5 ms·

Great scientists including Oppenheimer and Einstein drew inspiration from Hindu texts, the Vedas and Srimad Bhagvatam goes into very specific detail of how the

Great scientists including Oppenheimer and Einstein drew inspiration from Hindu texts, the Vedas and Srimad Bhagvatam goes into very specific detail of how the Universe was created. They go into detail of how many Universes actually exist in the causal ocean, these are created and destroyed in an instant, but their lifetimes seem an eternity to us inside the Universe. i.e space time being curved and all that. Hindu texts went into this detail long before any other scientists "discovered it" and Aryabhatta a Hindu scientist also elaborated on this.

WhitneyLand 10y ago
Putting quotes around Einstein discovering spacetime is insulting and totally incorrect. Hindu cosmology is based on religion and supernatural concepts, it is not science. It's interesting that Hindu mythology included references to a multiverse and other concepts that sound similar to modern theories. It's also interesting that science fiction writers have foreshadowed future achievements, but Jules Verne is not a scientist. A lot of scientists are inspired by fiction, that doesn't mean you start putting their accomplishments in quotes.
- catawbasam 10y ago
  Minkowski, not Einstein.
- DougN7 10y ago
  I think you're really just saying "your belief system is totally wrong and mine is the right one." If you're Hindu (if I understood the parent), it was known as much before as it was later known by Einstein. This is something that always intrigues me. People that believe in science (me included) don't see how much faith they too have in what they are taught. And that over time and with more understanding, what they were taught also ends up being false. For example, I was taught the ultimate truth by scientists that electrons orbited an atomic nucleus. I had blind faith. Turns out we were all wrong.
  - redial 10y ago
    The mistake is believing. What is believed is irrelevant. Science should not be taken at face value any more than religion should. If you accept science just because you are told to believe in it, then it's not science.
    - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
      Well, technically, all scientific knowledge is belief. There is no "knowledge" as some guaranteed to be correct entity. Everything is a belief in the brain. The difference between religious belief and scientific belief is confidence level. What we refer to as "scientific facts" are beliefs with very high confidence level due to countless testing in real world. It may not be apparent that laws of physics are a shared belief, because we are so certain of them being true, but there are plenty scientific results that are barely higher than religious beliefs. Especially medical, sociological studies, etc. And to continue on your point about religion - just because someone somewhere thought up of some idea, that translated to modern language and interpreted in modern knowledge framework sound similar to some of the obscure theories that are not yet falsified is nothing but unexpected. It would be hard to believe that from countless works of fiction that were produced during thousands of years around the world, none of them gad anything that resembles some strange theory. It literally shows nothing - neither that these unverified theories are right, nor that some ancient people had some superior cosmological knowledge we are just discovering right now.
      - redial 10y ago
        I agree, that is why I wrote mistake in cursive. But there is a difference between blind belief, like the one described on op's comment and, as you put it, scientific belief. Ignoring that difference is the mistake.
    - DougN7 10y ago
      I don't think you're being intellectually honest. Do you believe black holes exist? What about the Big Bang? DNA? I'm almost certain you have not independently proven their existence. So do you believe or are you skeptical of such things?
- amriksohata 10y ago
  @WhitneyLand Sorry for insulting you with the truth lol! The specific thing I am talking about is not based on supernatural concepts, as @DougN7 said, turns out half the Science that comes out has to be revised when they realise its not true. There was a time when Scientists said in the 60s that smoking was good for you, then there were the Harvard Scientists that were bought out to say that sugar has no effect on our weight. Now tell me, if such great scientists can get it wrong, how can you be insulted? Comparing ideas that great scientists read up on as fiction is insulting to both their theories and you're only fooling people.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    >thing I am talking about is not based on supernatural concepts Please cite evidence that Hindu cosmology is falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it's supernatural. Science doesn't always have to be right, it just has to be willing to be proven wrong. That's how it's supposed to work. >that great scientists read up on as fiction is insulting Read a little history, this happens all the time.
    - amriksohata 10y ago
      "Science doesn't always have to be right, it just has to be willing to be proven wrong. That's how it's supposed to work." That my friend is the ultimate cop out clause, its like saying "oh we can bash religion for when its wrong but you cant bash science".
negamax 10y ago
Ohh man, as an Indian and who's aware of these texts. They are pure speculation. Although a good one. Question raised here is legitimate and ocean, blah and blah; doesn't answer the question why something exists.
- amriksohata 10y ago
  @negamax, the scripts specify exactly why we exist.
  - negamax 10y ago
    Sorry but you are wrong. You are making classic mistake of viewing ancient texts in light of recent findings and theories. Let me share some examples In Varahavatar, Earth was submerged into ocean. You realise that ancients for a long time had idea of Earth as flat. How do you expect them to make concrete theories about universe? Not until Ramayana does reference to Earth as a ball appears. But even that text (which is relatively new) has Sun circling the Earth. Ancient texts are great and give us glimpse into creative capacity of human mind. But let's not try to pass them as scientific
    - amriksohata 10y ago
      "You are making classic mistake of viewing ancient texts in light of recent findings and theories." No, thats confirmation bias. That is not what Hindu texts are saying at all, keep in mind these scriptures were spoken tens of thousands of years ago and then written down, whilst Scientists are only understanding our solar system well enough over the last 1000 years. Planets like Shani (Saturn) etc were well known in Hindu texts long before telescopes existed.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

