaraswamy, these include the myth
that the tamils are pure Dravidian by race, that they are heirs to the Mohenjadaro and Harappa civilizations of India, that they are the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka, that the Tamil language in its purest forms is spoken only in Sri Lanka and that the "Saiva Siddhanta" form of Hinduism has 'a special homeland' in Sri Lanka

This I cite to re-inforce the poltico-cultural aspects. Its also interesting because on the one hand you have north indian sankritist nationalists promoting themselves as heirs to harappa, and here you have tamils claiming descendancy.

The Baghdad Battery: Yes, it is 2000 years old actually; typo. Now -

A working dry cell battery and a 4000 year old copper plate coated using electroplating is not a "shred of evidence" of the knowledge of electochemical reactions?

The development of a microorganism to more complex life through a succession of 840,000 organisms becoming gradually more complex in time is not evolution?

Kanadas's Vaisheshika-Sutra was not written in 600BC?
www.hindubooks.org...

The Greeks also had "ideas" like Kanadas? Yet, most of Kanada postulates were not rediscovered till the 18th and 19th century in the west?

Whatever you say

b) It's not "thousands of years ahead of Volta." It's about 1500 years ahead of Volta.

And what do you suppose they were using to electroplate with 4000 years ago? Let's put this into perspective for you: 200 years after the development of the battery, we had nanotechnology

Sutra, please, and proof that it's that old. Vaisesika Sutra was written in 300 BC.

Before you go using Sankrit terms, first understand what they mean. A Sutra is an an Aphorisms. And proof of the idea of atoms in Vedic times has been covered very elaborately in my other topic. You are welcome to look.

I don't doubt that a lot of knowledge developed independantly in other countries. The Chinese had gunpowder long before anyone else did... BUT... they weren't using it in rifles or bombs and they sure didn't run around and teach the Europeans how to do it.

They were using it in fireworks and as rockets and as offensive weapons against invading barbarian hordes. And if you don't doubt the knowledge existed in other countries thousands of years before western civilization, then you should not doubt that they would be more advanced either. Science is a progressive knowledge that builds upon the knowledge of others:

The vedic civilization had their Newtonian revolution, industrial revolution, chemical revolution, atomic revolution and even discovered mass and energy to be equivalent more than a thousand years before the west. Why wouldn't they progress further? The fact is that they did. It is hardly surprising considering how advanced they were.

It is a fact that when the British first contacted India, India was an highly industralized country and had more than 10,000 factories and mills.

Using those batteries? Really?

Let me issue you a challenge: go get a modern battery (more efficient than the old ones) or build you an old one. Put the electrodes in a large bucket of water and put a plastic bag over that to capture the hydrogen. Tell us how long it takes to get enough hydrogen to lift a bucket of water.

Furthermore, I'd like to see the text. Not some wild "we combine the energy of the breath with the strength of the heart" but "stick metal in water, put metal on battery, wait for 30 years" type of recipe.

1. Who said anything about this being used to produce hydrogen for an airship? All it says is that the principles for the production of hydrogen are specified for primitive airships.

2. Some wild "we combine energy of the breath with the strength of the heart" It's funny that it doesn't say that does it?


Deny Ignorance? Ha! You're marinating in it!

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
A working dry cell battery and a 4000 year old copper plate coated using electroplating is not a "shred of evidence" of the knowledge of electochemical reactions?

Excuse me, but I really want to get the discussion back on track. The Baghdad battery was found in the Middle East. Not in India. The possibly electroplated material shows up in Iraq and Egypt. Not in India. Let's not bring in Middle East or Egypt or Siberia or Outer Mongolia. You were talking about Evil Western Civilization ignoring Indian technology. The Middle Eastern material and Egyptian material is all part of Evil Western Civilization.

Let's stick with the culture of India, okay?

The development of a microorganism to more complex life through a succession of 840,000 different organisms is not evolution?

That wasn't the section your cited... if you'll check your post. You cited a "this is how life started." You'll need to cite the 840,000 different organisms and show that the texts say that every living species went through this (although that's going to be incredibly hard to prove, since not all species are of the same age. But... let's see what you've got, as they say in poker.)

Kanadas's Vaisheshika-Sutra was not written in 600BC?
www.hindubooks.org...

Dates are said to be questionable. I see 300 BC, and "dates from 300-600 BC"
www.euphoniousmonks.com... (among others)
However, I see lots of dates from 600 BC also.
www.4to40.com...
I have no problem with either date.

The Greeks also had "ideas" like Kanadas? Yet, most of Kanada postulates were not rediscovered till the 18th and 19th century in the west?

They also shorted you on Greek history and philosophy and and science, I see.

Yes, the Greeks did develop this theory at about the same time.

Thales was the Greek philospher (600 BC) who came up with the concept of atom in the Western world (including the indestructability and all that): www.thebigview.com...
They wrote about this theory, but they also taught it in schools and discussed and refined it considerably. By 400 BC, Leucippus and Democritus said that matter was composed of many different kinds of atoms.

And what do you suppose they were using to electroplate with 4000 years ago?

Nono.... we were talking India. If you want to go into Middle Eastern culture, then do it in another thread.

The vedic civilization had their Newtonian revolution, industrial revolution, chemical revolution, atomic revolution and even discovered mass and energy to be equivalent more than a thousand years before the west. Why wouldn't they progress further? The fact is that they did. It is hardly surprising considering how advanced they were.

Shall we get back to the topic? I did a little more research on the Vaisheshka-sutra. I'll get onto the other sectors later, but for now I have enough information to talk about the chemical bits. It claims:
(1) that everything is composed of atoms bearing the qualities of either earth, water, light, or air;
(2) that the individual souls are eternal and pervade a material body for a time;
(3) there are nine basic elements, consisting of earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind, which are all eternal in the form of energy; and
(4) there are seven categories of experience, which are substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, inherence, and non-existence. However, God is not mentioned
www.stephen-knapp.com...

Now... #2 and #4 aside, we can see a few flaws there. Atoms don't have just four qualities, nor do they have just four particles. "Light" is composed of photons/wavicles, but it sure isn't composed of atoms (as is claimed there.) Subatomic particles don't come into play. Gravity and magnetism aren't mentioned. At this point (that's a quick review and I"m looking for better text), the model is less sophisticated than what the Greeks came up with at almost the same time.

It is a fact that when the British first contacted India, India was an highly industralized country and had more than 10,000 factories and mills.

...and so was Britain. And China (which they had yet to contact) and Japan and Thailand. And a lot of other places. This was the late 1500's/early 1600's. Why are you so surprised by this? Did you think that no civilizations other than Europe and India had developed factories and mills by that time?

Kanada also said that atoms are heavier in water and lighter in air. This isn't true. The Greeks knew this, by the way.

All it says is that the principles for the production of hydrogen are specified for primitive airships.

So why don't you fix our ignorance and write down for us what the formula was (from Indian sources, please) for creating hydrogen. With references, please.

