Pandit subbaraya shastry on Vymanika shastra debunked

[Beardman]

Inka entha kalam abaddalatho pabbam gadupukuntaru chudam.

 

5 reasons why the vedic plane theory was debunked 40 years ago by IISc scientists

At the Indian Science Congress on January 4, in a session on Vedic Science through Sanskrit, a former pilot Anand J Bodas claimed that technology for aviation had already been introduced in India even before the Wright brothers actually invented it.

IndiaToday.in

New Delhi

January 6, 2015

UPDATED: January 8, 2015 17:01 IST

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sketch of a vedic plane in the book, Vyamanika Shastra

 

At the Indian Science Congress on January 4, in a session on Vedic Science through Sanskrit, a former pilot Anand J Bodas claimed that technology for aviation had already been introduced in India even before the Wright brothers actually invented it. He talked about a book, Vyamanika Shastra, where it has been mentioned that the science of aircraft technology has already been worked on by Maharshi Bharadwaj 7000 years ago.

However, 40 years back, a group of five young Indian scientists from the aeronautical engineering and mechnical engineering departments of the prestigious Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore had debunked such claims after conducting a thorough study, an Indian Express report stated. In a paper titled A Critical Study of the Work Vyamanika Shastra, published in the journal Scientific Opinion in 1974, Mukunda, SM Deshpande, HR Nagendra, A Prabhu and SP Govindaraju talked about why the Vedic plane theory was not feasible according to Vyamanika Shastra.

1. None of the technologies documented in the Vymanika Shashtra would allow an object to fly.

Sketch of a vedic plane in the book, Vyamanika Shastra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The Vyamanika Shastra was based on writings of a man who lived in the 20th century, and not the ancient sage Maharishi Bharadwaja.

Sketch of a vedic plane in the book, Vyamanika Shastra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The book was, in fact, brought into existence sometime between 1900 and 1922 by Pandit Subbaraya Shastry, an interpreter of Sanskrit shlokas whose work was documented by an aide before his death in 1944 as the Vyamanika Shastra says. The work, according to the paper by the IISc scientists, was discovered in 1951 by AM Joyser, the founder of an International Academy of Sanskrit Research at Mysore, who published it.

 

Sketch of a vedic plane in the book, Vyamanika Shastra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The planes described are at the best poor concoctions rather than expressions of something real. None of the planes has properties or capabilities of being flown, the geometries are unimaginably horrendous from the point of view of flying, and the principles of propulsion make then resist rather than assist flying.

Sketch of a vedic plane in the book, Vyamanika Shastra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. While the science of aeronautics requires the understanding of aerodynamics, aeronautical structures, propulsive devices, materials, and metallurgy, the Vyamanika Shashtra paid little or no emphasis on the aerodynamics.

[jefferson1]

TLDR please 

[Beardman]

Just now, jefferson1 said:

TLDR please 

A delusional brahmin wrote shashtra on airplanes in sanskrit and the educated fool believed in it and he was proud of his nation for that

[Sanathnagar_Satthi]

[Idassamed]

3 minutes ago, Sanathnagar_Satthi said:

[Sanathnagar_Satthi]

1 hour ago, Beardman said:

A delusional brahmin wrote shashtra on airplanes in sanskrit and the educated fool believed in it and he was proud of his nation for that

 

[Beardman]

4 minutes ago, Sanathnagar_Satthi said:

 

 

[aakathaai]

1 hour ago, Beardman said:

A delusional brahmin wrote shashtra on airplanes in sanskrit and the educated fool believed in it and he was proud of his nation for that

neil bohr who was foundational contributor for atomic theory and quantum physics came to india and knew about vedas and he had read vedas and he agreed that he got stuff related to atomic theory in vedas. was he also an educated fool in your view?

[tennisluvr]

6 minutes ago, aakathaai said:

neil bohr who was foundational contributor for atomic theory and quantum physics came to india and knew about vedas and he had read vedas and he agreed that he got stuff related to atomic theory in vedas. was he also an educated fool in your view?

Yes he is since he didn't believe in Sullah instead 

[Idassamed]

11 minutes ago, Beardman said:

 

Pak ratna istaremo kanukko

[aakathaai]

rey beardman gaa nee farri ra reyy appambeppam naayalaa inkosaari ittaanti amaambaapathi post lu esaavoo bezawada pekaasam barriage pakkana nee thaddhinam ettisthaa settu kinda senakkaailu ammukune sunti naayaala elli dhoodhekulolla g lo dhoodhulu ettukooo

[Beardman]

22 minutes ago, aakathaai said:

neil bohr who was foundational contributor for atomic theory and quantum physics came to india and knew about vedas and he had read vedas and he agreed that he got stuff related to atomic theory in vedas. was he also an educated fool in your view?