Putting quotes around Einstein discovering spacetime is insulting and totally incorrect. Hindu cosmology is based on religion and supernatural concepts, it is not science. It's interesting that Hindu mythology included references to a multiverse and other concepts that sound similar to modern theories. It's also interesting that science fiction writers have foreshadowed future achievements, but Jules Verne is not a scientist. A lot of scientists are inspired by fiction, that doesn't mean you start putting their accomplishments in quotes.

catawbasam 10y ago
Minkowski, not Einstein.
DougN7 10y ago
I think you're really just saying "your belief system is totally wrong and mine is the right one." If you're Hindu (if I understood the parent), it was known as much before as it was later known by Einstein. This is something that always intrigues me. People that believe in science (me included) don't see how much faith they too have in what they are taught. And that over time and with more understanding, what they were taught also ends up being false. For example, I was taught the ultimate truth by scientists that electrons orbited an atomic nucleus. I had blind faith. Turns out we were all wrong.
- redial 10y ago
  The mistake is believing. What is believed is irrelevant. Science should not be taken at face value any more than religion should. If you accept science just because you are told to believe in it, then it's not science.
  - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
    Well, technically, all scientific knowledge is belief. There is no "knowledge" as some guaranteed to be correct entity. Everything is a belief in the brain. The difference between religious belief and scientific belief is confidence level. What we refer to as "scientific facts" are beliefs with very high confidence level due to countless testing in real world. It may not be apparent that laws of physics are a shared belief, because we are so certain of them being true, but there are plenty scientific results that are barely higher than religious beliefs. Especially medical, sociological studies, etc. And to continue on your point about religion - just because someone somewhere thought up of some idea, that translated to modern language and interpreted in modern knowledge framework sound similar to some of the obscure theories that are not yet falsified is nothing but unexpected. It would be hard to believe that from countless works of fiction that were produced during thousands of years around the world, none of them gad anything that resembles some strange theory. It literally shows nothing - neither that these unverified theories are right, nor that some ancient people had some superior cosmological knowledge we are just discovering right now.
    - redial 10y ago
      I agree, that is why I wrote mistake in cursive. But there is a difference between blind belief, like the one described on op's comment and, as you put it, scientific belief. Ignoring that difference is the mistake.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    I don't think you're being intellectually honest. Do you believe black holes exist? What about the Big Bang? DNA? I'm almost certain you have not independently proven their existence. So do you believe or are you skeptical of such things?
amriksohata 10y ago
@WhitneyLand Sorry for insulting you with the truth lol! The specific thing I am talking about is not based on supernatural concepts, as @DougN7 said, turns out half the Science that comes out has to be revised when they realise its not true. There was a time when Scientists said in the 60s that smoking was good for you, then there were the Harvard Scientists that were bought out to say that sugar has no effect on our weight. Now tell me, if such great scientists can get it wrong, how can you be insulted? Comparing ideas that great scientists read up on as fiction is insulting to both their theories and you're only fooling people.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  >thing I am talking about is not based on supernatural concepts Please cite evidence that Hindu cosmology is falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it's supernatural. Science doesn't always have to be right, it just has to be willing to be proven wrong. That's how it's supposed to work. >that great scientists read up on as fiction is insulting Read a little history, this happens all the time.
  - amriksohata 10y ago
    "Science doesn't always have to be right, it just has to be willing to be proven wrong. That's how it's supposed to work." That my friend is the ultimate cop out clause, its like saying "oh we can bash religion for when its wrong but you cant bash science".

negamax 10y ago

Ohh man, as an Indian and who's aware of these texts. They are pure speculation. Although a good one. Question raised here is legitimate and ocean, blah and blah; doesn't answer the question why something exists.

amriksohata 10y ago
@negamax, the scripts specify exactly why we exist.
- negamax 10y ago
  Sorry but you are wrong. You are making classic mistake of viewing ancient texts in light of recent findings and theories. Let me share some examples In Varahavatar, Earth was submerged into ocean. You realise that ancients for a long time had idea of Earth as flat. How do you expect them to make concrete theories about universe? Not until Ramayana does reference to Earth as a ball appears. But even that text (which is relatively new) has Sun circling the Earth. Ancient texts are great and give us glimpse into creative capacity of human mind. But let's not try to pass them as scientific
  - amriksohata 10y ago
    "You are making classic mistake of viewing ancient texts in light of recent findings and theories." No, thats confirmation bias. That is not what Hindu texts are saying at all, keep in mind these scriptures were spoken tens of thousands of years ago and then written down, whilst Scientists are only understanding our solar system well enough over the last 1000 years. Planets like Shani (Saturn) etc were well known in Hindu texts long before telescopes existed.