You would do well, if you actually practiced what you preached: "Read and Research"

Excuse me, but I really want to get the discussion back on track. The Baghdad battery was found in the Middle East. Not in India. The possibly electroplated material shows up in Iraq and Egypt.

Actually, it has everything to do with India and the global civilization at the time. As the evidence the world over points to a technologically advanced society. Further more, our discussion on the Baghdad battery was to highlight the kind of blind investigation you scholars conduct. You simply confirmed it for us

It is sure is intersting, that as soon as you are cornered, you want to, ahem, bring the discussion back on track. You are hilarious, you know that?

The development of a microorganism to more complex life through a succession of 840,000 different organisms is not evolution?

That wasn't the section your cited... if you'll check your post.

Ah, I see, so you need a list of 840,000 different organisms to call evolution, evolution?

However, I see lots of dates from 600 BC also.
I have no problem with either date.

Well, if you did not have a problem, you sure had some nerve saying "BTW - you're wrong on the date" I've seen you do this a lot of times. It's as if you navigate around these forums, only to tell people their wrong(I did say, you are hilarious remember)

Yes, the 600BC date is indeed the most reported. Further more, I need to educate you further on what the Vaisheshka-sutra is.

The Vaisheshika sutra is part of 6 schools of Vedic teachings, called the Darsanas(logic, yoga, physics, philosophy etc) These are a part of long unbroken chain of teachers from the early oral vedic tradition. Maharishi Kanada, was not the originator of the knowledge, rather he was the one who systematized it in the form of sutras. Kanada attributes his knowledge to his precepters at the Vaisheshika school, and they to their others teachers. Each school has it's own Rishi who first systematized the school into sutras, he is called "Sutrakara" Therefore the antiquity of the Vaisheshika Sutra reaches far into the vedic times.

Surely enough, the terms and concepts Vaisheshika can be found in other Vedic literature too. If you read my topic and proofs you will see this, in particular vedic cosmology.

You might do yourself a favor if you read and research, before you argue with me on something I am far more educated in.

They also shorted you on Greek history and philosophy

Yes, the Greeks did develop this theory at about the same time.

Thales was the Greek philospher (600 BC) who came up with the concept of atom in the Western world (including the indestructability and all that): www.thebigview.com...
They wrote about this theory, but they also taught it in schools and discussed and refined it considerably. By 400 BC, Leucippus and Democritus said that matter was composed of many different kinds of atoms.

Read Above(on this page)

Answer: Atomic theory was invented by the ancient Greek philosophers around 500BC by Leucippus and Democritus. They speculated, further, that the observable properties of everyday materials can be explained either in terms of the different shapes of the atoms which they contain, or the different motions of these atoms.

How, could you claim I have been "short fused" on Greek atomic theory. When I have said pretty much what you told me just before you? - Which you were suppose to read, mind you.

Now, read this:

The Theory of thermodynamics was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times, that all the gross elements are made up of of a combination of atoms, and certain atoms can be made to combine under an inherent(heat) urge to form dwinukas(molecules) He explained all atoms to conjoined by heat energy and energy must be provided to break the bonds, this provides the atoms energy and they disorder and form liquids, further energy, causes them rise into gasses. The nature of air is a collision of several gasses

And

The Theory of gravitation and motion was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times. He postulated the following:

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 and 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.
The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it.
Once the work done against gravity ceases, the body reaches an energy less state, falling under gravity
In the absence of all forces the Samyoga binding of the atom(gravity) still exists

Now, tell me, did the Greeks say this?

Now read this:

Q. Who devised the theory of thermodynamics?
Answer: The theory of therodynamics was invented by Sir Robert Boyle (1637-1691) who explained the states of matter to be a combination of atoms called molecules and differentiated between the compounds and elements and formulated the gas laws. It was not until 1798 that Count Rumford theorized that heat is a form of energy and 1843, James Joule experimentally demonstrates that heat is a form of energy. In 1874 Lord Kelvin formally states the second law of thermodynamics

Q. Who devised the theory of gravitation and motion?
Answer: The theory of gravitation, motion and the inverse square laws was invented by Sir Isac Newton(1666) using geometry, algerba and calculus, he deduced the laws of gravitation and the laws of motion and related mass to gravitational field.

Are you telling me the Greeks did it all before Joules, Newton, Boyle? An interesting proposition. Now, prove it

Oh, and I wonder if you read your own link. Thales did not postulate the theory of atoms. He said that water was a fundamental substance of the universe.

And what do you suppose they were using to electroplate with 4000 years ago?

Nono.... we were talking India. If you want to go into Middle Eastern culture, then do it in another thread.

Are you going to constantly equivocate like this whenever you find yourself cornered? Tell me, what were the Egyptians using to electroplate 4000 years ago?

The vedic civilization had their Newtonian revolution, industrial revolution, chemical revolution, atomic revolution and even discovered mass and energy to be equivalent more than a thousand years before the west. Why wouldn't they progress further? The fact is that they did. It is hardly surprising considering how advanced they were.

Shall we get back to the topic? I did a little more research on the Vaisheshka-sutra.

We are on topic. However, I must congratulate you for finally actually "reading and researching" However, what you have found is simply a very crude summary. You won't learn much from that.

Here are some of his sutras: www.geocities.com...

(1) that everything is composed of atoms bearing the qualities of either earth, water, light, or air;

Wrong, though this is not your fault, it's Knaaps translation. If you read my proof on vedic cosmology - I detail the elemental theory and explain it a lot of depth.

The five elements are akasha, apas, tejas, vayu and pritvhi. That is ether, fluid, wind, energy and atomic elements.

The forces of attraction and repulsion are called winds. For instance, gravity and magnetism is called a wind. And fluid, is a postulate in the VS, that certain substanced that are seemingly solid coexist in the state of fluids too, which it calls disordered particles.

(4) there are seven categories of experience, which are substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, inherence, and non-existence. However, God is not mentioned

It does not mention God, because this is from the logical or Nyaya school of vedas. God is part of the religious school.

Atoms don't have just four qualities, nor do they have just four particles. "Light" is composed of photons/wavicles, but it sure isn't composed of atoms (as is claimed there.)

This is why you would do well by reading and researching. All of elements, except ether, are divisible and they all have their own distinct paramanus(atoms or primodial units) that cannot be divided any further. So, it is not saying light is made of the same primodial units that the atomic elements are made of. What it does say however, that all the 5 Mahabhutta(major elements) are present in every atom.

Subatomic particles don't come into play.

Oh, but they do. They are called the gunas and tanmatras and they are part of Prakriti, the unadulerated universe. Again, read vedic cosmology.

Gravity and magnetism aren't mentioned.

That is because the VS is 12 chapters and comprised of hundreds of Sutras, that you have not researched, you've simply settled for a summary from the back of a book. I would expect more from someone who claims to have a degree in history. Wait, I wouldn't.

At this point (that's a quick review and I"m looking for better text), the model is less sophisticated than what the Greeks came up with at almost the same time.

You know you would be wise to not pass judgements, before you actually educate yourself on the matter.

