Speed of light in Vedas...can you prove it wrong??
#13
@Lije
According to Subhash Kak, generally people would say that even if the find was genuine it proves nothing; at best it is a coincidence. To be underlined - even if we accept it as a coincidence, it is such an astonishing coincidence.

The article to which you linked originally, is only a lighter version of the research article published in (http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf) which was later modified as (arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9804020). After reading both the papers I didn't feel that Subhash Kak suggested that the find was just a coincidence or that Sayana just stumbled upon the speed of light. Please go through the article to which you linked originally, which says -
"For a discussion of the technical issues, download the file speedlight.ps from the ftp directory on my homepage or see http://www.ee.lsu.edu/kak/ and then check the file speedlight.ps . You can also read this paper called "The speed of light and Puranic cosmology'' on the Los Alamos Physics Archive physics/9804020 at http://mentor.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9804020." The link at the end is broken and you will find the above said article in (arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9804020)
Reply
#14
(24-Apr-2013, 11:26 AM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: After reading both the papers I didn't feel that Subhash Kak suggested that the find was just a coincidence or that Sayana just stumbled upon the speed of light.

In either of these papers does Kak write about the experimental set up used and the physical phenomena investigated by Sayana to measure the speed of light? Does he write about the instruments that Sayana used to measure distances, time intervals and any other things that were measured?

Also it will help this conversation if you could explain why you brought up the instruments used by Aryabatta in your posts.
Reply
#15
@Captain Mandrake
I am only reiterating that Subhash Kak did not say that Sayana just stumbled upon the speed of light. Why don't you go and read for yourselves instead of just asking a few questions and attacking me in the name of instruments used by Aryabata?
Reply
#16
(24-Apr-2013, 06:50 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: @Captain Mandrake
I am only reiterating that Subhash Kak did not say that Sayana just stumbled upon the speed of light. Why don't you go and read for yourselves instead of just asking a few questions and attacking me in the name of instruments used by Aryabata?

You were the one who brought up Aryabatta's instruments. When you post anything in a public forum you should expect people to question you. So the question is the following. What the purpose of the cut and paste about Aryabatta's instruments? How is the relevant to the discussion on this thread?

And please do not forget to answer the other part in my previous post.

Quote:In either of these papers does Kak write about the experimental set up used and the physical phenomena investigated by Sayana to measure the speed of light? Does he write about the instruments that Sayana used to measure distances, time intervals and any other things that were measured?
Reply
#17
I will continue the discussion only if you go and and read the journal and understand and come up with your point about it. And then Aryabhata's instruments and other things will continue as and when required.
Reply
#18
(25-Apr-2013, 10:27 AM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: I will continue the discussion only if you go and and read the journal and understand and come up with your point about it. And then Aryabhata's instruments and other things will continue as and when required.

The following was your very first post.

(22-Apr-2013, 01:55 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote:
(29-Sep-2011, 11:41 AM)Lije Wrote: I still remember the class on units, measurements and measurements errors (in high school?) . Now here is someone who is trained to be a scientist and would be expected to know the importance of measurement errors. But look what religion did to his training! He thinks even if the speed of light given by Sayana is a coincidence, it is an astonishing coincidence, the kind of coincidence which high priests of academy wouldn't think as "astonishing". I suppose by "high priests" he means people who stick to science. But what is really "astonishing" here is the ignoring of basics of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata
http://travelspedia.com/South-Asia/India.../6590.html
http://www.mercurytrip.com/blog/cheap-ti...a-pradesh/
http://www.indianetzone.com/56/ved_shala.htm
http://www.organiser.org/Encyc/2012/12/3...PageType=N

"The Arya-siddhanta, a lot work on astronomical computations, is known through the writings of Aryabhata's contemporary, Varahamihira, and later mathematicians and commentators, including Brahmagupta and Bhaskara I. This work appears to be based on the older Surya Siddhanta and uses the midnight-day reckoning, as opposed to sunrise in Aryabhatiya. It also contained a description of several astronomical instruments: the gnomon (shanku-yantra), a shadow instrument (chhAyA-yantra), possibly angle-measuring devices, semicircular and circular (dhanur-yantra / chakra-yantra), a cylindrical stick yasti-yantra, an umbrella-shaped device called the chhatra-yantra, and water clocks of at least two types, bow-shaped and cylindrical."

It is not a mere coincidence. Aryabhata knew how to use the instruments listed below and Aryabhata lived 9 centuries before Sayana. Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?
(edited for grammatical errors)

You essentially had a bunch of links, some cut and paste about Aryabatta and his instruments and then asked "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak"

I only asked you to explain the relevance of the first part of your first post to the last part of your first post and your other subsequent posts.