Political rhetoric is making it increasingly hard to tell what science is in the Vedas and what is not. Home Minister Rajnath Singh said on Sunday that Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty – a concept in quantum mechanics – was based on the Vedas. This was recognised, he said, in a 1975 book by Austrian-American author Fritjof Capra.

The book in question, The Tao of Physics, actually makes no such connections. In fact, in drawing parallels between the work of Werner Heisenberg, a German theoretical physicist, and Oriental mysticism, the book only highlights an ex post facto connection between the uncertainty principle and the Upanishads.

The principle is a cornerstone in the investigation of quantum mechanics. It states that both the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known with the same precision at the same time. In other words, if you were tracking the position of an electron increasingly precisely, the uncertainty principle would make your knowledge of how fast it is travelling increasingly blurred.

Ideas of oneness

The discovery laid the foundation for a new conception of reality at the time it was proposed in 1927. It made the observer a part of the observation, breaking down the distance from the observed. Heisenberg went on to become an intellectual giant of the early 20th century. At the same time, the reality he was discovering did not sit well with what he had assumed it to be until then.

According to The Tao of Physics, both Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist whose work laid the foundation for quantum mechanics, were able to take recourse through the ancient Indian texts, as well as the Chinese philosophy of Zhuang Zhou dating back to the fourth century BC. To cite the Upanishads as quoted in Capra’s book:

"Where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another… But where everything has become just one’s own self, then whereby and whom would one see? Then whereby and whom would one smell? Then whereby and whom would one taste”

On the same page, Capra also quotes from Zhou’s text Zhuangzhi:

“My connection with the body and its parts is dissolved. My perceptive organs are discarded. Thus leaving my material form and bidding farewell to my knowledge, I become one with the Great Pervader. This I call sitting and forgetting all things.”

These ideas of oneness – between the observer and the observed – helped Heisenberg and Bohr reconcile with the disturbing facets of the discovery of the uncertainty principle after it was made. They did not lead up to it. 

Rajnath Singh also said that Heisenberg got the ideas for his principle in a conversation with Rabindranath Tagore, this time alluding to another of Capra’s books called Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People, published in 1988. The error here is starker: Heisenberg proposed the principle in 1927 and met Tagore in 1929.

Perhaps Singh did not know the contents of the meeting and its position in time simultaneously with the same precision.

But like with the previous example, as Capra again writes, the “introduction to Indian thought brought Heisenberg great comfort”.

Old crusade

The Bharatiya Janata Party, which Singh belongs to, has made it a point to reintroduce – through rhetoric and action alike – the narrative of India’s ancient texts and the knowledge they believe is locked in them. During BJP’s previous stint in government, Minister for Human Resources Development Murli Manohar Joshi wanted to add astrology and Vedic mathematics (which the Vedas have never been concerned with) to university curricula. Now, Singh is extending that tradition of wrongly clubbing cultural and theological traditions with scientific facts.

Even at a BJP national council meeting in March 2013, he had said, “The basis of the discovery of [the Higgs boson] had been established 70-80 years back by taking inspiration from a similar principle by the great scientist of India, Satyendra Nath Bose.” This assertion maligns the nature of Bose’s work, obscuring its real significance behind a recent and very different discovery, made at the Large Hadron Collider experiment in Geneva in July 2012.

Bose’s ground-breaking work in the 1920s led to the establishment of a class of fundamental particles called bosons, which mediate the forces between particles of matter like electrons and protons. On the other hand, the Higgs boson was only postulated in 1964 and is one specific boson whose various properties, or even existence, Bose’s work did not deal with. To Singh, the tenuous connection between Bose and the Higgs boson is an example of India’s contribution to modern science. It is not.

If Singh wanted that, he should have celebrated actually modern contributions – like India’s formidable string theory and dark matter research, experiments in gamma ray astronomy, an ongoing and fruitful participation with the Large Hadron Collider in experimental high-energy physics.

[Beardman]

15 minutes ago, tennisluvr said:

Yes he is since he didn't believe in Sullah instead 

Political rhetoric is making it increasingly hard to tell what science is in the Vedas and what is not. Home Minister Rajnath Singh said on Sunday that Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty – a concept in quantum mechanics – was based on the Vedas. This was recognised, he said, in a 1975 book by Austrian-American author Fritjof Capra.