As the theory stands in the summary you posted, the following are true:

1. The nature of space, time and mind are considered to be the non physical elements of the universe.
2. Light is considered to be made of distinct and discreet particles
3. Energy and mass are seen to be equivalent.

Now, it is fairly obviously you are not educated in the sciences from your highly ignorant remarks. However, as I am, I know that most of this did not appear in modern western science till the 20th century.

...and so was Britain. And China (which they had yet to contact) and Japan and Thailand. And a lot of other places. This was the late 1500's/early 1600's. Why are you so surprised by this? Did you think that no civilizations other than Europe and India had developed factories and mills by that time?

India, at the time, had 20% of the worlds trade, which is the equivalent of what America had in 2000. It was a superpower. And, no, Europe was not industralized whence it came to India. India was producing steel and zinc several centuries before Europe. China, started producing it in the -15-16th century.

Kanada also said that atoms are heavier in water and lighter in air. This isn't true. The Greeks knew this, by the way.

No he didn't. You shoud get rid of "read and research" in your avatar, because you're only kidding yourself. He said this:

According to Kanada, an object appears to be heavy under water than it does in air because the density of atoms in water is more than in air. The additional density of , in water, Kanada said, takes on part of the weight of an object, hence we feel only a part of its total weight, while in air, the lesser density of atoms results in a lesser part of an object's weight being picked by air, hence we feel the object to be heavier in air than what is was when under the water. In saying this, in a very elementary but important way, Kanada foreshadowed Archimedes' theory that a body immersed in a fluid is subject to an upward force equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid it displaces. Kanada's idea also had shades of relativity in it which was propounded by Einstien in our times.

So why don't you fix our ignorance

I don't think anything can fix ignorance so deeply seated like that. You are lucky I am so paitent.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually, it has everything to do with India and the global civilization at the time. As the evidence the world over points to a technologically advanced society. Further more, our discussion on the Baghdad battery was to highlight the kind of blind investigation you scholars conduct. You simply confirmed it for us

Now, I'd agree with you IF there were electroplated objects from India and other Baghdad batteries found in other areas. We find them in only one area and there's no writings to show widespread use or how they were used (Greeks of the time cured gout by standing on electric eels (odd, but true) and it could well have been a gout cure and not an electroplater.)

Ah, I see, so you need a list of 840,000 different organisms to call evolution, evolution?

Nope. The thing you quoted was "abiogenesis" and not evolution. I'd like to see the section you pick out for "evolution." With the 840,000 different organisms. Did the section say "840,000 different kinds of animals" or 840,000 steps to evolve or what?

What are the words?

Answer: Atomic theory was invented by the ancient Greek philosophers around 500BC by Leucippus and Democritus

They lived around 400 BC. You'll find that they were working from Thales, who lived around 600 BC and had the original idea about the immutable atoms. Thales traveled to Egypt and Babylon and broght back knowledge from them which he used in his theories.

The Theory of thermodynamics was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times, that all the gross elements are made up of of a combination of atoms, and certain atoms can be made to combine under an inherent(heat) urge to form dwinukas(molecules) He explained all atoms to conjoined by heat energy and energy must be provided to break the bonds, this provides the atoms energy and they disorder and form liquids, further energy, causes them rise into gasses. The nature of air is a collision of several gasses

That's chemistry; not thermodynamics. He talks about urges, however (as you point out) and not heat. Since they knew the word for "heat" he would have written "heat" if he meant heat. Not every chemical reaction involves heat, as you may know.

The Theory of gravitation and motion was first written in 600-800 BC by the Ancient Indian philosopher/scientist Kanada from was from the Vaisesika(school of physics) whom postulated in his Vaisesika(physics) sutra, that was in turn has said to have originated from the vedic times. He postulated the following:

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 and 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.
The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it.
Once the work done against gravity ceases, the body reaches an energy less state, falling under gravity
In the absence of all forces the Samyoga binding of the atom(gravity) still exists

Here we come down to the meat of the problem. This isn't QUITE the level that you were implying, you know. You had left the impression that this knowledge was something that we in Western Europe didn't come up with until the advent of Boyle and company.

The difference in the two knowledges here is that the material you're showing from Kanada simply says "The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it." You can't predict what the force is on any body (say Mt. Everest) from Kanaday's writings (or at least nothing you've given us shows that you can.)

Compare that to Newton's: f=ma -- that's not just a philosophical statement. It says that we can, indeed, calculate (and confirm our measurements) the force acting on Everest... or on a peanut.

The Greeks weren't in Newton's league, but they were certainly no slouches. They mathematically described motion (remember the "Achilles and the tortoise" riddle) and mass and many other things. www.mlahanas.de...

(not philosophically; mathematically.)

They are building on the tradition of scientists and mathemeticians that go all the way back to ancient Babylon, some 1000 years BC and more.
www.sunsite.ubc.ca...

Babylonian mathematical models for simple engineering go back to 2000 BC:
www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...


So I'm gong to maintain that Kanada's writings, while brilliant (no question), are not the same sort of thing as what the Greeks came up with.

* Kanada has no formulas.
* The Greeks have formulas
* Newton has formulas
* You can't predict the mass of Everest with Kanada.
* That you can predict the mass of Everest with ancient Greek formulas (they calculated the mass of the world)
* That you can predict the mass of Everest with Newton -- AND how fast it would fall if you dropped it from 3 miles up in the atmosphere.

Kanada's knowledge is brilliant and startling; no doubt of that. He writes about the natural world in a way that can be compared to Anaxamander (who also believed animals evolved.) But these two men are hardly in the same league as the Greek mathemeticians (who gave us the mathematical tools that form the foundations of Western science.)

And their undeniably brilliant knowledge of the world is nowhere near the model or level of understanding of Newton's writings and formulas.

...unless you've been holding out a lot of formulas on us.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Byrd]

Sorry for responding late. I was sort of busy.

That's chemistry; not thermodynamics. He talks about urges, however (as you point out) and not heat. Since they knew the word for "heat" he would have written "heat" if he meant heat. Not every chemical reaction involves heat, as you may know.

Kanada specifies that one of those inherent urges to be heat. So, yes, he is also recognized not every chemical reaction involves heat. He further postulated that only atoms with particular kid of particles will combine in a chemical reaction. As you know may know, not all atoms bond with with each other, as the property of electron valencey is a principle that must be satisfied.

The difference in the two knowledges here is that the material you're showing from Kanada simply says "The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it." You can't predict what the force is on any body (say Mt. Everest) from Kanaday's writings (or at least nothing you've given us shows that you can.)

No, you cannot predict the force on a body from that. However, this is one part of the sutras. There are several Sutras devoted to mechanics and the actual proofs can be derived from it(f=ma, mv, m(v-u)) In Ancient India, the formulas and mathematics were rarely given. Even "Pythagoros theroem" is stated, but the proof is not given. All of the vedic mathematical techniques do work, but the proofs are not given. In fact the Vedas cover every subject from engineering, arts, medicine and sciences. However, there is not a single section on mathematics(ganita) at least to my knowledge. Yet, mathematics is covered in every veda and there are some references to it in every chapter.

