Speed of light in Vedas...can you prove it wrong??
#49
Simple logic is to be applied. Here we have something that is in congruence with the established truth, but which has got no clear evidence. It could be either a coincidence or a quantified measure. There is no need to apply any complicated theory of science here.

If somebody cannot accept it as a quantified measure it's a mere coincidence as Subhash Kak says high priests of the academy would comment, a really astonishing one. But it need not be a coincidence as it is not proved otherwise.
Reply
#50
(01-May-2013, 12:17 PM)kpbolumbu01 Wrote: Simple logic is to be applied. Here we have something that is in congruence with the established truth, but which has got no clear evidence. It could be either a coincidence or a quantified measure. There is no need to apply any complicated theory of science here.

If somebody cannot accept it as a quantified measure it's a mere coincidence as Subhash Kak says high priests of the academy would comment, a really astonishing one. But it need not be a coincidence as it is not proved otherwise.

How does a claim become 'established truth' in the absence of evidence? Any answer acceptable in these forums must make sense to those who are not convinced that 'truth' is 'established' on grounds other than evidence.

To consider coincidence or mere chance an unlikelier reason for the observation than some pattern in the world, actually turns hypothesis testing on its head. There is no 'complicated theory of science' here, only what a student of the sciences is expected to know on Day 0. Quoting from here, In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential medical treatment has no effect. (emphases mine) In a manner of speaking, it makes sense to start with the fewest unsupported assumptions which means startingwith the assumption that chance alone may have produced the observations. The above post actually suggests that 'coincidence' or mere chance is some kind of last resort one falls back on after all other more fanciful possibilities are first considered! Did I actually read someone write 'it need not be a coincidence as it is not proved otherwise.'? If this isn't a topsy turvy mockery of what Science is, then what is?

The very title of this thread "Speed of light in Vedas...Can you prove it wrong?" betrays this topsy turvy mindset because while presenting an extra-ordinary claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant and not on anybody else to 'prove it wrong'. If the above post isn't a blatant argument from ignorance as repeatedly explained here, what is? In case the rather intense example here wasn't sufficient to explain what an argument from ignorance is, here is a cartoon to make it easier. No 'complicated theory', just a cartoon.

Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "Revivalist revisionist copy-pasters, please embarrass your ilk here".
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#51
What I meant as "established truth" is the actual speed of light.
Reply
#52
Since the discussion is about measuring the speed of light, I think it is relevant to make of note of how humans actually discovered the value of light-speed in the first place. Isaac Asimov describes quite elegantly in this essay how anyone planning to measure the speed of light could go about doing it.

Google Doc - How did we find the Speed of Light?

Galileo's attempt
[Image: jFdn23e.gif]

Quote:The first person who tried to measure the speed of light was an Italian scientist, Galileo (gahl-ih-LAY-oh, 1564-1642). He made the attempt about 1630. He and an assistant each carried lanterns of a kind in which the candle inside could be covered and uncovered, so that the light could be flashed at a particular time. Galileo measured the time between the moment he flashed his lantern and the moment he saw his assistant's flash (perhaps by counting off seconds). All Galileo could say was that light traveled very, very fast.


Ole Romer's discovery based on observations of Io's eclipse
[Image: a8vK8ht.gif]

Quote:A Dutch astronomer, Ole Roemer (ROI-mer, 1644-1710), studied Jupiter's satellites and made a puzzling discovery. He noticed that during half of the year, the lunar eclipses came later and later than their scheduled time, and then started coming earlier and earlier.

Why should that be?
The Earth goes around the sun twelve times while Jupiter is going around once. That means that during half its year, Earth is on the same side of the Sun as Jupiter, and, during the other half, it is on the opposite side.

When the Earth is on the same side of the Sun as Jupiter, and is as close as it can be to the other planet, light travels from Jupiter's satellites to Earth across a certain distance. Half a year later, Earth is on the other side of its orbit, and is therefore on the opposite side of the Sun from Jupiter. The light from Jupiter's satellites must then travel the same distance as before, plus an extra distance across the width of Earth's orbit. Astronomers on Earth must wait that extra time before they see the eclipse of Jupiter's satellite. That is why the eclipse is later than average then. The exact width of Earth's orbit was not yet known in Roemer's time. Romer took the best figure he knew for that width and decided that light must take about 16 minutes to cross that distance.

