Of course that is your money. You can spend it as you like! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by indian224080
Printable View
Of course that is your money. You can spend it as you like! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by indian224080
It is up to you to reply or not. I am not at all your nanny.Quote:
Originally Posted by indian224080
Where do you see personal insults? Because I said that I am double PhD and you assume that you are simply nothing?
I am currently going for my third PhD in Hub Cleansing as my username indicates.
Very well said, VM!Quote:
Originally Posted by viLakkumaaru
The funny part here is His "great probabilty" applies only for finding the value of "pi"! And he uses "quantum mechanics" as a support for his "probability theory"!!!! :roll:
I am saddened by the tone this thread appears to have taken, and I'm sorry that my post seems to have started it off. I'm posting one last contribution to this thread which, I hope, will make it clearer exactly why I intervened in this discussion, and why, precisely, I object to our modern wont of glorifiying ancient India while turning a blind eye to its faults.
Traditional accounts of Aryabhatta suggest his place of birth was Kerala which was, in those days, the Chera kingdom of Tamilakam, thus making him as Tamil as IlankovaTikaL and KulasekarazhvAr. But the fact that he might have been Tamil doesn't change the fact that not all his formulae were correct, nor should it change anyone's view of him. Madhava, who I mention below, was also born in Kerala in the 14th century, when it was still considered a part of the Tamil country. That, too, ought not to change one's opinion of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by indian224080
Some evidence of that would be much appreciated. Of the values I know, Baudhayana's sulbasutra gives three different values of pi, of which the most accurate gets no closer than 3.114. This is not particularly impressive, but it was good enough for its purpose, which was building altars for Vedic rites.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
Later calculations are better. Aryabhatta's value of pi is correct for a fourth-decimal rounding; and Madhava's calculation in the 15th century AD gets it right up to the 11th decimal place which I believe is the most accurate as of that date. These are impressive enough, yet it does not change the fact that they both seem to have primarily been interested in better ways of calculating planetary orbits, for the sake of being able to make better astrological predictions.
Of course, and interdisciplinarity is one of the strengths of modern scholarship. Why else does the highest degree a university confers in all disciplines carry the same title, "Philosophiæ Doctor"? And else would we use a title which means, literally, "a teacher of the love of learning"?Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
This would be all well and good if the phenomena we were discussing were at the quantum level. They are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
In any event, quantum physicists are as interested in experimentation as laypersons are. Thus, for example, cosmic string theory in its original form was abandoned largely because the cosmic microwave background, when measured, did not meet the predictions of the theory; and it is generally accepted that many aspects of currently popular superstring theory will have to be abandoned if the observations we derive from using interferometry to measure gravitational waves do not, as and when our equipment is sensitive enough, indicate the presence of the waves they ought to emit.
Surely you are aware of the vast amount of experimental work currently being done in sub-atomic physics? How then could you claim that the Uncertainity Principle negates the importance of experimentation?
Not at all, you misunderstand the scientific process. Theories are built mathematically. These theories are then tested experimentally. Newtonian gravity, for example, is a mathematically sound model, but is nonetheless not an accurate depiction of reality because experimental results are at variance with its predictions. If measurements at solar eclipses had failed to demonstrate gravitational lensing, general relativity would have had to be abandoned. This much ought to be obvious to any scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
Of course. It isn't hard. The reason the suggestion that time is the fourth dimension, thus creating a curved space-time manifold, has so much acceptance today is because its predictions have been experimentally verified. Gravititional lensing and the precession of Mercury's orbit are the best-known examples. If the analysis of Gravity Probe B's data fails to demonstrate evidence of the geodetic effect, though, the theory will be abandoned.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
This is how true science works. It is next to impossible to prove that a theory is right, but it can be proven wrong. In science, one therefore tests the predictions of one's theory, and if these predictions do not fit one's observations, one modifies one's theory to fit the predictions. As Aryabhatta and Bhaskara could easily have done in relation to their formulae, had they but tried. But they didn't, and even today, too many of us in their position would not.