Yet the proof of mathematics in Ancient India is obvious. The construction of the Altars for instance entailed complex geometric mathematics. I will cover Vedic mathematics extensively later. Even the Vedas are written according to some scholars with a mathematical code.

First and foremost, Newton derived his formulas from his laws of motion. We can verify all of Newtons law of motons in Kanada postulates about laws of motion, we even see the inverse square law and force as a vector quantity, components of force and an object modelled as a particle with forces on it, including a normal, equal and opposite reaction force. He even discussed conservation of energy(the first law of thermodynamics) and relates potential energy of an object to it's kinetic energy. I was taught this in mechanics. So, I wholly appreciate the signifiance and brilliance of this appearing in an ancient text. Kanada even goes beyond Newton in stating that all particles are acted upon by internal forces and echoes Einstein's relativist approach, in and stating that force is a resultant of workdone and is not a physical quantity. This IS modern physics.

The reason the actual formulas are not given(they can be derived however) is because they deal with both the microscopic and macroscopic action. And Newton's laws fail on the microcosmic level. They are only approximations. Further more, any formulas would be wrong. As we know that the motion of particles cannot be predicted - Heisenberg's uncertainity principle. Therefore, only the theory is stated.

All of the above can easily be proven with Kanadas/Vaesishika's postulates:

Newtons first law: An object will remain rest or at constant speed unless a force is applied

Kanada's postulates:

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

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.(this also deals with microcosmic forces)

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.

Newtons second law: Force is proportional to the change in momentum

Kanadas postulates(and commentary by Prashtpada, 5th century)

2. Vega(force) is proportional to the work produced and works in a given direction.
In the production or increment of karma (i.e. motion), the root cause is force

Newton's third law: For Every Action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Kanadas postulates:

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction

Force as a vector quantity, inverse square law of motion and component of forces:

Kanada's postulates:

The “guna” of forces (direction) prevents a magnitude from being obtained

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

vaisheShika aims at understanding a substance in terms of the effect of external forces that act on it including gravity and the internal forces on its particles that cause their attraction, repulsion and vibrations.

I have shown in my other thread Vedic Physics that Newtons laws of motion can be derived from them with ease.

Force on a microcosmic scale:

Kanada's postulates:

In the absence of all other forces (saMyoga-bindings) gravity exists
The nature of physical changes in matter is the terms of work being done on the basic particles that constitute matter

Now only is the entire subject of Newtonian mechanics covered, though we can see indications of particle mechanics and shades of relativity.

This is millenias(literally) ahead of Greek mechanics(the subject did not even exist actually) and atmoic theory It's even ahead of Newton. We really should give credit where it is due.

The Greeks weren't in Newton's league, but they were certainly no slouches. They mathematically described motion (remember the "Achilles and the tortoise" riddle) and mass and many other things.

Nowhere in that article are any types physical laws of motion and mass. Do you ever read your own links?

That you can predict the mass of Everest with ancient Greek formulas (they calculated the mass of the world)

I would appreciate a source for this information. The greeks calculated the mass of the world? I know the greek mathematican, Eratosthenes calulated the radius of the Earth around 230BC using astronomy. But this is the first time I've heard the Greeks calculated the mass of the Earth? That would not be possible without Newton laws of gravitation and knowing the gravitational constant. Would it?

Now comparing Kanada's physics with Greek astronomy and mathematics is like comparing apples to oranges. Kanada may not have given formulas, but he at least gave all the laws and explained them very elaborately from which the laws can be easily derived. Yet, the Greeks did not give anything.

The formulas you are talking about are on geometry and astronomy. And Kanada was not a mathematican or astronomer. The Vaiseshika school is a school of physics, not mathematics and astronomy. Now, if you want astronomy and mathematics from Vedic Indians, then so be it.

You are really overstating Greek's scientific and technological development. Furthermore, actual modern western civilization is not based on the Greeks, and most definitely not the Babylonians, but the Christian civilization which began after the Christian Era of the Roman empire which had suppressed the Greek scientific movement. It was once said by my mathematics professor at college that had the Greeks continued with their scientific progress, unobstructed, we would have been in space 500 years ago. The real western scientific era began just a few centuries ago. Look where we are today? In just a few hundred years we have space-travel.

Technology, as wondorous as it may seem, is not that difficult to develop. As soon as someone turns a coil in a magnet, voila we have eletricity. Give, them 100 years of trial and error and playing with the effect, and we have the motor and transformer. The chemical battery is arguably the first precursor to the modern information age. We already know 4000 years ago this precursor event had already happened.

If the modern human beings is allowed to progress, he can go from horse-driven chariots to space chariots in a few centuries. Now, Vedic India, was millenias ahead of the Greeks and it was a very scientific civilization. In fact, knowledge(vidya) is what forms the religion of the Vedic Indians. So, if the Greeks could reach space 500 years ago - then the Vedic Indians could reach it millenias before that. And we certainly finds compelling records of this in the Vedic literature. Heck, even the Vedic Indians say they are not the first or most advanced civilization on Earth, that there have been several in the past.

This planet of ours, our Mother Earth, is older than 4 billion years. Humanity is older than a million years. There could have well have been a technological civilization on this planet. I am not going to speculate on that, but I am leaving it for you to ponder on.

Now, let's discuss the Greeks and their scientific achivements. First, I really respect their achivements, especially their astronomy. I am a man of science and I respect scientfic achivements. However, to compare them, heck, to even say they were superior to Ancient Indian science and techhology is ludicrous.

That is because Greeks model of the universe are wrong. Let's compare them:

Astronomy

Firstly, astronomy had a lot of ritualistic significance to the Vedic Indians. A lot of astronomical phenomena was documented and even the fire altars for the sacrifice(non-animal) or Yajnas were built according to astronomy. The sacrifice was a symbolism for the duality of the universe, mind and soul. As they considered that a micocosm of the universe existed within us and we are affected by the orientations and phases of the planets, moons and stars i.e. Astrology. 28 Nakastaras(constellations) where the word "star" from originates from and planets were mentioned. Astronomy is called NakastaraVidya(science of stars) and is part of the Vedangas(subsidary sciences)

Again, it is interesting to note that even Egypt and Babylonia had similar kind of preoccupations with astronomy and it's religious significance.

The Vedic Indians had both a solar and lunar calender. The year was taken to consist of 360 days. This is not because they did not know the year consisted of 365 days, but because they were reconciling the solar and lunar calender. Otherwise it was known a solar year is more than 365 days and less than 366. The 360 days per year was taken to have religous significance and it is used in Astrology.

