Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 02:09

pralay wrote:
disha wrote:It must have been a super-human engineering feat to bridge two large land mass.

Disha ji,
If you take into account the sea-level of those times, it clearly was not a super-human thing.
The sea-level has been rising continuously since past glacial maximum, and most probably the setu back then was not too long,
Most of the submerged part would be above water in those times, as its just few feet shallow in most of the places along the setu-path in sea.
The actual bridge would be few hundred meters or even less at max.


Pralay'ji. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, sea levels would have been low and even now RamaSethu is 3ft deep mostly and just 30 ft deep in some places. Legend has it that up until 1480 the RamaSethu existed and one could pass to Sri Lanka using that bridge.

We need to put more faith in Ramayana and the story of construction.

Rama was looking for a way to pass his army to Sri Lanka. Legend has it that he was angry with Varuna and Varuna later turns up and states that the Sea will not disturb his building of land bridge. To me, Varuna reveals Rama the appropriate time to build the land bridge. Definitely not in the monsoon.

periaswamy wrote:I am not particularly interested in tying the rocks to the story. These rocks are not floating right now, so it is pretty safe to assume that they did not "float" in the past -- in order to float, these rocks would have to be less dense than water, in which case they should not have stayed in place with rising and falling sea levels over 1000s of years. If these are not light rocks, then it stands to reason that it must have taken a lot of effort to move these heavy rocks across a 30 miles stretch from some point on land.

What can be validated is that these rocks exist right now, and are around 7000 years old. So one question I has was if it was pumice, which is of low density, how it managed to stay in the same place without sort of drifting along with some currents over time. I am able to see some screen shots of a book by a scientist from the Indian Geological Society who had studied these rocks and came up with the same age of 7000 years (well before this popular science report). There must be some explanation for why rocks that are not too heavy manage to stay in the same place over a bed of sand. A bed of sand has peculiar properties like the one in this link.


Periaswamy'ji., you are going in circles - for once please look at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice_raft and also this link http://www.iflscience.com/physics/scientists-solve-mystery-of-how-pumice-stones-float-/ and read this https://www.wired.com/2012/08/the-biology-of-volcanic-pumice-rafts/

Here is something that clarifies things for you hopefully:

1. Pumice rocks float and also sink preferentially. Pumice rocks keep on floating, or initially float and then sink based on changes in their mineral or biological content on its interaction with the environment.

The above property of pumice rocks is a physical property that is inviolable. That is, pumice rocks floated in past, present and will do so in future. And some pumice rocks sink as the water, particularly salt water changes its mineral or biological (or both) contents. This was true in past, in present and will be so in future.

2. One cannot assume that there never was a land bridge based on pumice just because some of the rocks floated away and some of the rocks sank. And even if the rocks are mined from the same mine., their individual properties is determined based on the vein in the rock.

Also one cannot assume that the land bridge was only pumice. Ramayana clearly states that first the rocks sank and then when the name of Rama was written on the rocks, it started to float. In other words all rocks with the name Rama on it floated. Or all rocks that could float were marked with the name of Rama.

3. Hence the story of Ramayana where the rocks floated on sea water cannot be laughed away. In fact, given the scientific evidence, the story of Ramayana and RamaSethu goes from plausible to true. Also the dating of Ramayana is now constricted to a narrow band of 5000 BCE to 3000 BCE.

4. There will be discussions on the optimal material used for RamaSethu and how it was built. But there is no contention on its reality.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 14 Dec 2017 04:00

sudarshan wrote: The proper motion was what was keeping the phenomenon from being observed until 11091 BCE? But in effect, that's the same thing - whether you look at the proper motion as "hindering the A/V effect before 11000 BCE" or as "enabling the A/V effect after 11000 BCE."

Correct. You have understood it well. But then we have to do our best to not confuse our trolls any more than how much they are. Afterall they are 'our' trolls.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 14 Dec 2017 04:12


Periaswamy'ji., you are going in circles - for once please look at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice_raft and also this link http://www.iflscience.com/physics/scien ... es-float-/ and read this https://www.wired.com/2012/08/the-biolo ... ice-rafts/



dishaji,thanks. Yes, makes sense that absorbing water will make pumice rocks sink and the less permeable ones probably continue to float. I was not aware that the ramsethu rocks were Pumice going by the description in the story. It would be useful to have geological reference for that factoid, to be pulled out in case of emergency, which is why I wanted to know if you had one in earlier post.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5089
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SBajwa » 14 Dec 2017 05:18

I was at qutub minar today and it is said that Qutubdeen Ainak who lived in India for less than 5 years and less than 1 year at delhi created this. Is it even possible?
His son in law Ilutmush wanted to create a bigger minar than this but could not succeed in 17 years that he ruled only went up little bit less that first floor

How could Qutibdeen create such a huge tower in less than 5 years?

Not possible as told by some archeologist that i met there . He explained that all Qutub could do was to carve the sandstone with some verses of Quran. Qutb means pole star and this tower was created in 4th century by Raja Vikramaditya for astrologers to observe 27 Nakshtrayas along with pole star. Ghori and Qutubdeen were so struck by this building that they tried to convert it into a minar of a mosque and thus created mosque along with periphery (as minar exist at corners of the mosque) . Minarets are used to call people to pray but shouting for prayer from 75 meters above will not reach many people. This structure was created to observe stars by ancient sages of India.