The book in question, The Tao of Physics, actually makes no such connections. In fact, in drawing parallels between the work of Werner Heisenberg, a German theoretical physicist, and Oriental mysticism, the book only highlights an ex post facto connection between the uncertainty principle and the Upanishads.

The principle is a cornerstone in the investigation of quantum mechanics. It states that both the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known with the same precision at the same time. In other words, if you were tracking the position of an electron increasingly precisely, the uncertainty principle would make your knowledge of how fast it is travelling increasingly blurred.

Ideas of oneness

The discovery laid the foundation for a new conception of reality at the time it was proposed in 1927. It made the observer a part of the observation, breaking down the distance from the observed. Heisenberg went on to become an intellectual giant of the early 20th century. At the same time, the reality he was discovering did not sit well with what he had assumed it to be until then.

According to The Tao of Physics, both Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist whose work laid the foundation for quantum mechanics, were able to take recourse through the ancient Indian texts, as well as the Chinese philosophy of Zhuang Zhou dating back to the fourth century BC. To cite the Upanishads as quoted in Capra’s book:

"Where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another… But where everything has become just one’s own self, then whereby and whom would one see? Then whereby and whom would one smell? Then whereby and whom would one taste”

On the same page, Capra also quotes from Zhou’s text Zhuangzhi:

“My connection with the body and its parts is dissolved. My perceptive organs are discarded. Thus leaving my material form and bidding farewell to my knowledge, I become one with the Great Pervader. This I call sitting and forgetting all things.”

These ideas of oneness – between the observer and the observed – helped Heisenberg and Bohr reconcile with the disturbing facets of the discovery of the uncertainty principle after it was made. They did not lead up to it. 

Rajnath Singh also said that Heisenberg got the ideas for his principle in a conversation with Rabindranath Tagore, this time alluding to another of Capra’s books called Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People, published in 1988. The error here is starker: Heisenberg proposed the principle in 1927 and met Tagore in 1929.

Perhaps Singh did not know the contents of the meeting and its position in time simultaneously with the same precision.

But like with the previous example, as Capra again writes, the “introduction to Indian thought brought Heisenberg great comfort”.

Old crusade

The Bharatiya Janata Party, which Singh belongs to, has made it a point to reintroduce – through rhetoric and action alike – the narrative of India’s ancient texts and the knowledge they believe is locked in them. During BJP’s previous stint in government, Minister for Human Resources Development Murli Manohar Joshi wanted to add astrology and Vedic mathematics (which the Vedas have never been concerned with) to university curricula. Now, Singh is extending that tradition of wrongly clubbing cultural and theological traditions with scientific facts.

Even at a BJP national council meeting in March 2013, he had said, “The basis of the discovery of [the Higgs boson] had been established 70-80 years back by taking inspiration from a similar principle by the great scientist of India, Satyendra Nath Bose.” This assertion maligns the nature of Bose’s work, obscuring its real significance behind a recent and very different discovery, made at the Large Hadron Collider experiment in Geneva in July 2012.

Bose’s ground-breaking work in the 1920s led to the establishment of a class of fundamental particles called bosons, which mediate the forces between particles of matter like electrons and protons. On the other hand, the Higgs boson was only postulated in 1964 and is one specific boson whose various properties, or even existence, Bose’s work did not deal with. To Singh, the tenuous connection between Bose and the Higgs boson is an example of India’s contribution to modern science. It is not.

If Singh wanted that, he should have celebrated actually modern contributions – like India’s formidable string theory and dark matter research, experiments in gamma ray astronomy, an ongoing and fruitful participation with the Large Hadron Collider in experimental high-energy physics.

[Beardman]

6 minutes ago, aakathaai said:

rey beardman gaa nee farri ra reyy appambeppam naayalaa inkosaari ittaanti amaambaapathi post lu esaavoo bezawada pekaasam barriage pakkana nee thaddhinam ettisthaa settu kinda senakkaailu ammukune sunti naayaala elli dhoodhekulolla g lo dhoodhulu ettukooo

EE DB UNNANTHAKALAM NA PORTAM UNTUNDHI..

EKKUVA CHESAVO..

POSTS INKA PERUGUTHAYI

[chittimallu_14]

1 minute ago, Beardman said:

EE DB UNNANTHAKALAM NA PORTAM UNTUNDHI..

EKKUVA CHESAVO..

POSTS INKA PERUGUTHAYI

oh bhayam estundi ra...