Speed of light in Vedas...can you prove it wrong??
#25
(26-Apr-2013, 09:47 AM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote:
(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.

Why don't you write in your own words what in those papers addresses the following demand?

Quote: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
#26
You want in my own words - that means you don't want to read the journal articles which are meant for technical reasons. And once again you brought up the same article which says you should refer to the journal articles for technical reasons. I do not know whether you are missing something intentionally.
Reply
#27
(26-Apr-2013, 11:17 AM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: You want in my own words - that means you don't want to read the journal articles which are meant for technical reasons. And once again you brought up the same article which says you should refer to the journal articles for technical reasons. I do not know whether you are missing something intentionally.

You are asked to state your objection in your own words so that it is clear what exactly it is that you are objecting. So far all you did was to throw stuff on the wall praying that some of it will stick. A standard tactic of religious apologists. When you don't have evidence of X, you JAQ off hiding behind "it may be possible".

I've read the paper and Kak is talking like a politician. So for how many more years are Hindu apologists going to play this stupid game? At what point can they say "Okay. There is no evidence, so this can't be true"? I'd bet a lot that the answer is never. There will always be the excuse of "missing texts", any number of "maybes" prefixed on Deepak Chopra-esque absurdities like " consciousness reflecting on itself can obtain such
quantitative information", and countless arguments from ignorance.
Reply
#28
(26-Apr-2013, 11:17 AM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: You want in my own words - that means you don't want to read the journal articles which are meant for technical reasons. And once again you brought up the same article which says you should refer to the journal articles for technical reasons. I do not know whether you are missing something intentionally.

Observations
1. All that article argues is that //Sayana's figure of 2202 yojanas per half niemsa is consistent with Puranic cosmology//
2. I would not call this paper technical. Nothing but calculations based on vague units [height of man!]
3. Its not me but you who are trying to weasel out of the simple question, which is "What instruments were used to confirm these numbers". I will repeat, the answer CANNOT be "its possible that instruments were used"!.
Reply
#29
@Lije, Kanad Kanhere
To be frank, Captain Mandrake is the one who jaqed off and Lije and Kanad Kanhere are the one who supported him. Even in the very first post, I didn't say that Sayana used any instrument. "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?" was my question to you and you didn't answer that. Instead, you allowed Captain Mandrake to battle with me.With this kind of attack against one particular person from all sides, I don't really know what you people are going to gain. I will not provide any proof for the type of instruments used by Sayana because I didn't say that he used any. Keep in mind that the people at the Indian National Science Academy are not fools to publish any articles written by any apologist just for the sake of it.
I know that there will be so many atheists hiding behind these people to suppress somebody who wants to say his opinion. If this this the stand taken by true atheism, then it is atheism that's going to lose.
Reply
#30
(27-Apr-2013, 12:14 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: @Lije, Kanad Kanhere
To be frank, Captain Mandrake is the one who jaqed off and Lije and Kanad Kanhere are the one who supported him. Even in the very first post, I didn't say that Sayana used any instrument. "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?" was my question to you and you didn't answer that. Instead, you allowed Captain Mandrake to battle with me.With this kind of attack against one particular person from all sides, I don't really know what you people are going to gain. I will not provide any proof for the type of instruments used by Sayana because I didn't say that he used any. Keep in mind that the people at the Indian National Science Academy are not fools to publish any articles written by any apologist just for the sake of it.
I know that there will be so many atheists hiding behind these people to suppress somebody who wants to say his opinion. If this this the stand taken by true atheism, then it is atheism that's going to lose.

To your question "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?"
the legitimate counter question IS "What instruments were used to arrive at those conclusions".

Science isn't about coming up with numbers. Please broach yourself with Scientific Method to understand what qualifies as legitimate Science.

And the rest is just an appeal to authority when you talk about "Indian National Science Academy are not fools...".
Reply
#31
(27-Apr-2013, 06:29 PM)Kanad Kanhere Wrote:
(27-Apr-2013, 12:14 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: @Lije, Kanad Kanhere
To be frank, Captain Mandrake is the one who jaqed off and Lije and Kanad Kanhere are the one who supported him. Even in the very first post, I didn't say that Sayana used any instrument. "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?" was my question to you and you didn't answer that. Instead, you allowed Captain Mandrake to battle with me.With this kind of attack against one particular person from all sides, I don't really know what you people are going to gain. I will not provide any proof for the type of instruments used by Sayana because I didn't say that he used any. Keep in mind that the people at the Indian National Science Academy are not fools to publish any articles written by any apologist just for the sake of it.
I know that there will be so many atheists hiding behind these people to suppress somebody who wants to say his opinion. If this this the stand taken by true atheism, then it is atheism that's going to lose.

To your question "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?"
the legitimate counter question IS "What instruments were used to arrive at those conclusions".

Science isn't about coming up with numbers. Please broach yourself with Scientific Method to understand what qualifies as legitimate Science.