You can actually see the carved murtis of devi devtas on the walls of the qutuvwal mosque (power of islam).

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 05:27

^Periaswamy'ji, I had proposed earlier that a engineering and science college from India carry out a study on RamSethu.

What the engineering college does is actually create a Sethu some 2 kms out in the ocean by using rocks, boulders, sand and some timber and do an engineering analysis on it. While the science college does a study of geology and the rocks around the area.

Pumice being the stone is one strong plausibility. Another plausibility is that the bridge was actually engineered by using regular stone! And that is what the engineering team has to find out. Can they construct a bridge 2 kms out in the ocean by using ordinary rocks, rocks+pumice or just pumice with beams and vines to hold it together? That will be our own study and it does not take few lakhs of rupees and some initiative. Students will also learn core engineering principles.

However our secularists will laugh at the idea of such a study.
Last edited by disha on 14 Dec 2017 05:32, edited 2 times in total.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 05:31

SBajwa wrote:I was at qutub minar today and it is said that Qutubdeen Ainak who lived in India for less than 5 years and less than 1 year at delhi created this. Is it even possible?


The islamists like Ghori/Ghaznis etc did not know any construction beyond setting up tents. They pillaged, plundered and in between realized that they can occupy and pillage more.

Of course when they saw such huge structures, they were astounded and they reused it for their purposes. All the mosques in the Qutb minar complex is from the Hindu & Jain temples.

Same goes with the "Qutb Minar".

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 14 Dec 2017 06:54

dishaji: What the engineering college does is actually create a Sethu some 2 kms out in the ocean by using rocks, boulders, sand and some timber and do an engineering analysis on it. While the science college does a study of geology and the rocks around the area.


dishaji, this is not necessarily engineering research, though if someone (or a crowd) funded such an endeavor in India it would be a history project with engineers as support staff. I think scientists in the Indian Geological Institute have studied these rocks in detail, so I am pretty sure there are existing reports rotting in some office or trash can in some Indian government office containing the details of the rock composition of the rocks in ram sethu. Like I mentioned earlier, the 7000 year age ascribed to the rocks by the Science channel was done long ago by the IGS.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 14 Dec 2017 06:57

disha wrote:Also one cannot assume that the land bridge was only pumice. Ramayana clearly states that first the rocks sank and then when the name of Rama was written on the rocks, it started to float. In other words all rocks with the name Rama on it floated. Or all rocks that could float were marked with the name of Rama.

I see the issue as follows.

The Ramayana is "our past". That means that it is a description of past events, past life of our ancestors, an ancient culture and the emotions and feelings and resultant actions that arose from those emotions and feelings. It is not a "chronological document" written by some moron as in "King Abdullah had an army of 1 million me 200,000 horses and 25,000 cannon and he attacked bla bla and defeated him on the 4th of July 1776. He then ruled for 14 years and was killed by his third son from his 7th wife Ilbidulbil"

There is a huge difference between "history" and "our past". It is incumbent upon us to see the difference.

Our past is us - it is our identity and it explains why we think and act the way we do. "History" is a bland boring document like an account book that says "Rs 5000 spent on 31st dec" and fails to mention that it was spent for a lovely dinner with friends who were meeting up after 20 years.

History is an account book

Our past is a narrative. I gives us a broad outline of our history with significant characters and stories related to events. But it never was and never will be an exact chronicle of events or of chemical composition of rocks

All ancient cultures have an oral record of the past. Australian Aborigines and even European pagans. It is the "History writers" of the Church who have sought to either destroy other cultural narratives or laugh at them by quoting inconsistencies and lack of dates. It is important for us not to fall into their trap of giving exact dates and exact explanations which is a construct that they force simply to dismiss anything older than their own past. We don't have to explain our past to any moderfugger who asks

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 14 Dec 2017 07:11

speaking for myself, I would like to know how a bridge was constructed across a 30 mile stretch (which I believe it was) -- must have involved some amount of cleverness, and it would good to know that. floating rocks that were light to carry across and dump on the water to sink once all the water was absorbed. That seems to be a reasonable explanation for a strong Hanuman carrying rocks single handledly building a bridge across. No crime in being curious in one's past, and to make sense of it, I think, but that's just IMO. I have never seen the point of names and dates and other nonsense they made me memorize from "the history of civilization vol 1 and 2" (and then vomit it faithfully in the history exam).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 14 Dec 2017 07:18

I would like to explain my thoughts about "histories" versus "narratives of the past"

A "history" has dates and some details that the historian has noted. Those details may be what he has witnessed, or has been told by someone, or can be verified by documents and decrees produced by characters. Typically a history will not have emotions, moral dilemmas and solutions. Histories will not include "minor events" like a chance meeting in a forest, an injury, an admonition by a parent or teacher or deatils of conversations or lives lived. A narrative is full of that.