The year was divided into two halves according to the "movement" of the sun from north to south. The 12 tropical months are divided into 6 seasons:

Madu, Madhava in Vasanta - Spring
Sukra, Suci in Grisma - Summer
Nabha Nabhyasa in Varsa - Rains
Isa, Urja in Sarada -Autumn
Tapa, Tapasya in Sisara - Freeze

Some of The constellations that were recorded were: Orion, Sirius, Pleiades, The Bears, Gemini, Canis Major and Canis Minor, Lyra, Vega. A calender based on the constellations calender that existed in Vedic India was the Saptarsi which has a 2700 year old cycle. It is stated that the stars of Ursa Major and Pleiades occupy each nakastaras for a hundred years. It is still used in India today. It's beginning is taken to be around 3076BC, however Greek Historians Pliny and Arrian said that during the Maurian times in India, the calender began at 6676BC. This would mean the Vedic civilization could well be 9000 years old. This would agree with the recent dating of the skeletal evidence of the lost cities.

The planets Jupiter and Venus were named as Brashpati and Venu respectively.

One of the rituals that was conducted was called

The Greeks had a geocentric model of the universe. That is that Earth is the centre of the universe. The heliocentric model of the solar system is the most basic fact of astrophysics.

The Vedic Indians had a heliocentric model of the solar system and also said that the planets are kept in their orbits around the sun due to an attractive force of the sun(i.e. gravity) and also considered the sun as a star. The plans spin on their axis and the moons orbit the planets. The moon is illuminated by the sun.

The relavent hymns and documents:

The Sun never sets or rises and it is the earth, which rotates (Sama Veda121).
The attractive forces of solar system makes the earth stable (R.V.1-103-2, 1-115-4 and 5-81-2).
The axle of the earth does not get rusted and the earth continues to revolve on its axle (R.V. 1-164-29).

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

Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:
“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….”

"Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaham Suryaha, Surya."

Roughly translated this means, "There are suns in all directions, the night sky being full of them,"

It is the sun which upholds the earth, which rotates very fast all the time owing to Sun’s attractive force and it makes the earth stable (R.V., 1-103-2). Savitar is the alter Ego of the Sun (Surya) that controls and provides energy to the earth by itself remaining stationary. It makes the earth move, provides light and even its rays are the cause of lightening in the clouds apart from providing gravitational force to the earth (R.V. 5-81-2).

The earth revolving and going round the Sun like a calf following the mother -R.V 1-169-9 and 1-190-7.

Earth surrounded by air on all sides, revolved on its axle and measures the set path. Lightening and energy are its main manifestation; its axle does not get rusted. R.V 1-164-29.

In 5th century Aryabhatta presented a mathematical system that took the earth to spin on its axis and considered the motions of the planets with respect to the sun.

Physics

There is not much Greek physics to discuss. There some theories of motion, but they are wrong. I guess the only major contribution to physics was Archemedes's basic principles of hydrostatics. Basically the relationship between mass, volume and density.

Elemental Theory:

Aristotle gave the most comprehensive explanations of Greek elemental theory. Like the Vedic Indians, they also had the 5 elemental theory: earth, water, air, water fire and aether. On the surface it seems like it is the same as the Vedic theory, in actuality it is not. They are actually words apart.

The Greeks believed that all the elements to be "earthly" that is that their place on Earth is determined by their weight. They thought that when an object is burnt, such as wood, the fire(smoke) element was being released from the wood. Again, which is wrong, as the fire is being produced from the reaction of wood with oxygen. This lead Greeks to believe that the order of the elements is as following, because Earth is the heaviest, it was the centre of the universe. Water was above the Earth, air above the water and then fire and ether.

Physics

There are some laws of motion, but again, they're wrong. Aristotle theorized that a mass would not move unless it was in contact with the mover. Which would make sense, but is wrong as as we know today.

He also said an arrow was kept in flight by air displaced from the front rushing to the back to fill the vacuum left by the arrow. Since Aristotle said that a vacuum was impossible. Again, wrong and as we know a vacuum is possible.

So, Greeks were wrong in their physics. How do we compare them with Vedic Indians, who were right in their physics. So right, that they even foreshadow Newton - and Einstein to some extents.

In fact the Vedic Indians had even worked out the age of the Earth and the speed of light. There really is no comparison between the Indians and greeks.


Mathematics:

I will cover Vedic Indian mathematics extensively later, for now it is suffice to say, that Vedic Mathematics was far superior to the Greeks and even the Babylonians. In mathematics the most fundamental and important invention was numbers and the concept of zero. Surely, you sould have to have a proper numeral system. Surely you should be able to count. The Greeks, Romans and even the Babylonians did not. The Vedic Indians did, and it is their deciminal system that we are using today, that is also called the Hindu-Arabic numerals. In fact so advanced was the Vedic decimal system that it measured from 10^-6 to 10^420(that is the highest number known from the past and was used by Buddha in a mathematics test) The greeks could not count past 1. The system of algebra(from the Arabic Al-geba) travelled to the Arabs from the Vedic Indians. The Arabs even credit the Indians and call Math a Hindu science.

Even, the wrongly named Pythagoras Theorem did not originate in Greece. Pythagoras learnt this from his travels to India, the far east and Egypt where he learnt a lot of mathematics. Pythagorean Theorem, the knowledge that the the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides, was well known by the Babylonians, Chinese and Indians.

The knowledge of mathematics in India is very advanced. The bionomial theorem, hashing algorithms and binary numbers, as well as a complex form of computer notation as advanced as modern Backus-naur-form were in use in India from Vedic times. The earliest evidence of this is more than 2000 years ago. They were part of the Vedangas. In the Vedas terms like square roots, cube roots and powers are used. The value of Pi as calculated by the famous Indian mathematician Aryabhatta in 5th century was 3.1416(4.d.p) though he preferred to use the lesser accurate Square root of 2. He calculated the length of the solar year as 365.358 days. In India mathematics was part of the Astronomy and engineering disciplines. It was not seen as a separate subject.

Calculus also was used in India, the earliest evidence is from Aryabhatta and then later it was developed further that it had advanced to the point of intergral and differential calculus by the 10th century. There is even evidence of Calculus in Vedic times, which we will cover later.

So therefore I submit, with the evidences, that there is absolutely no comparison between the Greeks and Vedic Indians in the sciences. There is however a comparison between the modern sciences and the Vedic sciencesand even in that, it seems from the evidence, that the Vedic Indians are superior. The biggest area of superiority is in the consciousness sciences, that only today are scientists discovering.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

sorry wrong thread - ny computer is giving me a hard time. Please delete.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Sorry for responding late. I was sort of busy.

(g) I know how it goes. I'm currently ignoring homework which I need to do. Not in the mood for it right now.

That's chemistry; not thermodynamics. He talks about urges, however (as you point out) and not heat. Since they knew the word for "heat" he would have written "heat" if he meant heat. Not every chemical reaction involves heat, as you may know.

Kanada specifies that one of those inherent urges to be heat. So, yes, he is also recognized not every chemical reaction involves heat.

He spoke specifically of "karma" or force; not heat -- and actually, I don't think you should change his wording there because if you look at it closely, he says that some force causes the atoms to come together.

That pretty much covers things, y'know. The Greeks conceived of atoms as puzzle shapes; you could build things with the right kinds of atoms. Like Kanada, they don't have the tools to explore things like specific heat of reaction and so forth.

