Indeed, they will not, this means that they allways have to be re-translated and re-interpreted.
Well, yes, that is normally what is done with foreign language texts. However, as I said to Vagabond earlier, Sanskrit is hardly an unknown language
and there exists many references that one use to compare. Further, Sankrit is the mother language of all Indo-European languages.
I have not seen any examples of these texts giving yeilding advanced tech.
I have produced them already. Here it is again:
Indian scientists, physicists chemists at various institutes and centres of technology have claimed to have succesfully have created the alloys and
materials using the prescribed formulas in the VS, like; Chumbakamani, Panchadhara-loha and Paragrandhika-drava.
1999 a scientific team, sponsored by Indian National Science Academy, INSA was commisioned to investigate the VS. The task force consisted of Dr.
Dongre, P.G.College of Varanasi, Dr.P.Ramachandra Rao, Director of National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur and others. . Their report relates to
development of a novel spectrometer / monochromeater called ‘Dwanta Pramapaka Yantra’ and an Infra-Red transparent material (non-hygroscopic)
called ‘Prakasha Stambhana bida’
Whats the formula?
If you read the thesis I posted on the VS it details of some the metallurgical formulas.
According to Indian texts there were five main elements, fire, earth, water, air and ether.
This demonstrates that they do not have an understanding of the elements or their properties. It also demonstrates that they were using a
conception of the 'elemental' that is rather universal, not technologically advanced.
No, it doesn't. What you understand to be elements is a modern prejudice, where an element is catagorized by it's atomic number. According to
ancient Indians the elements were catagorized under 5 main elements, which were themselves(except ether) formed of atoms and various combinations of
these atoms formed the material universe. Kanada expounded upon this and systematized the knowledge.
This is simply not what an atom is. You can't subdivide 'fire' and get atoms. Subdividing water only gives you water molecules, until you
smash the molecule itself, which yeilds actual elements that are not water. This indian conception is similar to the idea that everything is made up
of different proportions of earth/air/fire/water etc, which is not an atomic theory. Democritus' atomic theory is much more advanced and prescient
Light is actually made up of tiny packets of quanta or photons. So, yes, it is made of particles. And energy according to quantum mechanics is made of
Further, water is not water without hydrogen and oxygen, and the Indians are indeed correct in saying that it can be subdivided until the atoms.
Absolutely nothing like atomic science. If they beleived this then they had no understanding of chemistry. Oxygen and Hydrogen, explosive
gases, combine to form water, which supresses fire. The properties of the molecules are not related to the properties of the atoms. Also, this is 600
BC, I thought you were saying that this knowledge was largely lost or only contained in truly ancient scriptures after the Catastrophic
What do you mean it's absolutely nothing like atomic science? Kanada has explictly said that atoms combine under chemical reactions to form matter.
The water does indeed have properties of the the Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms in it. As I said water is not water without hydrogen and oxygen. Again,
what you understand to be properties, is a modern bias.
He is also absolutely correct that all substances have their own unique atoms.
I am dissapointed. I am also interested in Kanada's atomic theory and the connectiosn with greek atomism. However, based on your poor takes of the
more controversial texts, I fear that you may also be pushing this text.
The greeks invaded India just before they propounded their ideas on atoms, did they not? Check. I am not sure what there is to be disappointed about.
You asked for an understanding of atomic and chemical theory, and I gave it to you.
Describe how you distinguish between 'smart weapons' and magic weapons?
A magic weapon would be if Krishna brought down the aircraft by his thought power, because that invokes the power of the supernatural. However, it is
more mundane than that. He uses a weapon that seeks out sound. This is supposedly the incarnation of God according to the Mahabharatas. There are
weapons in modern science that seek out heat.
And what is evidence?
Similarly, a person in the modern period might mistake these descriptions for advanced technology.
If a translator interpreted as a figher jet, dropping a nuclear weapon. It wouldn't be credible at all. If, however the passage was like the one in
Childress book, it would be descripitive enough to say nuclear weapon.
But the rats bias, that is more than bias. Thats fraud, thats inserting words that simply do not exist. If the sanskrit text says c.f.
'peoples hair and nails fell out' and a translator translates as 'rats ate peoples hair when they slept', well, the original text will bear it out
as fraud. I think that one cannot suggest, therefore, that it was a fraudulent insertion.
Well, that is my point. I don't think it is fraud as much as guessing.
Such as what? And why does correctness on some things imply correctness on all things?
I've already explained it in an earlier post.
I suspect that they have allowed their own bias to creep into their results, however I would like to see the relevant published papers before I
actually suggest that that is the case.
You don't get it, do you? The texts are not translated by the scientists, but by a team of Sanskrit scholars. The translation is then given to the
scientists and they follow it the formula -- and presto -- chango -- they form the material/alloy described. And I'm sorry but I don't have the
papers for you. You will have to request them yourself.
What else did shastry add?