It is your responsibility to explain the relevance.
Reply
#19
You will neither know what is Subhash Kak nor what is Sayana nor instruments used by Aryabhata until and unless you read what Subhash Kak actually wrote in those two journal articles.
FYI, I didn't talk about "Aryabhatta" which is with "double-T".
I am not the one who discovered about Aryabhata's usage of instruments. And yes, I had a bunch of links for learned men to read. If you are a learned one, please go and read it.
Reply
#20
(25-Apr-2013, 05:44 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: You will neither know what is Subhash Kak nor what is Sayana nor instruments used by Aryabhata until and unless you read what Subhash Kak actually wrote in those two journal articles.


So you will jump into this thread by posting something and when people question you about its relevance you just refer them to some other paper. But you refuse to explain the relevance in your own words.

And you think you are somehow contributing to the discussion here.

(25-Apr-2013, 05:44 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: FYI, I didn't talk about "Aryabhatta" which is with "double-T".


Thanks for the correction. If only you were this picky about whether or not Sayana just meant Sun when he wrote Sun, or about the hand waving arguments with which non-standard measures like yojana and nimisha are force fitted into standard units of measures such as mile and second.

(25-Apr-2013, 05:44 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: I am not the one who discovered about Aryabhata's usage of instruments.

And yes, I had a bunch of links for learned men to read. If you are a learned one, please go and read it.

Does not matter who discovered Aryabhata's usage of instruments. You found it relevant enough to post about it in a thread about speed of light. So my request to you is to explain the relevance. Please do so in your own words.
Reply
#21
Your argument will not lead anywhere unless you are willing to read what Subhash Kak actually wrote. If you were careful enough in comprehensing why I mentioned about Aryabhata's usage of various instruments, it's not only Aryabhata who used these instruments and many astronomers of his time used it. Sayana came nine centuries after Aryabhata and Sayana's brother Madhava also was well known astronomer. So there are chances that it need not be a WILD GUESS.
And Aryabhata's usage of instruments and so on....
Reply
#22
(25-Apr-2013, 07:09 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: Your argument will not lead anywhere unless you are willing to read what Subhash Kak actually wrote. If you were careful enough in comprehensing why I mentioned about Aryabhata's usage of various instruments, it's not only Aryabhata who used these instruments and many astronomers of his time used it. Sayana came nine centuries after Aryabhata and Sayana's brother Madhava also was well known astronomer. So there are chances that it need not be a WILD GUESS.
And Aryabhata's usage of instruments and so on....

The point is "What specific instruments did Sayana use to arrive at his conclusion?". The answer can't be "he might have been able to use instruments". Until and unless there is definite proof for the observations done and the derivations used, it IS a WILD GUESS, if it were true in the first place.
Reply
#23
(25-Apr-2013, 10:06 PM)Kanad Kanhere Wrote: The point is "What specific instruments did Sayana use to arrive at his conclusion?". The answer can't be "he might have been able to use instruments". Until and unless there is definite proof for the observations done and the derivations used, it IS a WILD GUESS, if it were true in the first place.

"What specific instruments did Sayana use to arrive at his conclusion?". I did not say Sayana used any particular instrument. I only said that the way towards such a possibility is open. You may reject it, but it is advisable if you do it after reading the journal articles meant for technical purposes.

By rejecting Sayana without even attempting to read what Subhash Kak's journal articles say about him, we are only blocking the way towards the truth. My post was only in response to Lije's post. What is even more astonishing than what Subhash Kak originally meant is the way people want to attack you without even attempting to read.
Reply
#24
(28-Sep-2011, 07:22 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: 2. Unstated major premise: Sayana said “It is remembered here that the Sun traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimisha”. The huge unstated major (false) premise here is that he was actually not referring to the Sun itself but to the speed of light. (As a side note, this is similar to how Muslim apologists use such unstated major premises to claim that the Quran has already stated that the moon did not produce its own light).

3. Further confirmation of the distortion: The Rigvedic statement is also about the sun not about light: “Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Surya (Surya=Sun), maker of the light". I'm not sure what the full context of Sayana's statement was, and the fact that it isn't presented here even by the apologists is extremely suspicious. But if he indeed is referring to the quoted statement from the Rig Veda, then it makes sense that he was actually talking about the sun.

Sayana is clearly talking about the Sun and this is were the debate should have ended. But look at the apologist Kak explaining away this supposed confusion between Sun and Light.

Quote:Maybe it refers to the speed of the sun in its supposed orbit around the earth. But that places the orbit of the sun at a distance of over 2,550 million miles. The correct value is only 93 million miles and until the time of Roemer the distance to the sun used to be taken to be less than 4 million miles. This interpretation takes us nowhere.

This interpretation actually tells us a lot. It says that Sayana had no clue about the speed of light or the speed or location or motion of the Sun wrt the Earth. But then this is not a place where this dishonest Hindutwadi wants to go. And we are being asked to read more papers written by this hack.

Face Palm
[+] 1 user Likes Captain Mandrake's post
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Breatharian- Nourishment from light nick87 0 2,781 27-May-2012, 02:38 AM
Last Post: nick87
  Sally Morgan challenged to prove her psychic powers on Halloween Natekar 0 1,732 30-Oct-2011, 06:04 PM
Last Post: Natekar



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)