Now the problem is as follows. Historywalas say "Balls. Ramayan is not history"

So we get our langotis in a huge twist and say "No it is history"

Historywalas says "OK - prove that a mountain with a life saving herb was carried by a flying monkey"

The minute you try to come with an explanation you are screwed. You might as well take the square rod in the historywala's hand and shove it up your own backside because you have fallen into his trap by trying to give an explanation of a narrative of a past event on his terms using things that you feel should convince him. This is a huge huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge mistake being made by Hindus with colonized minds

We have been taught history and cannot understand what a narrative of the past is. A narrative of the past is what your grandfather and his mother did to escape from a plague epidemic. You will not find it in your history book. But it is true and it is your past. It explains why your family moved from Maharatshtra to Karnataka. Try and prove this? You will be fucued.

The Ramayana, Mahabharata and other texts are a narratives about our past that have come down orally from 6-8000 BC. From before anyone coudl write. Or written texts (leaves?) have all been lost. Do not get into the game of trying to prove individual details. There are some things that are provable and datable. But do not try and give explanations for everything. You don't need history to have a past - just like you don;t have to have birth certificate of your grandfather to prove that he existed.

We need to move out of mental slavery to explain ourselves as we are and not the way someone wants to characterize us.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 14 Dec 2017 07:29

periaswamy wrote:speaking for myself, I would like to know how a bridge was constructed across a 30 mile stretch (which I believe it was) -- must have involved some amount of cleverness, and it would good to know that. floating rocks that were light to carry across and dump on the water to sink once all the water was absorbed. That seems to be a reasonable explanation for a strong Hanuman carrying rocks single handledly building a bridge across. No crime in being curious in one's past, and to make sense of it, I think, but that's just IMO. I have never seen the point of names and dates and other nonsense they made me memorize from "the history of civilization vol 1 and 2" (and then vomit it faithfully in the history exam).

Have you read Naipaul's "An Area of Darkness"? It was his first travelogue through India and he writes as he sees India, like an alien. He describes a bus journey in which the bus (perhaps in Kerala) comes to a river bridge that has been washed away. He is frustrated, thinking that the journey cannot go on. But by the next morning he is surprised to realise that every passenger and all luggage and goods have been transported across the river by thousands of individual acts of human labour. he describes this beautifully - I can't write that well "Stealthily in the Indian night everything was moved from hand to hand, person to person to get everything across" - or something like that. (better than that actually)

Two things here.
1. People have got across obstacles for centuries
2. Naipaul's story is a narrative. he does not say who did the work or how exactly it was done. the story could even travel down time that a devata appeared and transported everything across. But is is also not a history. "August 11th 10 PM, on way to Kochi. Bus stuck at river. Overnight crossing. Reached Kochi Aug 13"

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 14 Dec 2017 07:49

Amber G. wrote:
Dipanker wrote:I would tend to think that if a constellation of stars appear more or less in same relative position with respect to each other during the course of 1 year ( period of earth's revolution around sun), then precession of equinoxes should not have any effect on appearance of such constellations, for e.g. Big Dipper, since the radius of wobble of celestial north pole around the precession circle is much - much -much smaller than the radius of earth orbit around sun.
OSU astronomy dept. has a 8 sec animation of changing Big Dipper appearance due to proper motion of stars for period from 50,000 BC to 50,000 AD, and the shape changes quite a bit, unfortunetly there are only very few frames for period of 8000BC to 2000AD, not much change in the shape either.

No, it will NOT have effect on appearance of constellations.. but (the following may require some thinking to make things clear)
- Daily (spin of earth) motion, makes the stars rise in the east and set in the west. Of course pole star remains fixed and other stars seem to circle this star.
-Yearly (rotation of earth around sun) motion makes changes on which stars will be high in the sky at night. IOW there are summer stars and winter stars. Again this motion does not effect the position of pole star (polaris). The cycle repeats in a year. IOW, if Orion rises at some particular time today, 6 months from now it will set at that time and the cycle will repeat in 1 year.
- But relationship between seasons and position of stars changes... this cycle is about 26000 years. IOW if the sun is in one particular rashi this spring equinox .. 13000 years from now it will be fall equinox when the sun is in the same rashi.

At present polaris does not seem to move at all... 130000 years from now polaris will rise and set. At present Vega is *always* "south" of polaris, in 13000 years Vega will *always* be north of polaris.

Again the relative position of polaris and Vega does not change with respect to each other or other stars. If one took photographs of night sky - the sky will look the same, but it will be very noticeable as polaris will be moving (rising/setting in the sky etc) while Vega will more or less remain fixed.
(This is not just theory all astronomers (Hindu, Chinese, Greek) have known this for thousands of years)

Math is same for the A & V star -- of course the "difference" is MUCH MUCH smaller as these stars are far from north (Arundhati --(longitude is 165.88 degrees and latitude is 56.6 degrees (N) Vasistha ( its Long = 165.70 and lat = 56.4 degrees) changes in the east-west direction would be VERY small. (at present the difference is less than 0.2 degrees at present)


Thanks for your input, if I must nitpick then I would point out whether polaris will rise and set after Vega becomes the new polestar will depend on the latitude of the place, at higher latitude say around 50 deg or higher so polaris ( along with its constellation Ursa Minor) will probably be circumpolar star/constellation and not rise and set!

But to reiterate the point I have been making, whether Alcor/Mizar are going around the polaris, or Thuban, or Vega as its pole star, their front/back relationship ( as shown in the following telescopic picture) has remained more or less same for last 7000 years and longer and will remain so for a long-long time (Mizar moving south at relative speed of 9 mas/yr, eastward movement difference negligible). If Alcor was walking in "front" (culminating first) then, it is still walking in "front", and its pole star of revolution ( Polaris/Thuban/Vega etc.) does not matter.