The "idealisation" and "romanticisation" consists of playing down or ignoring aspects of our history which do not conform to the idealised picture of our ancient society that is sought to be built up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
I'm not very sure what you mean by a "backward", but do feel free to point me to instances in any of my posts which demonstrate a failure to properly comprehend what you've written.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
In my view, there's much of worth in ancient India (and we tend to forget that "ancient India" isn't synonymous with any one tradition) that we can learn from. For example, in my student days, I personally used number mnemonics derived from the ancient Indian system to memorise common logarithms, which helped me to save precious minutes during exams and impressed my teachers no end. But that is besides the point. The point is that we must be critical in examining our own past. Being blind to the flaws of our ancestors is the best way of ensuring that we remain oblivious to the ways in which these faults live on in us today. They do in so many ways, that we simply cannot afford to be blind to them, if we are serious about building a better society in our country. Why do we as a nation so easily fall prey to "herbal fuel" and all sorts of similar scams? If we'd only think about it, we'd see how closely this is linked to the reason why we produce so many engineers and researches in technical fields, but so few cutting-edge researchers in the sciences, and how both are linked to the limitations of ancient Indian society of the sort I have tried to point out.
And that is really all I have to say on this topic.
I think that the C.P Ramanujam's name came up in the discuusion. His name is not as well known as it should be. Here is a link to a short biography of C.P.R:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...Ramanujam.html
Swarup
The fact of the matter is, the Vedics calculated pi to 32 decimal places. You don't deny that Madhava calculated pi to any number of decimal places. But if Madhava had not been a South Indian, you would cast doubt upoun him as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
That is the point I made here. India was not a closed culture. It is well known that the Chinese also made great advances in mathematics and astronomy. To assume that the Indians were not aware of these discoveries and were not influenced by them in some form or another is pure nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
Any experiment is subject to some form of error. HSP may be for electrons, but any any experiment will give limited results for accuracy and precision.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
Experimentation is simply another method of verification, useful only for physical sciences. The results of classical number theory do not demand any experimentation. Ironically, many of the ideas from pure mathematics become the basis for entirely new concepts in physics... e.g. the notion of N-spaces. This is why the Vedics were able to concieve of quantum mechanics 10, 15 centuries before the West. The phenomenon exists in and of itself. Its existence can be deduced metaphysically/mathematically. Experiment actually limits the scope of the phenomemon to within the range of what is empirically feasible to the human senses.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
The 4th dimension is entirely a consequence of the Riemann Geometry of hyperspace (from pure mathematics) in general. One does not need gravitational lensing or orbital periods to verify the existance of n-dimensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
Again, the mathematical theory and the scientific theory are two different constructs. The scientific application may rely on the MT, but the MT is justified on the basis of axioms that belong entirely to MT.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
Since you are biased towards all things Dravidian (Tamil), I highly recommend you read G.H. Hardy's biography of Ramanujan. Without any formal mathemtical training, Ramanujan was able to concieve of theorems that spanned hundreds of yrs relative to the development of Western mathematics. Now of course, many of Ramanujan's discoveries have been put to use in applied science. In the same way H.G. Wells described technology hundreds of yrs before it came into actual being. Like I said, experimentation is there only to limit the phenomena to within the range of the human senses. I am sure that many ancient ppls, not only Indians, knew just as much, if not more, than what we know now. Just because they did not leave the results of their "experiments" in scientific journals does not make their discoveries any lesser.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
We have the actual texts where Madhava gives the value of pi upto 11 decimals. There is no equivalent Vedic text. In point of fact, the Sulbasutras, which are late Vedic texts struggle to get a value accurate to one decimal place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
You are quite wrong. Mathematical "phenomena" do not "exist" in any sense of the word. Mathematical models are precisely that - models which describe possible phenomena, which may or may not exist. Physical phenomena exist. Try building your house as a tesseract, if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