He did not really add anything. He was trying to draw the vimana scehmatics as they were described.
All well and good, however you have no methodology for testing these stories. Surely not ever 'myth' is passed on ancient science textbooks.
Which are real and which are just myth? By what method do you distinguish between them?
By analysing and comparing.
There are only, however, a few texts that are thuroughly translated. The mahbatra hasn't been translated in full, as far as I am
Yes, it has. There is an entire Mahabharata translation on sacred-text.com. There are probably other translations too somewhere. Unless Childress made
up his version, wouldn't that classify as fraud?
So his researches did not infact confirm the method of destruction noted in the text then? The discovery of an ancient city mentioned in an
ancient text does not prove that everything that text talks about is true.
The city had sunk into the ocean. What it proves is that Mahabharata is actually based on history. The Mahabharata not only talk about the city being
constructed, but it also speaks about is sinking. No, this does not prove everything is true about it. It just gives it more credibility.
If they understood light enough to calculate its speed I would think that they'd have a name for it and use that name, rather than erronesouly
calling it the 'sun'.
This passage was in the Rig Veda, which is a devotional and spiritual text, as opposed to a scientific one. It's praising the sun by saying "You who
are great. You who traverse 2,220 yognas in half a nimesa"
Obvious? Its written in a language thats thousands of years old. There are no other interpretations of the text?
Again, there do exist references to compare. I've already explained the units in my original post.
And yet you said it requires advanced tech to calculate it. What did Roemer have that the ancient indians didn't? Nevertheless, I
would be surprised to find out that they figured it out. How come they never made use of it?
No, I said it requires advanced technology to calculate an accurate figure
for the speed of light. Roemers calculation was 125,000 miles per
And they did they make use of it - according to the VS talks, which about lasers, television, scanning, holograms and cloaking.
Odd then, that an italian who had to learn sanskrit and science was the one to realize these 'advanced techs', and not the people writting
The modern Indian government and scientists did not write the texts.
But there is nothing suggesting that they used those documents. Jet engine technology and rocket technology did not pop up ad hoc, they had to
Well, the VS actually talks about pulse jet engines, apparently.
Again, I would like to see the actual reports of the objects built and the corresponding procedure in the texts. I suspect that the people
doing this are reading a text, assuming it must've meant this or that, and then figuring out a way to build it.
You cannot accidentally make pizza if you're trying to make cake. It does not work like that. If they actually made the materials described, then
it's only because it is real.
Where is there a description of the law of gravity in these ancient texts? If they are building machines then they must at least know and
record that. Also, if the texts accurately describe how to build the devices, as you noted above with the simpler machines, then they would result in
being able to build advanced technology too. The fact that no advanced technologies are comming out of this would fit with my suggestion
If I read a book on how to develop a jet propulsion engine or a microchip. It does not mean I will be able to do it in a few years, or in a decade, or
ever. It does appear India does appear to be testing/planning quite advanced technology now days, ever since the VS has been studied on a high
level,from shape memory alloys, nanomedicine to hypersonic engines, microwave and EM weapons and space-based weapons. Of course that could always be
The Vimanas do seem to work on some kind of anti-gravity technology, or at least some of them. They don't need run ways, they can lift of vertically,
turn sideways, remain motionless in mid-air, zig-zag, speed etc.
I do not doubt that one can make any idea refutation proof. However, if the events were such that they erased all evidence of their occurance, then
how can one state that they occured? Surely, if these guys could record these texts, describing how to make the tech, and preserve these texts thru
the ages, they'd've been able to preserve some of the flying machines and such, or, heck, they'd be able to preserve the secret of making concrete,
or at least iron age technology.
Maybe they did, and if a government got a hold of them, I doubt they would tell the public about it. It's a force multiplier.
It should not be expected that the rulers have great weapons while the masses have less impressive ones. King Arthur had excalibre, everyone
else had swords and sticks. The hittites had advanced battle wagons, their subjects had darts. The Persians had wicker shields, the greeks iron
tipped spears. None of this requires alien intervention and therefore neither does a disparity of tech amoung the indians. And, again, these other
texts describe gods interfereing with the battle, transporting humans, knocking people over, etc, etc. Its understood that this is mythology. These
indian texts are apparently no different, and they certainly can not sensibly be presented as irrefutable evidence of ancient technology more advanced
The difference here is while the foot solider has a sword or a spear, the elite have flying aircraft, missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
However, very few were elite. Not all kings and queens had these weapons. They acquired them from the heavenly races. The reason the god Indra gave
Arjuna all his advanced weapons and his advanced vimanas, because he was actually his father. Krishna was said to have all the weapons and knew all
the sciences. That is why when the Mahabharata war was fought, the Kuruvs demanded that Krishna should not fight, because they knew he could not be
beaten. So Krishna promised he would not fight and instead became Arjuna charioteer.
[edit on 14-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]