Image
Last edited by Dipanker on 14 Dec 2017 08:23, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 14 Dec 2017 07:59

shiv: The minute you try to come with an explanation you are screwed. You might as well take the square rod in the historywala's hand and shove it up your own backside because you have fallen into his trap by trying to give an explanation of a narrative of a past event on his terms using things that you feel should convince him. This is a huge huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge mistake being made by Hindus with colonized minds


I understand that point and have a similar attitude -- I mean, the same folks who will mock hindus and demand explanations to disprove the "fact" that Ramayana is a myth will also turn right around and pretend that they strongly believe in a guy who was born without his mother having indulged in sexual intercourse, a biological impossiblity if we start evoking reality.

These are the same people who have managed to divide eternity into two parts -- the time before this biological impossibility and the time after this impossibility, and the go on to build "schools of theology" that study all names dates and details of what happened once this guy was born (whose mother managed to conceive him with just fresh air and pure thoughts), and these "facts" are considered to be weighty enough to provide Ph.D.s. "theology" obviously are better than "mythology", because, of course, everything else outside of a specific set of fantasies studied by "theologians" is a "myth". Best one can do is sneer at this BS masquerading as some sort of moral standard to override all other narratives and thought processes.

So I am not suggesting proving anything in the narratives that have shaped our minds and attitudes growing up, but trying to connect the dots between what we have heard and what we see before us, that does not appear to be random acts of nature, like ram sethu. Maybe this is all futile and pointless, but maybe that's ok. A lot of data was destroyed by genocides and invasions over a long period of time, leaving us to connect the dots with what remains.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 08:25

shiv wrote:I see the issue as follows.

The Ramayana is "our past". That means that it is a description of past events, past life of our ancestors, an ancient culture and the emotions and feelings and resultant actions that arose from those emotions and feelings. It is not a "chronological document" written by some moron as in "King Abdullah had an army of 1 million me 200,000 horses and 25,000 cannon and he attacked bla bla and defeated him on the 4th of July 1776. He then ruled for 14 years and was killed by his third son from his 7th wife Ilbidulbil"

There is a huge difference between "history" and "our past". It is incumbent upon us to see the difference.


Shivji., you have a remarkable ability of putting some of our incoherent thoughts into precise & meaningful words.

For me Ramayana & Mahabharata is “my story” or “story of my ancestors”. Looking for accuracy in my story is a quixotic endeavour & where it makes logical sense I will explain it without expectation of affirmation from ignorant distorians.

A flying monkey in the story makes it interesting for the kids & allegory of super-human effort to achieve a task to me. I will take pride in the fact that hanuman is the first superhero, superman or bunderwoman just being wannabes! Distorians can take a hike.

If the church laughs at monkeys under Ramas command, I laugh at the donkeys in the pastor or virginity of mary. A flying monkey is more plausible than a virgin mary!

Even if Rama did not build the Sethu., I point out at Valmikis genius or vision to build a land bridge to Sri lanka! But Rama did build the sethu.

Of course I will be curious on how I can build one myself.

Periaswamy’ji., civil engineering in India needs to do lots of research. Like building a land bridge to sri lanka. And call it RamaSethu.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 14 Dec 2017 08:26

periaswamy wrote:
I understand that point and have a similar attitude -- I mean, the same folks who will mock hindus and demand explanations to disprove the "fact" that Ramayana is a myth will also turn right around and pretend that they strongly believe in a guy who was born without his mother having indulged in sexual intercourse, a biological impossiblity if we start evoking reality.

These are the same people who have managed to divide eternity into two parts -- the time before this biological impossibility and the time after this impossibility, and the go on to build "schools of theology" that study all names dates and details of what happened once this guy was born (whose mother managed to conceive him with just fresh air and pure thoughts), and these "facts" are considered to be weighty enough to provide Ph.D.s. "theology" obviously are better than "mythology", because, of course, everything else outside of a specific set of fantasies studied by "theologians" is a "myth". Best one can do is sneer at this BS masquerading as some sort of moral standard to override all other narratives and thought processes.

+1

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 14 Dec 2017 09:13

shiv wrote:I would like to explain my thoughts about "histories" versus "narratives of the past"

A "history" has dates and some details that the historian has noted. Those details may be what he has witnessed, or has been told by someone, or can be verified by documents and decrees produced by characters. Typically a history will not have emotions, moral dilemmas and solutions. Histories will not include "minor events" like a chance meeting in a forest, an injury, an admonition by a parent or teacher or deatils of conversations or lives lived. A narrative is full of that.

Now the problem is as follows. Historywalas say "Balls. Ramayan is not history"

So we get our langotis in a huge twist and say "No it is history"

Historywalas says "OK - prove that a mountain with a life saving herb was carried by a flying monkey"

The minute you try to come with an explanation you are screwed. You might as well take the square rod in the historywala's hand and shove it up your own backside because you have fallen into his trap by trying to give an explanation of a narrative of a past event on his terms using things that you feel should convince him. This is a huge huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge mistake being made by Hindus with colonized minds

We have been taught history and cannot understand what a narrative of the past is. A narrative of the past is what your grandfather and his mother did to escape from a plague epidemic. You will not find it in your history book. But it is true and it is your past. It explains why your family moved from Maharatshtra to Karnataka. Try and prove this? You will be fucued.

