Wednesday, March 19, 2014


                                    GRAVITY - A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW.


          Everyone knows what gravity does. But no one knows what gravity is! Unlike mass, forces are inferred through their interaction with other bodies. Each application of force generates an entangled couple of equal and opposite interactions that generate impedance and stress in the medium. Within any system, this creates four entangled sets of proximity-distance variables between the bodies (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-distance, and distance-proximity). These are the four fundamental forces of Nature: strong, two types of weak interactions, and electromagnetic interactions respectively. These are confined intra-body variables that produce all particles in different combinations and determine dimension. Gravity is the all pervading force that acts on each body linearly. Due to differential mass, the resultant nonlinear movement appears as an inter-body force.


          This is a conceptual review. Whether the concept should start with the language of mathematics? The validity of a physical statement rests on its correspondence to reality. The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency. There can be physical theories without first writing down the equations. For example, there is no equation for the Observer. Yet, it is universally accepted in physics. Our thoughts, emotions and expressions are linguistic - not mathematical. Newton did not write the equations first. Mathematics is unavoidable only when we verify the validity of a concept – how much the system changes when a parameter is changed. It does not explain the what, why, when, where and with whom, about the system. These are the subject matters of physics. Physics explains what gravity is. Mathematics explains what gravity does. The left-hand side of all equations represents freewill, as we are free to choose the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism as once any or all parameters are changed, the right-hand side changes deterministically. The equality or inequality sign prescribes the special conditions (such as a temperature threshold in chemical reactions) or constants (G in the law of gravitation) that need to be overtaken before starting the reaction and getting deterministic results. Arbitrary changes to or exchanges of parameters between the two sides of the equations are not permitted, though often wrongly resorted to in mathematical physics.

          Modern science is built incrementally over earlier “established theories”. Sometimes this process stretches the original theory too far to breaking point. Sometimes fiction dominates over physical concepts. For example, ocular perception of form is possible only with electromagnetic radiation, where the electric field and the magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to their direction of motion. Hence dimension, which is the perception of differentiation between the internal structural space and external relational space of any object - thus ocular perception of form - is described by three mutually perpendicular axes that are invariant under mutual transformation. Yet, even after a century of failure to find extra-dimensions, physicists are reluctant to discard the fiction perpetuated by the novel FLAT LANDS. Those who superstitiously believe that the “established theories” are sacrosanct; need not read further.

          Newton codified the then available knowledge into a mathematical format to show how the body moves under gravitation, when any of the parameters like mass or distance was changed. Subject to limitations of precision measurement, it worked well. But his physics; i.e., what, why, when, and with whom, about the system; lacked precision. He treated the apple and the Earth as fixed, and explained the falling of the apple due to gravity. Just before the fall, the apple had the same mass and distance – hence the same force of gravity. It did not fall because it was bound to its stem by a force that surpassed a threshold signified by the gravitational constant G that permeated the field between them (the continuum). When this bond weakened (due to ripening) to below this threshold, it fell due to the change in density gradient (G has units in mass and distance scales over time). It rested on Earth, because the density gradient of the continuum between the contact point and centers of both the apple and the Earth was much above this threshold.

          Einstein also treated the apple and the Earth as fixed, but explained the falling apple due to curvature of the space between them that brought them near. He explained the separation of the apple and its stem by an equal and opposite curvature of space. His explanation of gravity involved two complementary localities – that between the apple and the Earth and the apple and its stem. The changes in curvature of space during that instant (spacetime) in these localities balanced each other due to the equivalence principle (EP). But unlike the Newtonian theory, it does not explain the universal threshold limit G, though he used it in his equations. Now let us examine the EP and GR, because after the recent Black Hole Information Paradox controversy, it has become extremely necessary to either conform or refute these concepts.


The cornerstone of GR is the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses: mi = mG. The EP does not flow from any mathematics. No one has given any mathematical reason (like a consistency constraint) why all matter fields should couple universally to gravity. This is not the case for the other fundamental forces or the Higgs field (which is why different particles have different masses. Higgs field is specific as to which particle couples to it. Gravity is a universal field - an all pervading medium. Every particle in the universe, whether massive or not, couples to it the same way). If F=ma and universal free fall for all mass types hold, F ≈ g ≈ a holds. It can be explained only if gravity acts like a river current propelling all objects uniformly, but differentially based on their mass, causing differential local density gradients. The galactic and star systems are like a “free vortex” arising out of conflicting currents in which the tangential velocity ‘v’ increases as the center line is approached, so that the angular momentum ‘rmv’ is constant.