No wonder Galileo couldn't measure the speed of light by timing it from one hill to another. If the hills were a mile apart, light would travel from one to the other and back (assuming Roemer's figure was correct) in 1/60000 of a second. If the hills were ten miles apart, light would flash from one to the other and back in 1/6000 of a second. Galileo couldn't possibly have measured such small fractions of a second.

Fizeau's clever method obviates a human assistant
[Image: bAJjTkA.gif]

Quote:Roemer's method for calculating the speed of light involved astronomical events - the time it took light to go from Jupiter to Earth.

Was there a way of moving the technique from space to Earth?

As Galileo had done, Fizeau chose two hilltops, and in his case they were five miles apart. Fizeau managed to avoid the problem of reaction time, however. Instead of putting a human assistant on the second hill, he put a mirror there.

Fizeau had better timepieces than Galileo had had, but still he couldn't measure a timelapse that tiny, unless he used some clever method. Fizeau used a very clever method indeed.

He made use of a toothed wheel, the edge of which he placed in front of his light beam. Whether the light beam got through the edge of the wheel depended on the wheel's position. If one of the teeth was in front of the light beam, it was blocked. If a gap between the teeth was in front of the light beam, it got through.

Fizeau set the toothed wheel spinning at a slow speed. If a flash of light shot through one of the gaps, it travelled to the mirror on the hilltop five miles away, was reflected from the mirror, then travelled back to Fizeau so quickly that the gap was still in place. The wheel had not had time to move the gap and place a tooth in the way of the beam of light to block it.

Fizeau made the toothed wheel move faster and faster. When the wheel turned at a certain speed, the light would move from Fizeau through a gap to the other hill where it would be reflected. By the time the beam had moved back to Fizeau, however, the tooth had moved across and blocked the light from returning to Fizeau's eye.

If Fizeau continued to make the wheel spin faster and faster, then, eventually, the light would shoot through a gap and, by the time it travelled five miles to the other hill and five miles back, the tooth had moved completely across the line of sight. The beam of light returned in time to move through the next gap and Fizeau could see it again.

Fizeau knew how fast the wheel was turning, so he knew how much time it took for a tooth to replace a gap, and how much time for a tooth to move completely across so that a second gap replaced the first one. He could calculate the time it took to move ten miles and from that he could calculate the speed of light.

Fizeau's calculation - via Adam Savage's TED ed talk
[Image: EXzaYED.png]

Foucault's improvement
[Image: image003.gif]



Michelson's perfectionism
Quote:Foucault had managed to get the spot of light to be displayed by only 1/40 of an inch when he used his spinning mirror. Measuring that 1/40 of an inch accurately was rather difficult.

Michelson got a displacement of 5 inches, which was much easier to work with. In 1879, he reported the speed of light to be 186,355 miles per second. This was a considerable improvement on all earlier figures, for it was only about 73 miles per second too high. For his work on light then and later, he got a Nobel Prize in 1907.

In 1923, Michelson repeated Fizeau's hilltop experiment. Michelson felt he should know the exact distance between the two mountaintops, so he could know the exact distance covered by the light beam. Saying "22 miles" wasn't good enough. He carefully measured the distance between the spots on which he was setting up his equipment on those mountain tops till he got the distance exact to the nearest inch.

Finally, Michelson used a special eight-sided spinning mirror that could produce much more displacement than ordinary mirrors could.

He ran his experiments over and over and, by 1927, he was satisfied that the best figure he could get for the speed of light was 186,295 miles per second. This was indeed a further improvement, for it was only 13 miles per second too high.

Even so, Michelson was not satisfied. Sending a light beam through air introduced a slight slowing effect since air had a tiny index of refraction. The only way it was possible to get the true maximum speed of light was to send it through a vacuum.


References:

GIF animations via
How simple ideas lead to scientific discoveries - Adam Savage TED ed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8UFGu2M2gM

[1]
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~pavone/par...ration.htm

[2] Ethan Siegel's blog post
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/...d-of-ligh/
[+] 4 users Like rabrav's post
Reply
#53
First of all there are absoloutely no written or recorded scripts of vedas,the knowledge of vedas were transfered from one generation to next via through oral,,and chances are it oral vedas might have taken ideas from from european science before or after 15th century and then might have recorede in written scripts,,
Reply
#54
(12-Jun-2015, 11:17 AM)ajeeth Wrote: First of all there are absoloutely no written or recorded scripts of vedas,the knowledge of vedas were transfered from one generation to next via through oral,,and chances are it oral vedas might have taken ideas from from european science before or after 15th century and then might have recorede in written scripts,,
Vedas might have taken ideas from Europeans? Big Grin This is just absurd. There are commentaries on Veda before we knew about European Inventions.