The difference in the two knowledges here is that the material you're showing from Kanada simply says "The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it." You can't predict what the force is on any body (say Mt. Everest) from Kanaday's writings (or at least nothing you've given us shows that you can.)

No, you cannot predict the force on a body from that. However, this is one part of the sutras. There are several Sutras devoted to mechanics and the actual proofs can be derived from it(f=ma, mv, m(v-u)) In Ancient India, the formulas and mathematics were rarely given. Even "Pythagoros theroem" is stated, but the proof is not given.

But OUR deriving proofs from it is not the same as their showing proofs. Further (unless I misread, and I might have) the Vedas talk about "in proportion to" or "moved by" or "in measure to" -- and that's very different than saying "added to" or "multiplied by" or "divided by."

So Kanada's explaination of thermodynamics is on par in many ways with what the Greeks are doing but is not the equivalent of "For most gases and under a wide range of conditions, the product of pressure and volume, for a constant temperature, is constant; PV= constant." Boyle specifies the multiplier and the volume and temperature parameters.

All of the vedic mathematical techniques do work, but the proofs are not given. In fact the Vedas cover every subject from engineering, arts, medicine and sciences. However, there is not a single section on mathematics(ganita) at least to my knowledge. Yet, mathematics is covered in every veda and there are some references to it in every chapter.

Yet the proof of mathematics in Ancient India is obvious. The construction of the Altars for instance entailed complex geometric mathematics.

Did they? Or is it simply a question of aesthetics? I am not that familiar with Indian architecture and have only a passing familiarity with Greek. I know that there are certain rules that they discovered mathematically about construction that deal with aesthetics. I think, however, that this has more to do with human preferences and material strengths.

However, the Greeks really tried hard to turn it into a religion.

I will cover Vedic mathematics extensively later. Even the Vedas are written according to some scholars with a mathematical code.

As I look at it, it seems that the Greeks and the Indians start off with about the same kinds of knowledge -- and the Indians did have a slight advantage. Both take this knowledge and try to move toward a deeper understanding of the universe.

Both go into religion. But where they diverge is that the Greeks also incorporate mathematics into their religion, and so we get boatloads of formulas that describe how the world works.

First and foremost, Newton derived his formulas from his laws of motion. We can verify all of Newtons law of motons in Kanada postulates about laws of motion,

Agreed. And other ancients stated these laws in general ways at varying times after Kanada... HOWEVER, only one group (the Greeks) actually put some maths to it. It was those maths that formed the foundation of what Newton did.

we even see the inverse square law and force as a vector quantity, components of force and an object modelled as a particle with forces on it, including a normal, equal and opposite reaction force.

I must have missed the inverse square law, here. I didn't see it in the section quoted. Remember, there's a difference between saying "diminishes with distance" and actually saying "the intensity of the influence of any radius 'r' is the source strength divided by the new radius of the new location."

He even discussed conservation of energy(the first law of thermodynamics) and relates potential energy of an object to it's kinetic energy. I was taught this in mechanics. So, I wholly appreciate the signifiance and brilliance of this appearing in an ancient text. Kanada even goes beyond Newton in stating that all particles are acted upon by internal forces and echoes Einstein's relativist approach, in and stating that force is a resultant of work done and is not a physical quantity. This IS modern physics.

I would disagree. I think it's science philosophy (and doesn't he go into Karma and gods?) and not at all the equivalent of modern physics. "Force is the result of work done" is a statement, but it's not the exact equivalent of "force is measured by mass multiplied by the acceleration of that mass."

The reason the actual formulas are not given(they can be derived however) is because they deal with both the microscopic and macroscopic action. And Newton's laws fail on the microcosmic level.

The mathematics do, yes... but if you restate his formulas into English sentences, then I believe they can be made to apply in ery general ways. And I think the Vedic formulas can only be derived if you already know the answers.

Newtons first law: An object will remain rest or at constant speed unless a force is applied

Kanada's postulates:
In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.

Actually, that particular law was directly taken from Galileo... and it dealt with the mathematics. Kanada (check the verses; I don't have them handy) doesn't talk about things in motion. He simply says that if there isn't something acting on the particle, then it doesn't change in any way.

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.(this also deals with microcosmic forces)

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.

Did Kanada specifically mention gravity? I remember him mentioning desire and karma -- and did he actually say "force" or did he say "karma"? My understanding of karma is that it can be the equivalent of "force that impells irrevocably" but that karma is a philosophical concept and can be used for a lot of things. Please clear up my confusion and cite the verse.

Newtons second law: Force is proportional to the change in momentum

Kanadas postulates(and commentary by Prashtpada, 5th century)
2. Vega(force) is proportional to the work produced and works in a given direction. In the production or increment of karma (i.e. motion), the root cause is force

Now... am I correct in assuming that Prashtpada here is continuing Kanada's work?

Newton's actual law is somewhat different than you've quoted. It's:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors.

This is very different from "is proportional to." A proportion is an equation with a ratio on each side -- and here Kanada doesn't explain what ratio he has on one side that equates to what's on the other side, nor whether in doing this calculation if you add, subtract, multiply, or divide.

Newton's third law: For Every Action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Kanadas postulates: Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction

No doubt that they're the same here.

Force as a vector quantity, inverse square law of motion and component of forces:

Kanada's postulates: The “guna” of forces (direction) prevents a magnitude from being obtained

Those are two very different things. Kanada says "prevents a magnitude from being obtained." Inverse square law deals in magnitudes and obtains them through the formula.

I have shown in my other thread Vedic Physics that Newtons laws of motion can be derived from them with ease.

But only if you already know what the end results are. The Indians themselves did not derive the mathematical expressions.

The formulas you are talking about are on geometry and astronomy. And Kanada was not a mathematican or astronomer. The Vaiseshika school is a school of physics, not mathematics and astronomy.

Erm...those formulas ARE physics. Basic math, geometry and algebra are (and were) the foundations of physics. Without the math, physics is just an exercise in philosphy and no science can be proven or derived. Just try stumbling through any course in physics without the math!

You are really overstating Greek's scientific and technological development.

This is just the stuff that's taught in fairly standard history texts.

Here's a neat page on some of the interesting devices the Greeks had and used:
www.mlahanas.de...

Furthermore, actual modern western civilization is not based on the Greeks, and most definitely not the Babylonians, but the Christian civilization which began after the Christian Era of the Roman empire which had suppressed the Greek scientific movement.

The Greek knowledge (which derived from older Babylonian knowledge) didn't suddenly vanish. As you will recall, after Rome stomped the Greeks, they began taking the highly educated Greeks as their slaves and it was a status symbol to be educated by one of these Greek slave tutors. And the knowledge was also preserved by guilds of engineers and artisans, who needed to be able to duplicate the information.
www.mlahanas.de...

And although some of the specifics vanished (the books that Eratosthenes wrote on geometry and on calculating the diameter of the Earth in 200 BC), many of the summaries remained (the knowledge of how he did this.)