The EP has been generally accepted without much questioning. Actually GR assumes general covariance and the equivalence of the two masses follows. General covariance means invariance under diffeomorphisms. This implies the EP. This implies that gravitational and inertial masses are equal. It is not a first principle of physics, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. The appeal to believe in such a miraculous form of gravity is very strong. Virtually everyone accepts EP as an article of faith even though it has never been positively verified directly by either experimental or observational physics. All indirect experiments show that the equivalence or otherwise of gravitational and inertial masses is only one of description.

No one knows why there should be two or more mass terms. In principle there is no reason why mi = mG: why should the gravitational charge and the inertial mass be equal? The EP states that the effect of gravity does not depend on the nature or internal structure of a body. The experiments of Galileo, who dropped balls of different masses from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, were conformed in 1971, when Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott performed a similar experiment. A heavy object (a 1.32 kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and simultaneously strike the lunar surface. Because they were essentially in near vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer proving, all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. Thus, like c, the acceleration in free space should not be related to mass. This independence of acceleration from mass should be inbuilt in the gravitational equation. But the values of G (constant – though it might be changing: doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.111.101102) and g (variable), depend on mass, also like a steamer powered by an engine that is driven due to free will.

The underlying gauge symmetries that describe the fundamental interactions require the fundamental fields to be massless. The Higgs mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking appears in the equation of motion of the field particle, i.e., mi (in the classical limit). If we put the particle in a gravitational field, then it will “feel a force” given by the “gravitational charge” times the gravitational field. This appears as two masses “mG” and “mi”, though there is only one mass term associated with each field. The inertial mass is said to measure the “inertia”, while the gravitational mass is the coupling strength to the universal gravitational field. The gravitational mass plays the same role as the electric charge for electromagnetic interactions, the color charge for strong interactions and the particle flavor for weak interactions.

Inertial mass mi is said to be the mass in Newton’s law F=mia. Gravitational mass mg is said to be the coupling strength in the Newton’s law of gravitation: FG = (gm1m2/r2) x mG.
Thus: mia = FG = (gm1m2/r2) x mG.
The quantity gm1m2/r2 is the “gravitational field” (say G) and mG is the “gravitational charge”, so that one can write: F x g = mG x G, just like we write: mi x a = q x E for the electric field. This has nothing to do with the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism.

The gravitational mass mg is said to produce and respond to gravitational fields. It is said to supply the mass factor in the inverse square law of gravitation: F=Gm1m2/r2. The inertial mass mi is said to supply the mass factor in Newton’s 2nd Law: F=ma. If gravitation is proportional to g, say F=kg (because the weight of a particle depends on its gravitational mass, i.e. mg), and acceleration is given by a, then according to Newton’s law, ma=kg. Since according to GR, g=a, combining both we get m=k. Here m is the so-called “inertial mass” and k is the “gravitational mass”. Acceleration due to gravity g has the same value for all bodies placed at the same height – hence a function of the distance from the center of Earth. Some think that the EP implies that a test particle travels along a geodesic in the background space-time. This is due to the “swirl” in the CMB due to B-mode polarization pattern. EP assumes that in all locally Lorentz (inertial) frames, the laws of Special Relativity (SR) must hold. From this, it is concluded that only the geometric structure of spacetime can define the paths of free bodies. If x is a particle’s world-line, parameterized by proper time, T is its tangent vector, D denotes covariant differentiation along the world-line, and R is the Ricci tensor, then: D(T) = 0 and D(T)=R(T) are both tensorial; hence generally covariant. But only one of them describes a geodesic in a general curved space-time.

It is believed that Gravity does not couple to the “gravitational mass” but rather to the Ricci Tensor, which works only if space-time is flat. Ricci Tensor does not provide a full description in more than three dimensions. Schwarzschild equation for black holes, where space-time is extremely curved, uses the Riemann Tensor. Using Riemann tensor, instead of Ricci tensor to calculate energy momentum tensor in 3+1 dimensions would not lead to any meaningful results, though in most cases, the Riemann Tensor is needed before one can determine the Ricci Tensor. Thus, there is really no relation between “gravitational mass” and “inertial mass”, except in Newtonian physics. This is why photons (with zero inertial mass) are affected by gravity. Only manipulations of the Standard Model (SM) to include classical gravity (field theory in curved spacetime) leads to effects like Hawking radiation and the Unrih effect. This is where gravitation and the SM can hypothetically meet.