The Ramayana, Mahabharata and other texts are a narratives about our past that have come down orally from 6-8000 BC. From before anyone coudl write. Or written texts (leaves?) have all been lost. Do not get into the game of trying to prove individual details. There are some things that are provable and datable. But do not try and give explanations for everything. You don't need history to have a past - just like you don;t have to have birth certificate of your grandfather to prove that he existed.

We need to move out of mental slavery to explain ourselves as we are and not the way someone wants to characterize us.

+108

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 09:55

No +72 for me?

:-(

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6404
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Amber G. » 14 Dec 2017 12:47

Dipanker wrote:
Amber G. wrote:...

Math is same for the A & V star -- of course the "difference" is MUCH MUCH smaller as these stars are far from north (Arundhati --(longitude is 165.88 degrees and latitude is 56.6 degrees (N) Vasistha ( its Long = 165.70 and lat = 56.4 degrees) changes in the east-west direction would be VERY small....


Thanks for your input,
But to reiterate the point I have been making, whether Alcor/Mizar are going around the polaris, or Thuban, or Vega as its pole star, their front/back relationship ( as shown in the following telescopic picture) has remained more or less same for last 7000 years and longer and will remain so for a long-long time (Mizar moving south at relative speed of 9 mas/yr, eastward movement difference negligible). If Alcor was walking in "front" (culminating first) then, it is still walking in "front", and its pole star of revolution ( Polaris/Thuban/Vega etc.) does not matter.


theoretically It does matter, and depending on your definition of "negligible' only you can decide if it that matters. (or noticeable without telescope (or more accurate observatories) Math can settle this, just calculate it . (Check out the math dhaga, I have given the method in detail)
(For clarity -CALCULATE the difference in right ascension (equivalent to longitude on earth to determine east-west ness) and see how it changes with precision (7000 years ago). Does it changes sign? .

Disclaimer - By no means I am supporting (or not supporting) or endorsing any particular conclusions drawn by others - I am merely providing clear mathematical tool to settle this type of question..

I know I am not a rishi but most likely I will not notice right ascension difference of 0.1-0.2 degree (present difference in RA of these two stars) with un-aided eye without a observatory( 0.01 degree is resolving power of unaided eye)... there are many other stars where this difference would be easily noticeable.

For example only if some one documented accurate declination of bright star Abhijit (Vega) , (or Polaris or Tuban) we would have known the era pretty accurately.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 14 Dec 2017 13:12

I am not exactly interested in dating Ramayana and Maha Bharata. I actually believe it happened as it described in our epics. Science is part of life but not exactly the ultimate goal of it. Ultimate goal is always Moksha. .

Another thing is, I don't know how anyone can focus on small details when all these scriptures have overwhelming presence of Parabrahma. Upanishads are made of Parabrahma. One can literally feel the Parabrahma just by going through few sloka. Wish we have spirituality thread here to compliment out of India theory. We can decompress there while on off-duty. In fact any serious Indian forum is incomplete with out spirituality. It is the biggest strategic advantage we have on other nations.

Any way, I found this lecture about movement of Sun god from IE to Greeks.

Apparently there was a movement from East to West. Sun god really gone huge make over in BMAC region. That's where avesta was before moving to Iran.

It was in waves. First wave some thousands of years before, after that another wave and after that another wave. This is more interesting than any movie or fantasy novel. We might have taught the world everything.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6404
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Amber G. » 14 Dec 2017 14:20

sudarshan wrote:So I guess it's the opposite of what I said? The proper motion was what was keeping the phenomenon from being observed until 11091 BCE? But in effect, that's the same thing - whether you look at the proper motion as "hindering the A/V effect before 11000 BCE" or as "enabling the A/V effect after 11000 BCE."

Sudarshanji -
Data for Proper motion of stars, are reliable only for last few centuries -- (or even last few decades for many stars). How accurate you want to get is of course relevant here. These motions, for most stars are very small and are able to be measured only by very precise instruments.

The data, of course, is gathered by making actual observation, (or precisely known position in the past and the unambiguous historic date when the observation was made. If one knew the exact date and position of a star in the past, and now we can find the value of proper motion of that star. Not the other way around - One can estimate (or speculate assuming velocity does not change etc) the past position but getting a credible past date ( is not science, just faith IMO. (Can one really predict where I was a year ago even if they knew my location/velocity for last few hours very accurately?)..

Fortunately the proper motion for most stars (specially very far ones) is quite small.. one can neglect (or take linear approximation) and most likely you are ok for few thousand or few hundred thousand years :) ... but one can not be sure unless one has very good data of the past.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby peter » 14 Dec 2017 16:03

syam wrote:
peter wrote:You have to do more research but I had mentioned that the name is used for land also.

Though if you study Indian communities they have names such as Saraswat Brahmin, or Goud Saraswat Brahmin.

The word Saraswat in these names stands for a memory that they migrated from a region where saraswati flowed.

So a river can give name to a region.

You are wrong. There is no mention of any river with a name like Harahvaiti. Please show me where it is mentioned as river. Harah is actually mountain.