Note that even in the 11th century, the mathematics that the Greeks developed were being taught:
mars.acnet.wnec.edu...

It was once said by my mathematics professor at college that had the Greeks continued with their scientific progress, unobstructed, we would have been in space 500 years ago. The real western scientific era began just a few centuries ago. Look where we are today? In just a few hundred years we have space-travel.

Yeah. Religion has a lot to answer for....

Now, let's discuss the Greeks and their scientific achivements. First, I really respect their achivements, especially their astronomy. I am a man of science and I respect scientfic achivements. However, to compare them, heck, to even say they were superior to Ancient Indian science and techhology is ludicrous.

Yike! Can we take that one up in another thread?

There's a lot of documentation (drawings, formulas, existing devices) about Greek technology... we can continue with Kanada here in this topic, but let's take the Greeks to another thread, okay?

Oh yes... Pythagoras did go to Egypt.

...but he didn't go to India or anywhere near India.
www.arcytech.org/java/pythagoras/history.html

The formulas vs the knowledge:

The mathematical proofs are less important than the knowledge. The mathematics proofs are only presented when it is absolutely necessary and serves a purpose. For instance, the bionominal theorem, hashing algorithms and binary numbers, which do shows proofs, was only shown out of necessity to represent different musical notes. Calculus, was only used out of the necessity for astronomy. The construction of the fire altars for the Yajanas or sacrifice entails complex geometric formulas, however again, the actual proofs are not given. It is abundantly obvious that the proofs did exist in Vedic India.

Again, it is abundantly obvious that electrochemical reactions were understood by the Indians, the Babylonians and Egyptians.

Again, if we read the Vyaamanika Shastra the principles of the technologies are described elaborately, even the materials used to construct the components are described, what is not described however is the formulas, for that it refers you to other texts.

The preoccupation with mathematical formulas in modern physics is a cultural trait of the west, that is because the west is a higly materialist society and needs to be able to predict outcomes and build models to maxmise efficiency and profits. Unfortunately, nature is not predictable. Newtons laws and Boyles laws are only approximations and both break down at finer levels. Boyles laws break down after certain temperatures and pressures.

Vaiseshika is an educational text on physics, however it's approach is to reconcile spirituality with physics, to explain the universe a whole and how the constituents parts relate to the whole in a logical and rationalist matter. It is not to confound it's students with a deluge of formulas, that are wrong anyway. You cannot explain the whole by breaking it down and studying the parts.

In modern schools of physics, the student has to learn more formulas than the actual knowledge and henceforth why so many people are afraid of it and resent it. I studied physics at college, and even though I was a very enthusiastic student and had a desire to understand the universe, I found the textbooks very clumsy. I never quite understood anything. I found myself grappling and wresteling with the formulas and trying to understand how they were derived. They were quite easy to understand as soon as you understood the theory and could visualize it. Example:

v = Sq(2eV/m)

What does that really mean?

It means the velocity of an electron that is accelerated by the potential difference between the cathode and anode. Even, easier, an electron that is given electric energy to make it move. Therefore, it's movement energy is the same as it's electrical energy. It is so easy to visualize and as soon as you understand this you can understand the formulas:

The electron is accelerated by the pd(v) and gains kinetic energy(1/2mv^2)

Therefore:

eV = 1/2mv^2
2eV = mv^2
2eV/m = v^2
Sq(2eV/m) = v

What is most important is understanding and visualizing what is happening. It is a very basic concept to grasp. Yet, if you give it in the form of formulas, then the concept is short-changed. My Physics professor was telling us about Einsteins theory of relativity. He admitted to us, that he actually did not understand it, and there are few people who understand his theories. He was a member of MENSA. It was not that he was not smart. The reason he did not understand it was because he was analysing the formulas and could not make sense of it. Yet, Einstein, and I truly doubt there are are many who understood relativity like Einstein did, did not understand it through formulas. He understood it through "knowledge" by asking simple questions like riding a beam of light to the past and he conveyed that knowledge through the language of mathematics.

In modern examinations, at least those in the UK, the formulas are given in separate formulas books. Even, they understand now, that it is the knowledge that is more important than the formulas.

What is more important and more advanced than thinking is knowing. The Vedic Indians knew, and there is no doubting that, as their theories of the universe accord in huge measures with modern theories. When that knowledge was used for technology then formulas would be used and I would imagine like modern exams, they had their own little formula books or the formulas were memorized.

He spoke specifically of "karma" or force; not heat -- and actually, I don't think you should change his wording there because if you look at it closely, he says that some force causes the atoms to come together/

You should also redefine your definition of "force" as the Newtonian mechanical model see's force as a physical quantity and models all matter as particles with forces acting on it that would cause predictable effects. This was already replaced by field theory, which saw force as acting in a field in space. Then Einstein further transformed that by equating energy with matter. Then Quantum theory observed the particle/wave duality of matter and saw forces as probablistic events that are dependent on the observer. Even still is GUT and superstring theory which unifies all the forces into a superforce Kanada says the same that a force is not a physical quantity and energy and mass are equivalent and all united as part a superforce(this is where it becomes metaphysical)

He did not say "karma" or "force" he said heat. The force/vega is called a mechanical force. We are talking about thermodynamics/chemistry now; not mechanics. Here is what he said:

About his ideas on atom, Kanada observed that an inherent urge made one Parmanu combine with another. When two Parmanu belonging to one class of substance combined, a dwinuka (binary molecule) was the result. This dwinuka had properties similar to the two parent Parmanu. In the material universe, according to him, Parmanu be longing to different classes of substances combine in different combinations giving us a variety of dwinuka, which in other words means different types of substances. Apart from such combination of different Parmanu, Kanada also put forth the idea of chemical changes occuring because of various factors. He claimed that variation in temperature could bring about such changes.
He cited the examples of blackening of a new earthen pot and the ripening of fruit to illustrate the chemical change in substances brought about by the heat. Thus according to Kanada all substances, all matter that existed in the universe was formed of Parmanu (atoms). The variations in the matter reflected the peculiarity of the Parmanu which constituted that particular matter, the variety of combinations between different types of Parmanu and the effect on them of variation in temperature.

But OUR deriving proofs from it is not the same as their showing proofs. Further (unless I misread, and I might have) the Vedas talk about "in proportion to" or "moved by" or "in measure to" -- and that's very different than saying "added to" or "multiplied by" or "divided by."

Yet, they said it was proportional and anything that is proportional has a constant. Therefore it can be measured by the time in which it occurs. However, it not specify that, because if it did, it would be wrong anyway. Newton was wrong.

So Kanada's explaination of thermodynamics is on par in many ways with what the Greeks are doing but is not the equivalent of "For most gases and under a wide range of conditions, the product of pressure and volume, for a constant temperature, is constant; PV= constant." Boyle specifies the multiplier and the volume and temperature parameters.

It was not until Boyle that the states of matter(solid, liquid and gas) in terms of the motion of constiuent particles was proposed and air as being formed from the collision of gases. And the explanation of heat as an energy was not theorized into Count Rumford in the 19th century.