Gravitation and GR are not included in the SM. Hence the SM really cannot say anything about gravitational mass. If any theory conclusively unifies gravitation with the SM, it may be able to explain the equivalence of the inertial mass and the gravitational mass. The Higgs Boson and the Higgs fields are predictions of the SM which incorporates SR. The Higgs mechanism is intended to explain the “rest mass” of fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons that constitute only about 4.9 % of the total theorized mass of the universe. This rest mass of fundamental particles comprises only a tiny fraction (~1%) of the “rest mass” of atoms. Most of the invariant mass of protons and neutrons is the product of quark kinetic energy confinement when bound by the strong interaction mediated by gluons. It is not directly the result of the Higgs mechanism. However, since SR is part of the SM and since e = mc2, the SM may be said to imply that rest mass from the Higgs mechanism and binding energy from the color force will both contribute equivalently to inertial rest mass of all particles. It is believed that the Higgs field obeys ordinary theory of GR. It means that equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses takes place. The mass-energy of the universe that Dark Energy is said to represent has been reduced from 72.8% to 68.3%. At the same time Dark Matter has been increased from 22.7% to 26.8%. This means the percentage of ordinary matter has gone up from 4.5% to 4.9%. The constituent particles of these mysterious fields most likely do not couple to Higgs field at all. Then, was it imprecise calculation or is something changing?


If we think of gravitational and inertial masses outside the context of a generally covariant theory, then there is still no evidence that they are equal. They may differ by an arbitrary factor which may be absorbed into G or by a variable G. The equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses has been proved indirectly by the Eötvös experiment and many later experiments. An analysis of the experiments of Eötvös about the ratio of gravitational to kinetic mass of a few substances by some scientists yields the result that this ratio for the hydrogen atom, and for the binding energies are equal to that for the neutron with a precision of one part in at least 5.105, and 104 respectively. No conclusion can be drawn about these ratios for the proton and the electron separately. The Eöt-Wash experiment of University of Washington tried to measure the difference in the two masses indirectly by considering “charge/mass” ratios. They have obtained a result, which can be summarized as: (mG/mi) -1≤ 10-13.

Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) experiment used to test for 35 years the EP with the moon, earth and sun being the test-masses to determine whether, in accordance with the Einstein EP, these two celestial bodies are falling toward the Sun at the same rate, despite their different masses, compositions, and gravitational self-energies. Analyses of precision laser ranges to the Moon continue to provide increasingly stringent limits on any violation of the equivalence principle. Current LLR solutions give Δ(mG/mi)EP=(-1.0±1.4)×10-13 for any possible inequality in Δ(mG/mi) - the ratios of the gravitational and inertial masses for the Earth and Moon. This result, in combination with laboratory experiments on the weak EP, yields a strong equivalence principle (SEP) test of: Δ(mG/mi)SEP = (-2.0 ± 2.0) × 10-13.

Also, the corresponding SEP violation parameter η is (4.4±4.5)×10-4, where η=4β-γ-3 and both β and γ are post-Newtonian parameters. Using the Cassini γ, the η result yields β-1 = (1.2±1.1)×10-4. The geodetic precession test, expressed as a relative deviation from general relativity, is: Kgp=-0.0019±0.0064. The time variation in the gravitational constant results in G˙/G=(4±9)×10-13yr-1. Consequently there is no evidence for local (1AU) scale expansion of the solar system. (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 93.261101). Apart from the technical problems in these indirect methods and the assumed values of various parameters - including latest precisely measured value of G - continuing the uncertainty, the measured result that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at the rate of about 3.8 centimeters higher in its orbit each year shows that these indirect results cannot be fully relied upon.

The indirect methods to prove equivalence or otherwise; are questionable. It has been accepted as given that ma=mg. This equivalence is faulty because the description: F=ma is faulty. Once a force is applied to move a body along any axis and the body moves, the force ceases to act on the body and the body moves at constant velocity v’ due to inertia (assuming no other forces are present). The relation between the original velocity v (zero if the body is at rest) and v’ is the rate of change. To accelerate the body further, we need another force to be applied to the body. Without such a new force, the body cannot be accelerated. What is this new force and from where it comes? If any other force acts, then it has to be introduced into the equation. Further, the new force will change the velocity v’ to v’’ – an action chain like continuous change in gravity due to changing distance). Acceleration or “rate of change of the rate of change” means relating v to v’, v’ to v’’, etc. Why should we compare v’’ with v instead of v’?

When answering a question, one should first determine the framework. If we assume nothing then there can be no answer. However, if we take as given that we are going to formulate theories in terms of Lagrangians then there is essentially only one mass parameter that can appear, i.e., the coefficient of the quadratic term. Thus, whatever mass is there, it is only one mass. The Higgs field clearly modifies the on-shell condition in flat space and general relativity simply says that anyone whose frame is locally flat should reproduce the same result. Thus, the Higgs field appears to modify the gravitational mass. It may also modify the inertial mass by the same amount as can be verified by analyzing some scattering diagrams. However, knowing that we are working within the context of a Lagrangian theory, the fact that inertial and gravitational mass are equal is essentially a foregone conclusion. Are they really different? Let us examine.