And the rest is just an appeal to authority when you talk about "Indian National Science Academy are not fools...".

If the legitimate answer to my question is "What instruments were used to arrive at those conclusions", it is not mentioned by Subhash Kak. Your atheist view of of science may need a correction. It is also to keep the path towards unknown truths open. You didn't answer to the last part of my comment; regarding people trying to suppress somebody who wants to express his opinion. Is it an acceptance of the truth?
Reply
#32
Its not "atheistic view of Science", its just Science.

More often than not theists think that using the words energy or doing some math makes something Science. But thats not remotely true.

And what suppression of opinion got to do with all this. People are free to express whatever they want. Just don't sell it under the garb of Science, which has very definite approach and constraints for something to be called Science.
Reply
#33
(27-Apr-2013, 12:14 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: @Lije, Kanad Kanhere
To be frank, Captain Mandrake is the one who jaqed off and Lije and Kanad Kanhere are the one who supported him.

You were the one who brought up instruments in your first post on this thread on "Speed of light in Vedas...can you prove it wrong?? " . In my response I asked you if those instruments were used to measure the speed of light? My follow up question was if these instruments were not used to measure the speed of light then what was the relevance of that part of your post?

It took 10 or so posts for you to admit that Kak's paper does not present any experimental set up or instruments that were used to measure the speed of light. Had you admitted that in the first post I would not have asked you the questions I asked you.

You need to understand something about science. When you make a claim you need to provide evidence for it.

Also when you are engaging in a debate you should have the capability to summarize findings from papers that you have read in your own words. Otherwise it not clear whether or not you even understand the points you ar making.
Reply
#34
(27-Apr-2013, 08:32 PM)Kanad Kanhere Wrote: Its not "atheistic view of Science", its just Science.

More often than not theists think that using the words energy or doing some math makes something Science. But thats not remotely true.

And what suppression of opinion got to do with all this. People are free to express whatever they want. Just don't sell it under the garb of Science, which has very definite approach and constraints for something to be called Science.

In this context, to suggest something that may lead to the truth is against Science if I follow your definition for Science. It was an opinion and you people are not even able to digest something that is against your point of view. Atheists need not take Science for granted.
Reply
#35
(27-Apr-2013, 12:14 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: "Which basic of science is being ignored by Kak according to you?" was my question to you and you didn't answer that.

It was answered here. You then posted a paper and my views on that paper are here. I think you are confused about what science really means. It is not about instruments, but about a process. You can learn about it here. For example if a creationist uses modern scientific instruments to support their claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, they are ignoring the basics of science. It would be stupid to argue that since they used scientific instruments they did not ignore the basics of science. Kak might garb his far fetched wishy-washy, wavering claims in the language of science, but it is not science.

(27-Apr-2013, 12:14 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: Instead, you allowed Captain Mandrake to battle with me.With this kind of attack against one particular person from all sides, I don't really know what you people are going to gain.

Battle? You are being melodramatic. This isn't a religious group where one person preaches and the others keep nodding their heads. If you are expecting that, what are you even doing here? You are better off preaching elsewhere where your tactics will work.

[Mod hat on]
Also, you've derailed this thread enough. The topic is "speed of light in Vedas". Not "I don't understand how Kak could have ignored the basics of science". If you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic of the thread, please refrain from posting.
[/Mod hat off]
[+] 2 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#36
Science is not the topic of the thread either. Here I have not tried to use instruments to prove what Sayana said. It is you in post #7 who mentioned about Subhash Kak in reply to the original article of the thread. So I find the relevance of my post justified. Please go through the links you yourself provided on again to find out whether Subhash Kak is a man of Science or heresy. By blocking somebody's viewpoint you are not doing justice to atheism either. I am not a man of atheism but I have heard that atheism allows free thought. There is nothing dogmatic or religious here as I have understood. I find some of my posts deleted which were directly in reply to the comments above.
If somebody has not got my views correctly still, I don't have to prove which instruments Aryabhata used, as I said earlier. He has listed such and such instruments in his book and the fact is that the book is available at present. It is from his later commentators like Bhaskara-I that we get information about the Arya-siddhanta in which he has listed the instruments. There is no way that I can prove whether he actually used it even if I wish to do so. You may please try to find out the accuracy of instruments and other things on your own.

I am not here to win a debate. In winning a debate one needs to show his skills in articulation and manipulation. My sole intention is to provide the facts. You may sum up that Sayana did not know the speed of light.

Hence I consider it as a personal attack if somebody wants to actually prove it.It's Morality which matters here.Here is what Albert Einstein says about Morality.

Albert Einstein: Morality is Purely a Human Matter
The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.
- Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Breatharian- Nourishment from light nick87 0 3,034 27-May-2012, 02:38 AM
Last Post: nick87
  Sally Morgan challenged to prove her psychic powers on Halloween Natekar 0 1,996 30-Oct-2011, 06:04 PM
Last Post: Natekar



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)