One does not need them to theorise about n-dimensions. One needs them to test the question of whether or not they actually exist outside the realms of mathematical modelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
This would have been fine if Aryabhatta was engaged in constructing pure mathematical theory. But he wasn't. Have you actually read his Aryabhatia in the original Sanskrit, particularly the last seventy-five verses? That will tell you quite clearly what his mathematics was oriented towards.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
It is interesting that you bring him up. For a brief while, India produced many great men - both scientists and thinkers. I mean of course scientists like CV Raman, JC Bose, Homi Jehangir Bhabha, and Ramanujan, but also thinkers like Vivekananda. Indians in those days had enough humility to realise that Indian civilisation was not the be-all, end-all of this world. They understood that our culture had many shortcomings, and that there was much they could learn from the west. For a while, they set our country on the path to greatness. Unfortunately, we have today acquired this tremendous arrogance that everything that is worth knowing was known by our ancestors, and we need look no further than them for anything. Which is why we must rely on people like JC Bose as examples of Indian accomplishment, for where is his modern day Indian counterpart?Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
If Aryabhatta and Bhaskara had carried out one simple experiment, they would have discovered that some of their formulae were wrong. One simple experiment. If their successors had had a solid grounding in experimentation, they would not have had to resort to mimamsa - MIMAMSA - to settle scientific disputes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
I am tired of arguing over this. This thread has brought back quite clearly to mind exactly why I left the old hub so many years ago. I refer in particular to statements directed at me such as the famous "you backwards cannot read", and now these:
andQuote:
Originally Posted by SRS
none of which I will dignify with a response. I find this attitude wearisome in the extreme. I suppose no amount of rules or moderation can change the basic nature of this forum's discussions at its lowest level, and I am absolutely sick and tired of trying to work with it. Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRS
Aravindhan,
I hope that you will stay on this time. I enjoyed reading many of your posts and I feel that I learnt some from them.
Regards,
swarup
Aravindan,
you have been doing a great work . It is not that you are without any patrons here. In my opinion your comments and remarks are true to the spirit and ambition of this forum, but dont let other people's half-baked remarks hurt your stay here. They simply dont belong to your intellectual level to demand any apprehension.
Dogs may bark but let the caravan go on.
That is not true. The text exists but your inferiority complex (the same inferiority complex that believes in AIT) refuses to recognize it. Read very carefully:Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
"It turns out that decimal form of the transcendental number: Pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832792 etc was hidden or codified in these following syllables, by chanting: "Gopi Bhagyamaduv rata Shringishodadi Sandiga Kala Jeevitarava Tava Galaddhalara Sangara" (Observing the top line, "go" = 3, "pi" = 1, "bha = 4, "ya" = 1, "ma" = 5, "dhu" = 9, "ra" =2, "ta" = 6 etc giving the first 8 figures of Pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). "
Where did I say the "mathematical phenomenon" exists? I stated very clearly that the phenomenon can be deduced on the basis of mathematical logic or metaphysical consideration alone. One can easily ask, does the universe extend forever or curve upoun itself? And then one can use topology or some such mathematical means to answer that question. No "physical model" is necessary to do this. It can all be done in the head - which is exactly what the Vedic seers did. Experiments are there to gather data. Certain segments of this quantitative data will eventually be used to give a qualitative assessment of the phenomenon under consideration. Quite often the entire experimental process can be bypassed on the basis of some mathematical proposition alone. For example, Kepler spent 20 yrs gathering data to form his so-called "Kepler's Laws." However, using basic calculus, all of Kepler's Laws can be easily derived within an hr or two. What is the value of experimentation then? I do not question its accuracy. However I believe mathematics will always have the upper hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
Of course Aryabhatta was a man of many talents. And in most cases he was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan
What is the point of distorting history because of an inferiority complex? Anyway, I blame the Westerners for this. They imposed their economic system, educational system, in some cases religious system on us. What we gained as a so-called "modern" nation has cost us in certain other respects, as this thread clearly demonstrates. The Chinese, Jews, etc. do not question the extent of the accomplishments made by their ancestors in the same way as a certain segment of Indians.Quote:
Originally Posted by aravindhan