Now we will examine EP in the light of Russell’s paradox of Set theory. Russell’s paradox raises an interesting question: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself? The general principle is that: there cannot be a set without individual elements (example: a library – collection of books – cannot exist without individual books). There cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous (example: a book is not a library). Collection of different objects unrelated to each other would be individual members as it does not satisfy the condition of a set. Thus a collection of objects is either a set with its elements, or individual objects that are not the elements of a set.

Let us examine the property p(x): x Ï x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library [x Ï x]. Now, suppose this property defines the set R ={x : x Ï x}. It must be possible to determine if RÎR or RÏR. However if RÎR, then the defining properties of R implies that RÏR, which contradicts the supposition that RÎR. Similarly, the supposition RÏR confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property “x Ï x” cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; “Objects can only be composed of other objects” or “Objects shall not contain themselves”. In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a “largest” set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell’s paradox. And in the case of EP, we do just that.


There are similar paradoxes in SR, GR and the EP. Let us examine EP. All objects fall in similar ways under the influence of gravity. Hence it is said that locally one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an un-accelerated frame. But since measurement is a comparison between similars, these must be related to be compared as equivalent or not? Let us take the example of a person seating in the elevator that is falling down a shaft. It is assumed that locally (i.e., during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space) the person can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator and being stationary in completely empty space. This is a wrong assumption. We have experienced the effect of gravity or free fall in closed elevators. Even otherwise, unless the door opens and we find a different floor in front of us, we cannot relate motion of the elevator to the un-accelerated structure of the building – hence no equivalence. The moment we relate to the structure beyond the elevator, we can know the relative motion of the elevator, by comparing it against different floors.

Inside a spaceship in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid (un-accelerated) or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary (fixed velocity) within the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass and energy inside the spaceship and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point in the medium. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. If the person is in a spaceship where he can see the outside objects, then he can know the relative motions by comparing objects at different distances. In a train, if we look only at nearby trees, we may think the trees are moving, but when we compare it with distant objects, we realize the truth. If we cannot see the outside objects, then we will consider only our position with reference to the spaceship – stationary or floating within a frame. There is no equivalence because there is no other frame for comparison. The same principle works for other examples.

It is said that a ray of light, which moves in a straight line will appear curved to the occupants of the spaceship. The light ray from outside can be related to the spaceship only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spaceship. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the spaceship, they will notice this difference and know that the spaceship is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature of light path will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the spaceship, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the spaceship. The consideration will be restricted to those rays emanating from within the spaceship. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the spaceship. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, the foundation of GR - the EP - is wrong description of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon such wrong description are also wrong. There is only one type of mass.

The shifting of Mercury’s perihelion that is used to validate GR can be explained by (v/c)2 radians per revolution, where v is not the escape velocity, but the velocity component induced by Sun’s motion in the galaxy, which drags the planets also. Mercury being smallest and closest to the Sun, its effect is most profound. Before Einstein, Gerber has solved the problem differently – not using GR. Eddington’s experiment about gravitational lensing has been questioned repeatedly. The effect is due to contrasting refractive indices of the media like the time dilation seen in GPS, where light bends and travels a longer path (also slows down) after entering the denser atmosphere of Earth. Every material that light can travel through has a refractive index, denoted by the letter n. The velocity of light in a vacuum is about 3.0 × 108 m/s. The refractive index equals the ratio of the velocities of light in vacuum (c) to that in the medium (v), that is n = c/v. Light slows down when traveling through a medium, thus the refractive index of any medium will be greater than one. By definition, the refractive index of vacuum is 1. For air at STP it is 1.000277. For air at 0°C and 1 atm., it is 1.000293. This, and not time dilation, slows down light. The problem with Doppler effects in relativity is that there appears to be lack of consistency in their cause and effect relationship with time dilation. In some cases (within SR for example) the time dilation itself is the actual cause of the observed frequency shifting, while in other cases (such as specific equivalence principle models) the acceleration-induced frequency shift seems to cause the time dilation. Both are contradictory.


Before we discuss time orderings or whether time is Newtonian or Relativistic, let us define time precisely. In his 1905 paper, Einstein says: “It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of ‘time’ by substituting ‘the position of the small hand of my watch’ for ‘time’. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch”.