These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 14 Dec 2017 16:46

peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

They represent different things. Repeating same thing again and again can't make it true.

If you want to respond to me by one liner again, forget about the discussion. I don't have time for staying on same topic forever. Please provide your sources for your claims. I don't think it takes that much time to reproduce the material you had read before.

World is full of mysterious. People don't have time to entertain your beliefs. I know you place so much faith in your preferred historians. At least be open to what other people trying to say. It's all academic.
Last edited by syam on 14 Dec 2017 18:43, edited 2 times in total.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 14 Dec 2017 17:51

disha wrote:No +72 for me?

:-(

Good stuff. I am waiting for the experiment on the ground - Nala Setu.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Dec 2017 18:51

Dipanker wrote:But to reiterate the point I have been making, whether Alcor/Mizar are going around the polaris, or Thuban, or Vega as its pole star, their front/back relationship ( as shown in the following telescopic picture) has remained more or less same for last 7000 years and longer and will remain so for a long-long time (Mizar moving south at relative speed of 9 mas/yr, eastward movement difference negligible). If Alcor was walking in "front" (culminating first) then, it is still walking in "front", and its pole star of revolution ( Polaris/Thuban/Vega etc.) does not matter.


Sigh. The proper motion of the stars is irrelevant. The question is which one rises first, or reaches the zenith first, and that does depend on the axis of rotation of the earth.

Now, you can argue that it is perhaps a rather unlikely-naked-eye-unaided-with-anything-, even a plumb line, -observation. But that is a different argument.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 14 Dec 2017 21:08, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 14 Dec 2017 18:56

peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

Sir please don't keep posting utter bullshit. Even a 5th standard student will tell you that Sarasvati and Harahvaiti are different. Are you insane or do you think we are stupid?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 14 Dec 2017 20:52

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

Sir please don't keep posting utter bullshit. Even a 5th standard student will tell you that Sarasvati and Harahvaiti are different. Are you insane or do you think we are stupid?


But don't you see? This means "Australia" really is "Astralaya," like some people have been claiming all along. And the "anaconda" is definitely the same as the "aanai kondran" (elephant killer).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Dec 2017 21:07

^^^ :rotfl:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Dec 2017 21:18

Ramayana and Mahabharata are my ancestors' stories.

They are hardly history. Do you notice, there is no malaria or typhoid, maternal deaths in childbirth, or any such?
They are meant to condense the wisdom of the ancients about the fundamental nature of human beings, what they might value, how they might behave. Someone had published here what "itihaas" means. May be time to repeat that.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 14 Dec 2017 21:34

We tend to assume that only in 20th century all technologies evolved. This is a misnomer.

Our ancestors being human were as much curious, as much enterprising and as much hardworking as we currently are and without some distractions. Hence to say that they could not cross seas or could not theorize and lead to right conclusions on host of other tools and techniques and environment affecting them is basically a xtian-victorian-colonial arrogance.

Case in point, the dye indigo. The europeans did not even know how it is manufactured until they saw it in 13th and 14th century in India and it was a rare pigment for the europeans meant only for the very rich aristocrats imported from India via Genoa into Europe. In fact the very word "indigo" means "from India". And the word "Jeans" derives from its association with "Genoa". As a side note, denim was invented in India. Originally denim was made out of hemp and later from cotton.

Now take into account the pigment Red. Until Cochineal was discovered by the spaniards., the red dye was again unknown to the europeans.

In fact, any movie or theatre piece of europeans set before 14th century and showing blue or red colors is plain wrong. They did not have red and blue pigments and hence a whole range of colors (since red and blue are also primary colors). The european world was very grey.

Why I bring this up? Look at the brilliant colors in Ajanta & Ellora paintings. They of course pre-date before europeans even got civilized. It would be a very strange case indeed for "Aryans" to invade India and NOT take back colors with them to their Uhermait.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 15 Dec 2017 06:15

Amber G. wrote:Sudarshanji -
Data for Proper motion of stars, are reliable only for last few centuries -- (or even last few decades for many stars). How accurate you want to get is of course relevant here. These motions, for most stars are very small and are able to be measured only by very precise instruments.

Yes, this was also my initial criticism of Nilesh's work (he might remember). It is a rather big assumption, that proper motions, which have only been known about or measured for about a 100 years (maybe a little longer), can be extrapolated that far in the past. But the way I now figure it, this proper motion is also a periodic phenomenon, (being caused by the revolution of stars around the galactic center - at least, that's the common explanation advanced for this phenomenon). And since the periodicity is so large, it is essentially linear over even 100,000 years. So just like we can take the hourly rate of change of the sun's position (ignoring the daily rotation, and only focusing on the motion caused by the earth's revolution) and linearly extrapolate it for half a day or a day (but not longer than that, obviously), we can also take the proper motions measured over the past 100 years and extrapolate them to 10 or maybe 100,000 years (but not much longer than that).
The data, of course, is gathered by making actual observation, (or precisely known position in the past and the unambiguous historic date when the observation was made. If one knew the exact date and position of a star in the past, and now we can find the value of proper motion of that star. Not the other way around - One can estimate (or speculate assuming velocity does not change etc) the past position but getting a credible past date ( is not science, just faith IMO. (Can one really predict where I was a year ago even if they knew my location/velocity for last few hours very accurately?)..