Chances? Big Grin Be rational. Europeans read the veda. Do you accept this? smile So the Chances seem to be other way around.

Vedas were not written around 15th century. Written tradition of Veda was started around 2500BC.

And just tell me one thing why all modern discoveries happened in 19th century after Europeans came to know about Vedic scriptures? smile
Reply
#55
(30-Jul-2015, 01:11 PM)Onkar Wrote:
Vedas might have taken ideas from Europeans? Big Grin This is just absurd. There are commentaries on Veda before we knew about European Inventions.Vedas were not written around 15th century. Written tradition of Veda was started around 2500BC. And just tell me one thing why all modern discoveries happened in 19th century  after Europeans came to know about Vedic scriptures? smile

The claims made about Vedas by revisionists contradict genetics and molecular biology and rigorous comparative studies supported by anthropology. First we need to get the chronology correct. See this:



All those dates, even though not precise, have an error margin of 100 years or so, which is much better than the mind-boggling claims of revisionists.

But revisionists can wriggle out of this evidence by claiming that genetics is wrong (which won't be a surprise coming from them). I would expect nothing less from the revisionist camp; a camp that still boasts of having descended from the clever ancient sages who knew about the existence of 9 planets in solar system, long before those Europeans who needed artificial instruments like telescope[fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]–[/font]
  1. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#1 Sun[/font]
  2. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#2 Moon[/font]
  3. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#3 Rahu [/font]
  4. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#4 Ketu (the demon that engulfs Sun or Moon during solar or lunar eclipses)[/font]
  5. + 5 planets visible to naked eye in the night sky

It's a bit rich for people descended from sages that ignored to count Earth in their planet-list to say that all branches of Science are wrong.
Reply
#56
(30-Jul-2015, 01:58 PM)rabrav Wrote:
(30-Jul-2015, 01:11 PM)Onkar Wrote:
Vedas might have taken ideas from Europeans? Big Grin This is just absurd. There are commentaries on Veda before we knew about European Inventions.Vedas were not written around 15th century. Written tradition of Veda was started around 2500BC. And just tell me one thing why all modern discoveries happened in 19th century  after Europeans came to know about Vedic scriptures? smile

The claims made about Vedas by revisionists contradict genetics and molecular biology and rigorous comparative studies supported by anthropology. First we need to get the chronology correct. See this:



All those dates, even though not precise, have an error margin of 100 years or so, which is much better than the mind-boggling claims of revisionists.

But revisionists can wriggle out of this evidence by claiming that genetics is wrong (which won't be a surprise coming from them). I would expect nothing less from the revisionist camp; a camp that still boasts of having descended from the clever ancient sages who knew about the existence of 9 planets in solar system, long before those Europeans who needed artificial instruments like telescope[fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]–[/font]
  1. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#1 Sun[/font]
  2. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#2 Moon[/font]
  3. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#3 Rahu [/font]
  4. [fon‌t=arial, sans-serif]Planet#4 Ketu (the demon that engulfs Sun or Moon during solar or lunar eclipses)[/font]
  5. + 5 planets visible to naked eye in the night sky

It's a bit rich for people descended from sages that ignored to count Earth in their planet-list to say that all branches of Science are wrong.

Well, how did they distinguish between stars and planets?
[+] 1 user Likes Onkar's post
Reply
#57
I did not reason it on my own but when I read Carl Sagan, I was persuaded.

Excerpt on how planets (wandering stars) were distinguished from stars

Of-course, I anticipate the question "Were you there when our ancient sages were chalking all this out?" to which I can only say "No, I was not."

But so were the revisionists. They were not there. Besides, it's an insincere question as Pharyngula elaborates here.
Reply
#58
The speed of light isn't what its is because Science demands us believe it. The speed which we all agree upon was a result of observational calculations that are thoroughly verifiable. 

Although it clearly looks like it was attempted to make the facts fit the theory, it was indeed a very thought provoking perspective.

But I seriously doubt if such an approach has any power of predictability.
Can you use such theories derived from the Vedas that can predict or conclusively assert an event of the future with proof which is also verifiable?
Can you come up with a theory based on the Vedas that can be falsifiable too?

This is just a scientific approach, I hope I'm not asking too much.