It is not a precise or scientific definition of time, but the description of the recordings of a clock, which is subject to mechanical error in its functioning. Space, Time and coordinates, have no physical existence like matter. They arise out of orderings or sequence or our notions of priority and posterity. When the orderings are for objects, the interval between them is called space. When it is for transformations in objects (events), the intervals are called time. When we describe the specific nature of orderings of space (straight line, geodesic, angular, etc), it is called coordinate system. Since measurement is a comparison between similars (Einstein uses fixed speed of light per second to measure distance), we use similar, but easily intelligible and uniformly transforming natural sequence, such as the day or year or its subdivisions as the unit of time. If a clock stops or functions erratically, time does not stop or becomes erratic. Now is a fleeting interface between two events. Hence while at the universal level it is the minimum perceivable interval between two events, in specific cases it can have longer durations as present continuous or continued existence for that form or system. For example, all life cycles that are created undergo six stages of evolution:  transformation from quantum state to macro state (from being to becoming), linear growth due to accumulation of similar particles, non-linear growth or transformation due to interaction with dissimilar particles, transmutation leading to the reverse process of decomposition and final disintegration or decay. The total duration is a life cycle and is continued existence for those individuals or objects.  Comparison between two different natural life cycles is the time dilation between them. Hence Einstein’s definition of time is scientifically wrong. His definition of synchronization is also wrong as shown below.

 Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization between clocks and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference – a universal “now” - for time. We quote from his 1905 paper:
We have so far defined only an ‘A time’ and a ‘B time’. We have not defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ‘A time’ tA from A towards B, let it at the ‘B time’ tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ‘A time’ t’A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB- tA = t’A-tB.
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
  1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
  2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.”

The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Einstein does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative! Thus; his conclusion: “there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events or different observers moving at constant velocity relative to one another require different notions of time, as their clocks run differently”, is wrong. Paradoxically, standard formulations of quantum mechanics use the universal “now” frequently.

An event is defined as a single moment in three dimensional space and time, characterized uniquely by (t, x, y, z). Since time is ever changing, it represents time evolution of objects in space. These time evolutions are different for different objects. Their ordered sequence, or the ordered intervals between two such sequences, when measured by a similar but repetitive interval that is easily intelligible, is called time measurement. But this does not justify the conversion factor from time units to space unit via constant speed of light per second - c, because of two reasons: space here is treated as vacuum and there is no true vacuum. Secondly, velocity of light depends on the density of the medium through which it travels, where it bends due to diffraction (which causes time dilation). Einstein has later admitted it and there are plenty of literatures on this subject.

After his SR paper of 1905, Einstein has frequently held that the speed of light is not constant. In his 1911 paper “ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT”, he says:
“For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the coordinates, has the gravitation potential Φ, we must employ a clock which – when removed to the origin of co-ordinates – goes (1 + Φ/) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of coordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation: c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²)……………(3).
The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity (italics ours).
4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field
FROM the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the place, we may easily infer, by means of Huygens’s principle, that light-rays propagated across a gravitational field undergo deflection”.

Now let us examine Lorentz transformation. The description of the measured state at a given instant is physics and the use of the magnitude of change at two or more designated instants to predict the outcome at other times is mathematics. Measurement is a comparison between similars, of which the constant one is called the unit. The factor v2/c2 or (v/c)2, is the ratio of two dynamical quantities where c is the constant - hence a unit of measurement of a dynamic variable. It can be used to measure only the comparative dynamical velocities; not changes in mass or dimension; which is possible only through accumulation or reduction of similars. The second order factor (v/c)2 represents the modifications of incoming light signal (third dimension - like the electromagnetic radiation) as seen by an observer without changing any physical characteristics of the observed that emits the light signal. Thus, Lorentz transformation is only virtual – not real.

The concept of measurement has undergone a big change over the last century. It all began with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Einstein in his 1905 paper (published as Zur Elektrodynamic bewegter Körper in Annalen der Physik 17:891, 1905) were as follows:
(a) “The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
·   If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
·   If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to Doppler shift of different points. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

It is said that gravity is “curved spacetime”, though Einstein did not use this term in The Foundation of General Relativity published in 1916. To understand gravity, we have to see not only what it does, but also what it is - the cause also, not the effect only. Spacetime is space with motion (evolving in time) through it. An object passing by a star traces a curved path that can be compared to a plane tracing a silver streak in the sky. The silver streak is not a part of the sky. We take a mental snapshot of what we see (the silver streak) now - an ever-shifting instant frozen after measurement as a timeless instant. Later we call this non-existent “picture” as the path of the plane. It is the same with gravity. If we take the derivative of that curved spacetime, what we get is a gradient in space traced at a certain instant, not curved spacetime. The rubber sheet analogy to explain gravity is circular reasoning – use gravity to present a picture of gravity! The path of the smaller ball is “bent” toward the larger ball as it rolls by - only to get pulled-in toward the larger ball. But that is still using actual gravity (gradient) to move one object toward the other.  This seems to explain the change in direction that an already moving object experiences as it passes by. But how does general relativity explain the mechanism behind the “force” pulling on a stationary object (in the simplest possible terms) causing it to acquire kinetic energy and move toward the attracting mass? Is something in space (or space itself) constantly being pulled toward the massive objects which necessitate the motion to maintain a lower energy state?