Fortunately the proper motion for most stars (specially very far ones) is quite small.. one can neglect (or take linear approximation) and most likely you are ok for few thousand or few hundred thousand years :) ... but one can not be sure unless one has very good data of the past.

Yes, that's what I also keep saying - extrapolating proper motions should be okay for a few thousand or few hundred thousand years. Any longer, and linear extrapolation will not be accurate anymore (this being an angular phenomenon with a period of 100's of millions of years).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Dec 2017 06:22


Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9910
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Dec 2017 06:22

A_Gupta wrote:
KL Dubey wrote:
No. There is no word called "nadistuti" in the Veda, this is just a title given to the sukta. The words in the sukta have been used as river names in N/NW India, although they do not have any such meaning in the Veda. One can only say that "there is a collection of words in this sukta which have been used to name a number of rivers in India". The fact that such usage is found extensively in India and only lightly in some surrounding areas such as Iran, shows the origin of "Vedic culture" in India.


Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning. Now maybe he was totally wrong; but for the purposes of the OIT thread, I'm going to assume he is right. To Yaska, the words in the Nadistuti (and no, I didn't say that the word "Nadistuti' is in the Veda, by the way is the construction "Rig Veda" in the Rig Veda?) signify rivers, and that is what I'm going with. You may please go argue with him if you disagree :D


There are two views of ontology; one view is advanced by shaakaTaayana and yaashka and is known as atomic where as the other, which is termed holistic, is advanced by grammarian paaNini, putatively a contemporary of yaashka.

Atomistic view says that the words themselves carry meaning and verbs are derived from roots that are nouns where as the holistic view is that words carry only part of the semantics which is completed only in the context of a sentence (or even larger units like shlOka, rrk, sootra etc.

Here is the relevant link. The debate is still on, it seems.

yaashka

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7105
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby disha » 15 Dec 2017 06:22

Rama Setu and the "confirmation" from "US of A" that it is man made and is at least 5000-7000 years old has put paid to all this AIT, AMT, ATT etc.

So Rama the aryan comes, builds a bridge to Sri Lanka, uses Hanuman as his "chariot" fighting against mighty Ravana who has a horse and a chariot and defeats it and then goes back and rules from Ayodhya.

Meanwhile all Aryans migrated back to areas near caspian sea, forgot all about this event as if mass amnesia struck them and came back wiped out the "Indus Valley civilization" and then remembered back their gathas and in the process also invented Mahabarata.

I think it is time to invent a proto-proto-IE language that the aryans took back from India to their Uhermait, invented the proto-IE and brought it back supplanting the Saraswati Valley Civilization and replacing their Sanskrit based on proto-proto-IE with Sanskrit derived from the proto-IE.

===

In other words, there were no Aryans. The only aryans were indic "aryas" or "noble men".

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9910
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Dec 2017 06:34

Please check this out too.

Pragmatics

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 15 Dec 2017 07:04

Amber G. wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
Thanks for your input,
But to reiterate the point I have been making, whether Alcor/Mizar are going around the polaris, or Thuban, or Vega as its pole star, their front/back relationship ( as shown in the following telescopic picture) has remained more or less same for last 7000 years and longer and will remain so for a long-long time (Mizar moving south at relative speed of 9 mas/yr, eastward movement difference negligible). If Alcor was walking in "front" (culminating first) then, it is still walking in "front", and its pole star of revolution ( Polaris/Thuban/Vega etc.) does not matter.


theoretically It does matter, and depending on your definition of "negligible' only you can decide if it that matters. (or noticeable without telescope (or more accurate observatories) Math can settle this, just calculate it . (Check out the math dhaga, I have given the method in detail)
(For clarity -CALCULATE the difference in right ascension (equivalent to longitude on earth to determine east-west ness) and see how it changes with precision (7000 years ago). Does it changes sign? .

Disclaimer - By no means I am supporting (or not supporting) or endorsing any particular conclusions drawn by others - I am merely providing clear mathematical tool to settle this type of question..

I know I am not a rishi but most likely I will not notice right ascension difference of 0.1-0.2 degree (present difference in RA of these two stars) with un-aided eye without a observatory( 0.01 degree is resolving power of unaided eye)... there are many other stars where this difference would be easily noticeable.

For example only if some one documented accurate declination of bright star Abhijit (Vega) , (or Polaris or Tuban) we would have known the era pretty accurately.


Can you provide a link to the exact post where you gave the method for calculating Alcor/Mizar positions w.r.t time past or future? You did post the link to math. thread earlier but I could not locate the right post as the thread was interspersed with many unrelated problems/solutions. I would be curious to do the computation.

I am ignoring the east/west relative difference in the real motion and only considering the north/south movement because the difference is only about ~1 mas/year in east/west direction and at this rate it would 100,000+ years more or longer to see the discernable visual impact of movement with the naked eye given the visual acuity of 1-3 arcminutes, and we are only concerned with a period of about 15,000 years or so. Turns out the north-south movement does not make much of difference to the naked eye either.

My assumption that axis of rotation, whether it passes through Vega, or Thuban, or Polaris, does not make any difference on the "front/back" relationship or which one culminates first, is based on on the fact that direction of revolution remains the same in all cases i.e. anti-clockwise. But agree with that the best way to show that would be math.!