You are still comparing Greeks and Vedic Indians in the same light, even after I have proven to you, that the Greek sciences were wrong and the Vedic sciences were right. Further, you are wrong that the Vedic Indians were trying to understand the universe. They already understood it and were able to relate the fundamental particles and consciousness(the observer) and explain the whole, parabrahman(the absolute reality or god) something modern scientist are only beginning to touch on.

Have you not noted that modern scientists have confirmed many of the consciousness sciences of Vedic Indians. The existence of the bioenergetic field(aura) Don't even tell me it does not exist, because I have seen it, felt it, touched it and even healed with it. The energy vortices(charkas) and the subtle mind and have even found the colours of the Charkas are noted by Vedic Indians(red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are the same. Also, interesting the sequence of colours of the Chakaras corresponds to the electromagnetic frequences of the visible spectrum. Therefore they knew light was composed of 7 colours, something Newton tried to prove and was rejected.

If you do not know this, then you are obviously not aware of the cutting edge of science and consciousness today. The Newtonian model has been dead for a long time. The universe is not a machine. The most respected and acclaimed phyiscists of modern physics, Einstein, Bell and Heisenberg were heavily influenced by the Vedas. Why the Vedic Indians turned science into religion or why the Egyptians turned engineering into religion, is because consciousness is the highest science.

The Vaiseshika were not "theories" as we explain them today or the ponderings or physicists or philosopers, trying to understand the universe. You are misconstruing what the Vaiseshika was. It was a school, the 2nd school of the Vedas or Vedangas(the arms of the Vedas) where the facts of the universe that were taught in ancient Indian physics schools. This is where the students went to learn for some 20 years of their life.

Meanwhile, the Greeks were philosophers, who were simply pondering as towards the nature of the universe and proposed a theory of atoms as being simply a particle of matter that cannot be cut any further. They showed no knowledge of the atomic world and their atomic theories were wrong too. In fact all their sciences were wrong, except for the principles of hydrostatics proposed by Archimedes.

Astronomy

Greeks500BC)

Astronomy: The Greeks maintain the geocentric model of the universe. The Earth is at the centre of the universe, because it is the heaviest elements and all other celestial bodies revolve around it. The sky(space) is the abode of the gods and is not related to Earth. The celestial bodies are kept in their motion by a mover. The universe is eternal and the age of the Earth is eternal.


Creation: The universe was never created and space and time are absolute.


Physics: All substances are comprised of minute invisible particles called atoms. The different substances are composed of atoms of different speeds or motions.

An object will only move if it is contact with the mover, otherwise it will stop.
This mover can either be by choice(animals) or by force or external as in the case of a bowstring pushing on an arrow. The arrow is kept in flight by air displaced from the front rushing to the back to fill the vacuum left by the arrow. Since Aristotle said that a vacuum was impossible ("nature abhors a vacuum")

The stars are without mass, once they are put in motion by a "prime mover" they could continue to move by themselves.



Vedic Indians(3000-7000BC)

Astronomy: The Vedic Indians maintain the heliocentric model of the solar system. The Sun is at the centre of the solar system and keeps the planets in orbit with it's attractive force. The moons revolve around the planets and are illuminated by the sun. The universe is infinite and consists of infinite expanding universes. Time is relative to the observer.

Creation: The universe is a perpetual cycle of creation and destruction. It is caused by the oscillation of the life force, which caused the subtle ethers to manifest into a cosmic womb(hiryana garbh) therein which is the sum of the universe, then the symmetry of the forces is broken, and it explodes(bindu vishuput) and releases energy which expands and then condenses and forms matter and from which results fluid. The fluid and the heat then react to form the germ of life which evolves over a course of 840,000 inferior life forms and forms intelligent man. The age of the Earth is 4.32 billion years. The life of Earth is 8.6 billion years. The life of the universe is 133 trillion years.

Physics: All of the physical universe, energy, forces, fluid, matter(atomic elements) are made of distinct and discreet units or paramanus called atoms, that are aggregates of the subatomic particles, the gunas and tanmataras, that are in turn caused by the distinct vibration of the ethers, which are in turn part of a super vibration.

The atomic and the macroscopic world are composed of constituent particles upon which forces of attraction and repulsion act and hold the particles together, break or displace them. The force of attraction of matter, the samyoga binding(gravity) is a fundamental quality of matter and certain combination of elementary particles cause certain atoms to have properties Adrishyatam(the unseen force) or magnetism. All substances arise from other substances and are a combination of elementary particles that form binary, tertiary(etc) atoms or molecules and parent atoms can only combine under a reaction(chemical reaction) they have certain kinds of elementary particles, this can brought about with an inherent urge, such as force, heat or a variation temeprature resulting in a new substance with different properties resulting in them being conjoined by energy(tejas) The physical changes in matter are explained in terms of the work being done by constituent particles. Matter occupies space due to the the formation of particles and exists in various phases of solid, liquids and gas. When a solid is supplied with heat energy(heat bearing rays) the constituent particles disorder and posses kinetic energy(fluidity energy) and than rise into a gas and mix with the vapor of air which is a mixture of gases.

An arrow on a bow string gains potential energy, and when released, the potential energy turns into kinetic energy and the arrow is moved to higher point, while simultaneously the force of gravity acts downwards on the arrow and when when the arrow reaches an energy-less state, the arrow falls under the force of gravity.




Now, as for Greek inventions(technology) I knew of the ancient steam engine already and other inventions by Greeks and the Romans later. They excelled in engineering. However, none of these were advanced technology or used advanced principles or knowledge and Hero's steam engine, which was nothing more than a caldron with two bent pipes under a heat source(of coal or wood) on a tripod that would spin due to the heated air. It was primitive and used as a toy. All of the Greek and Roman inventions were primitive; even the fire pumps. Try using a roman fire pump to extinguish a fire, you will be there all day. If there was evidence of such a device in Vedic India, and it was not a museum piece, it would make me question how advanced it really was. That would be a discrepancy.

In Vedic India however, we know engineering was highly advanced from the excavacted cities of Harrapa which have modern plumbing systems and the cities are planned and built on a grid. Engineering documents discussing meterology and acoustics. In terms of inventions blast furnaces for the smelting of zinc and steel. The Agastya Samhita discusses the construction of a dry cell battery and producing hydrogen for an airship. The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana. There are 230 stanzas dealing with the construction, take-off, cruising for thousand of miles, normal and forced landings, and even possible collisions with birds and an ion engine for an aeroplane, that has been constructed, flown and documented. The Vyaamanika Shastra dicusse all sorts of yantras devices or machines from lasers, scanners, microphones, spectrometers and prism devices, some which have recently been fabricated.

You, see you are willing to accept Greek records of inventions of fire pumps, and crude steam engines. Yet, you are not accepting Vedic Indian records of ion engines, spectrometers, scanners, lasers etc, even though you know they were many thousands of years older than the Greeks and even though I have proven to you how advanced their knowledge of physics, engineering, medicine and mathematics was.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]