Having shown the deficiencies in the “established theories”, let us consider an alternative concept by synchronizing available information. Maxwell’s equations are background invariant. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. Transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the Michelson-Morley experiments (non-observance of aether drag) cannot serve to ultimately disprove a universal background structure. We posit that the so-called dark energy is the universal background structure.

The universe is thought to be expanding because light from distant galaxies stretch towards redder wavelengths. It is thought that over small distances gravity has reversed the universe’s expansion, so that modest blue-shifts are common. But according to Lowell Observatory Bulletin No. 58 Vol. II No. 8, not even the local group - the collection of approximately 75 galaxies that includes the Milky Way - expands. In fact, the Local Group’s largest member - the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us: it has a blue-shift of 300 kilometer per second. Now, astronomers have spotted an object far beyond the Local Group’s borders (at the star clusters around M87, a giant elliptical galaxy located at the heart of the Virgo Cluster, 54 million light-years from Earth) with a blue-shift of 1,026 kilometer per second. We propose that the observed red-shift is due to the amalgamation of continued emission of the same wave lengths at one instant on the recording device or the photographic plate just like the picture of landscape below looks different from different heights from a plane. The non-observance of the expansion at local scales and observation of blue shifts, point out that the galactic clusters are orbiting a common center like planets around the Sun. Sometimes some planets appear to move away while at other times they appear to close in. If it is “dark” because it is non-interacting, then it cannot be energy, because energy is perceived only indirectly by its interactions. Only because it is smooth and persistent, it cannot be energy – fluids are also smooth and persistent. Thus, the concept of dark matter and dark energy needs a review.
Here we start with the creation event and derive the fundamental interactions from it. The big bang does not imply a single event or an event in a designated epoch. It could not have happened in vacuum ex-nihilo and could not have expanded into nothing. Whatever was before the big bang, can be answered by the so-called dark energy. Dark energy appears like a fluid that acts as a background structure like a river on which boats float. The deterministic floating is gravitation and the resultant mechanical propulsions are the fundamental interactions. In arXiv:1402.0290v2 [math.AP] 6 Feb 2014, researchers have shown that in an alternative abstract universe closely related to the one described by the Navier-Stokes equations, it is possible for a body of fluid to form a sort of computer, which can build a self-replicating fluid robot that, like the “Cat in the Hat”, keeps transferring its energy to smaller and smaller copies of itself until the fluid “blows up”. This is in sync with our theory.

Recently researchers made an agglomeration of short-lived cluster of electrons and positively charged “holes” some 200 nanometers across that could form a liquid-like quasi-particle, which has been dubbed Dropleton. A Dropleton is a new kind of particle cluster in solids, formed inside a tiny correlation bubble (drops) that lasts only 25 picoseconds. This liquid-like particle droplet is created by light and its energy has quantized dependency on light intensity. It acts like a super-sized electron. Oppositely charged electrons and holes tend to form pairs called excitons. These pairs are used in solar panels, which employ special materials to separate the electron-hole pairs, freeing up electrons and generating current. The photons that excite the electrons to form Dropleton become entangled with individual exciton pairs. Louis de’ Broglie had theorized that all matter has a wave property associated with it. Combining both, we can reformulate the modern notion of wave-particle duality. What we “see” is the radiation emitted by an object, but what we “touch” is mass that emits radiation that is not seen. It is separate matter and wave – not convertible or occasionally simultaneously a matter and a wave. The principle of mass-energy equivalence, which is treated as the corner-stone principle of all nuclear interactions, binding energies of atoms and nucleons, etc., enters physics only as a corollary of the transformation equations between frames of references in relative motion. The equation e = mc2, implies rate of change in a stable configuration and not mass-energy conversion, as both have opposite properties. We can define mass as confined energy packets of different density - covering a fixed area. Energy confined around a point generates externally directed pressure that is felt as mass. These are digital entities. The field is analog space. Five way bonding between particles and fields are perceived as reality. The universe is a closed system that spins or “swirls” in a “B-mode pattern – to use the phraseology of the BICEP2 telescope team. Their findings question a few inflationary models, but justify our theory. Spin is a common feature of all bodies from atoms to stars to galaxies. It is also a feature of the universe.