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 15 Dec 2017 07:25

A_Gupta wrote:
Dipanker wrote:But to reiterate the point I have been making, whether Alcor/Mizar are going around the polaris, or Thuban, or Vega as its pole star, their front/back relationship ( as shown in the following telescopic picture) has remained more or less same for last 7000 years and longer and will remain so for a long-long time (Mizar moving south at relative speed of 9 mas/yr, eastward movement difference negligible). If Alcor was walking in "front" (culminating first) then, it is still walking in "front", and its pole star of revolution ( Polaris/Thuban/Vega etc.) does not matter.


Sigh. The proper motion of the stars is irrelevant. The question is which one rises first, or reaches the zenith first, and that does depend on the axis of rotation of the earth.

Now, you can argue that it is perhaps a rather unlikely-naked-eye-unaided-with-anything-, even a plumb line, -observation. But that is a different argument.


My assumption is that as long as the direction of rotation remains same, the axis of rotation whether passing through Polaris or Thuban or Vega should not affect order in which Alcor/Mizar culminate. This should be provable by using math. and back calculating their positions.

The reason I think I need to consider the real motion of the stars is because this is the only factor which affects the spatial relationship between the stars. However in this case the movement of the concerned star ( Alcor/Mizar) is quite small for the time horizon of 7,000 - 15,000 we are interested in, at least to the naked eye, which I consider is a good thing, else the change in spatial relationship alone can change the order of culmination.

Can you cite your reason why you consider the real motion of the stars irrelevant ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 15 Dec 2017 07:29

disha wrote:
I think it is time to invent a proto-proto-IE

We can simply start with "proto Indian"

What is proto Indian and when was it spoken?

It was spoken 30,000 years ago by the people who painted images of dancers and hunters in the Bhimbetka caves of Madhya Pradesh. They had red dyes BTW :) Those cave have evidence of continuous occupation till historic times.

Proto "Indo-European" suggests a language that was destined to go both to India and Europe - an idea that suits European history and claims on Sanskrit. Our people were speaking proto-Indian. Later that proto Indian went out as proto-European. There was never ever any "Proto-Indo European"

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Dec 2017 09:10

Dipanker wrote:
My assumption is that as long as the direction of rotation remains same, the axis of rotation whether passing through Polaris or Thuban or Vega should not affect order in which Alcor/Mizar culminate. This should be provable by using math. and back calculating their positions.


That is a bad assumption, and we don't need much math to see it.

Imagine a pair of stars that are on the same meridian with today's north (celestial) pole, i.e., they are identical in their east-west positions, they are only differ in north-south (i.e., they differ in declination, but have the same right ascension, see diagram below). They reach the highest point in the sky, their zenith, at the same time.

Now move the north pole to anywhere else. Now the pair of stars are not on the same meridian, and one has to be east of the other.

Image

We have thus shown that keeping the same direction of rotation, the change of axis of rotation, i.e., north pole, can cause a pair of stars to change between rising at the same time and one rising earlier than the other. I.e., they do not have the same right ascension with respect to some other north pole.

Can you cite your reason why you consider the real motion of the stars irrelevant ?


Because the change in orientation of the line between the stars and the angular separation between the stars over 10,000 years is tiny - of the order of an arc minute; while the angle involved in precession of the earth's axis of rotation is of the order of 26 degrees.

dsreedhar
BRFite
Posts: 258
Joined: 10 Jan 2011 06:57

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby dsreedhar » 15 Dec 2017 09:43

shiv wrote:
dsreedhar wrote:A slightly diff aspect in the Aryan-Dravid theory -
Have there been any African (black) migrations to India prior to 2000yrs? If yes, is it likely some darker Indians are linked to Africans and brought their culture along? How would that play into this?

What do you mean "darker Indians are linked to Africans" and brought "their" culture along? Are you suggesting that "fairer Indians" are not linked to Africans and did not bring "their" (African) culture? You seem to have some old European racist biases in your head. You are speaking the language of racist Indologists AND their current day descendants the Christian evangelists who seek to widen an artificial Aryan-Dravidian divide by creating new fake theories.


Shiv saar... I consider myself a SDRE from south on the side of debunking the Aryan theory.

The primary target is to prove that vedic culture, sanskrit originated from India. The African link if has any truth maybe a secondary target to explain any Dravidian sub-cultures. Maybe??? Just a thought, not to derail your track. It is the commies language to refer to darker Indians as local/natives.
I am eagerly waiting for the session on this topic in Chennai.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 15 Dec 2017 12:13

Here is my brand new theory,
Western block gone through min. three waves till 1000BC.

First one is, Vedic wave through pre-Avesta religion. It is the reason why many languages sound similar to sankrit in Europe. It was earlier promotion of spirituality. Dates are unknown. Mostly happened before 2000BC. There might be more than one wave in this period.

Second one is, Buddhist wave through their Bikku. This is main reason for earlier Greek thought evolution. This wave lasted for 700 to 800 years. By 1000BC, it was gone.

Third wave is, revival of rituals through Zoroastrian religion. Persian Empire and last reign of Assyrian empire established during this period. This one has recorded history. Later Greek and Indo empires seen full acceptance of buddhism.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gautam_2, Shakthi, Venky36, vijayk and 59 guests