So, surprise me! Biggrin


[url=//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/][/url]
Reply
#59
(28-Sep-2011, 10:20 AM)aryaveer Wrote: “Nimisharda” is a phrase used in Indian languages of Sanskrit origin while referring to something that happens/moves instantly, similar to the ‘blink of an eye’. Nimisharda means half of a nimesa. (Ardha is half)
In Sanskrit ‘Nimisha’ means ‘blink of an eye’ and Nimisharda implies within the blink of an eye. This phrase is commonly used to refer to instantaneous events.

Below is the mathematical calculations of a research done by S S De and P V Vartak on the speed of light calculated using the Rigvedic hymns and commentaries on them.

The fourth verse of the Rigvedic hymn 1:50 (50th hymn in book 1 of rigveda) is as follows:

तरणिर्विश्वदर्शतो जयोतिष्क्र्दसि सूर्य |

विश्वमा भासिरोचनम |


taraNir vishvadarshato jyotishkrdasi surya |

vishvamaa bhaasirochanam ||

which means

“Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Surya (Surya=Sun), maker of the light,

Illuming all the radiant realm.”

Commenting on this verse in his Rigvedic commentary, Sayana who was a minister in the court of Bukka of the great Vijayanagar Empire of Karnataka in South India (in early 14th century) says:

tatha ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojane

ekena nimishardhena kramaman.

which means “It is remembered here that Sun (light) traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimisha”

NOTE: Nimisharda= half of a nimisha

In the vedas Yojana is a unit of distance and Nimisha is a unit of time.

Unit of Time: Nimesa

The Moksha dharma parva of Shanti Parva in Mahabharata describes Nimisha as follows:

15 Nimisha = 1 Kastha

30 Kashta = 1 Kala

30.3 Kala = 1 Muhurta

30 Muhurtas = 1 Diva-Ratri (Day-Night)

We know Day-Night is 24 hours

So we get 24 hours = 30 x 30.3 x 30 x 15 nimisha

in other words 409050 nimisha

We know 1 hour = 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds

So 24 hours = 24 x 3600 secon‌ds = 409050 nimisha

409050 nimesa = 86,400 seconds

1 nimesa = 0.2112 seconds (This is a recursive decimal! Wink of an eye=.2112 seconds!)

1/2 nimesa = 0.1056 seconds

Unit of Distance: Yojana

Yojana is defined in Chapter 6 of Book 1 of the ancient vedic text “Vishnu Purana” as follows

10 ParamAnus = 1 Parasúkshma

10 Parasúkshmas = 1 Trasarenu

10 Trasarenus = 1 Mahírajas (particle of dust)

10 Mahírajas= 1 Bálágra (hair’s point)

10 Bálágra = 1 Likhsha

10 Likhsha= 1 Yuka

1o Yukas = 1 Yavodara (heart of barley)

10 Yavodaras = 1 Yava (barley grain of middle size)

10 Yava = 1 Angula (1.89 cm or approx 3/4 inch)

6 fingers = 1 Pada (the breadth of it)

2 Padas = 1 Vitasti (span)

2 Vitasti = 1 Hasta (cubit)

4 Hastas = a Dhanu, a Danda, or pauruSa (a man’s height), or 2 Nárikás = 6 feet

2000 Dhanus = 1 Gavyuti (distance to which a cow’s call or lowing can be heard) = 12000 feet

4 Gavyutis = 1 Yojana = 9.09 miles

Calculation:

So now we can calculate what is the value of the speed of light in modern units based on the value given as 2202 yojanas in 1/2 nimesa

= 2202 x 9.09 miles per 0.1056 seconds

= 20016.18 miles per 0.1056 seconds

= 189547 miles per second !!


As per the modern science speed of light is 186000 miles per second !

And so I without the slightest doubt attribute the slight difference between the two values to our error in accurately translating from vedic units to SI/CGS units.
Note that we have approximated 1 angula as exactly 3/4 inch. While the approximation is true, the angula is not exactly 3/4 inch. -

[fon‌t=Arial]
To be a vedic dharmi you need to be a rationalist. rationalism is necessary to know god.
know vedas . know the actual sanatan dharma, vedic dharma.
http://agniveer.com
[/font]
Reply
#60
Hello,
In the "Histoire des vierges: les peuples et les continenets disparus" by Louis Jacolliot, I find that ! kastha is not 15 but 18 nimiSa. May be this is more accurate and the calculation would be then OK.

Greetings,

n
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)