The dark energy to total matter ratio in the universe (68.3% to 31.7% subject to precision measurement) is about the same as the ratio of sea to land area on Earth. Further, the total mass of the constituent quarks forms a small fraction of the mass of protons and neutrons, just like ordinary matter forms a small fraction of the cosmos. The neutrinos are the equivalent of falling apples (no one knows whether the neutrinos and the anti-neutrinos are the same or different). Thus, these can be used as a model to represent the universe. The standard model of particle physics says that matter is made of quarks and leptons while the various forces in the universe, such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism act through “mediator” particles: gluons, Zo, W± and photons. In theory, these mediators are all massless, and so all the fundamental forces should act over infinite distances. But in reality, they do not - the forces have a limited range, and the mediator particles have mass. Further, while the strong and electromagnetic forces have only one “mediator” each, the weak force has three “mediators”. This indicates that the weak force behaves differently than others, i.e., in more than one way.

          Physicists believe that the source of mass is something called the Higgs field that fills the universe and is mediated by a particle known as the Higgs boson. These bosons are thought to exist in a “condensed” state that excludes the mediator particles such as gluons in the same way that a superconductor’s entangled electrons exclude the photons of a magnetic field. This exclusion by the Higgs field is what gives the mediator particles an effective mass, and also limits their range of influence. But no one has shown exactly how they exclude, say, gluons. The condensation of the Higgs bosons and exclusion of the mediators requires entanglement between the Higgs bosons. Entanglement may be linked to the mass of not just the mediator particles, but all fundamental particles. Different particles would interact differently with the entangled Higgs bosons, providing different “effective masses” for each particle. But there must be a connection between entanglement and mass. The laws of physics do allow energy to be converted into matter, but require that almost equal quantities of antimatter be produced in the process. These two are entangled. Thus, entanglement and confinement are related aspects. Entanglement is a function of charge. Hence it can be of two types: one like a fluid in a container and the other like a planet by the star. The former is also of two types: inside the container adjusting to its surface (or like a simple thermostat exploiting the difference in the thermal expansion of two metal films to sense temperature changes and trigger the heating or cooling system on or off as needed) or falling out of it and separated from the rest. The fundamental interactions behave in this manner.

          Each application of force generates an entangled couple of equal and opposite interactions due to laws of conservation (or inertia of restoration) that tries to retain the state at the instant of interaction t, and inertia of motion, that tries to conserve the state after t. These generate impedance and stress respectively in the background field that may be experienced by other bodies entering it - either linearly or non-linearly (when other effects exist). The intensity of interaction depends on the average density of the field encompassing the bodies, the nature of composition of the bodies (internal mass-energy density ratio vis-à-vis the field density: that generates momentum), and distance between the bodies (or their boundaries or orbits). The local density gradient of the field determines the resultant motion – apparent attraction or repulsion witch is described as the curvature of spacetime. Within the body or the system, this creates four entangled sets of proximity-distance variables between the bodies (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-distance and distance-proximity). These are the four fundamental forces of Nature – strong interaction, two types of weak interaction, and electromagnetic interactions respectively. These are intra-body variables that produce all particles in different combinations and determine dimensions - thus invariant under the Lorentz transformation.

Gravity is an all pervading force that acts on each body linearly. Due to differential mass, the resultant nonlinear movement appears as an inter-body force. In relation to the parts of a body, it resolves into the other four interactions. What is this mechanism? If we look at the mass-energy interaction spectrum, we find that chemical properties begin with molecules that are mixtures of atoms. Atoms can be thought of as compounds of protons and neutrons, but their stability in any combination depends upon several factors. Also different stable combinations produce different elements and isotopes; just like different combinations of quarks form protons or neutrons. They are held together by the n-p chain, which, in turn, depends on quark conversion. This is mediated by release of neutrinos by one and its absorption by the other. This is why energy seemed to disappear when one atomic nucleus decayed into another nucleus plus an electron. The laws of physics do allow energy to be converted into matter, but require that almost equal quantities of antimatter are produced in the process. In a separate paper we will show that in a chain of different mechanisms, the big bang leads to generation of spin or “swirls” in “E-mode and B-mode patterns, which, contrary to popular belief, is not associated with inflation, but disinflation or deflation that slowed down the initial expansion rate. It also leads to generation of charge, so that the structures could be created. Charge leads to generation of entanglement, which leads to the interactions leading to confinement. Everything rests in the all-encompassing field, whose response to all forces is called gravity! This makes G variable between different systems. When we interact with it (apply freewill), we feel entangled “conduction”, “convection” and “radiation” currents differently – in 5, 7, 11, 49 or 122 ways, which explains all motions. We will discuss it later.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013



´ªÉÉQÉ& ºÉä´ÉÊiÉ EòÉxÉxÉÆ ºÉÖMɽþxÉÆ ËºÉ½þÉä MÉÖ½þÉÆ ºÉä´ÉiÉä* ½ÆþºÉ ºÉä´ÉÊiÉ {ÉÎnÂù¨ÉxÉÓ EÖòºÉÖʨÉiÉÉÆ MÉÞwÉ& ¶¨É¶ÉÉxɺlɱÉÒ*

Everyone is a creature of his/her habits, which reflect their cognitive abilities that are both inherited and culturally acquired. According to Ayurveda, the embryo inherits different, but fixed characteristics (crystallized intelligence) from both parents, which, in turn are derived from their respective parents. This way, there is a continuous chain of mutation between the genes passed on to the off-springs. The Gotra system prevalent in our country ensures greater degree of genetic mutation making our country a veritable storehouse of rich genetic strands. The bringing up of a child in different cultural environments modifies the effect of these genetic traits (fluid intelligence). This net modified effect is called “º´É¦ÉÉ´É” – talent or heritability coefficient. One can excel only if his profession fully harmonizes with his talent - “º´É¦ÉÉ´É”. Hence it is called “º´ÉvɨÉÇ” –cognitive ability. If one is engaged in a profession where his heritability coefficients are not harmonized with his activities, it becomes ineffective or generates contradictory thoughts and performance, which may create serious problems. Hence Gita (18/47) says: ¸ÉäªÉÉxº´Évɨ¨ÉÉæ Ê´ÉMÉÖhÉ& {É®úvɨ¨ÉÉÇiº´ÉxÉÖι`öiÉÉiÉÂ* º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉÊxɪÉiÉÆ Eò¨¨ÉÇ EÖò´ÉÇzÉÉ{xÉÉäÊiÉ ÊEòα¤É¹É¨ÉÂ* Even though not performed in the best possible manner, action according to one’s cognitive abilities is better than doing something contrary to it in the best possible manner. Following one’s talent or cognitive abilities is not sinful or wrong.


All descriptions of reality are based on existence (+κiÉi´É) that can be cognized (+ʦÉvÉäªÉi´É) and expressed in a language (´ÉÉSªÉi´É). Objects (ʴɹɪÉ) are special combinations of materials (pù´ªÉ) joined by energy that display different degrees of excellence (MÉÖhÉ) through interactions (Eò¨¨ÉÇ) with other bodies based on density gradient (Ê´É ¶É´nùÉä ʽþ ʴɶÉä¹ÉÉlÉÇ& ʺÉxÉÉäiÉä¤ÉÇxvÉ =SªÉiÉä* ʴɶÉä¹ÉähÉ ÊºÉxÉÉäiÉÒÊiÉ Ê´É¹ÉªÉÉä%iÉÉä ÊxɪÉɨÉEò&). These are described based on commonality (ºÉÉvɨ¨ªÉÇ) and differentiation (´Éèvɨ¨ªÉÇ) of objects with each other. Knowledge (YÉÉxɨÉÂ) is the commonality (ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ) evident in everything. Science (Ê´ÉYÉÉxɨÉÂ) is the special (ʴɶÉä¹É) knowledge about the identifying characteristics of any group or each member of a group. Thus, science is a derivative of knowledge. Vedas contain knowledge. Hence science can be derived from the Vedas. Since knowledge is revealed as science, it is called Ê´ÉtÉ. Without action (Eò¨¨ÉÇ – also technology), knowledge is practically useless. However, knowledge cannot induce action directly. Only science (and technology dependent on it), induces action through freewill. Hence action (Eò¨¨ÉÇ) is called +Ê´ÉtÉ. Ishopanishad uses these two words in this sense (+Ê´ÉtɪÉÉÆ ¨ÉÞiªÉÖÆ iÉÒi´ÉÉÇ Ê´ÉtªÉɨÉÞiɨɶxÉÖiÉä). Knowledge and science are interdependent. Without proper knowledge and science, technology can not only be misleading but also be dangerous.

Knowledge is not data, but the ‘awareness’ of exposure/result of measurement associated with any object, energy or interaction stored in memory as an invariant concept that can be retrieved (º¨ÉÞÊiÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÉÇxÉÖ¦ÉÚiÉÉJªÉ ʴɹɪÉÆ YÉÉxɨÉÖSªÉiÉä). It describes through a language (xÉɨÉ) the defining characteristics of some previously known thing – physical properties (°ü{É) and chemical interactions (Eò¨¨ÉÇ) - by giving it a name that remain the same as a concept at all times – thus immune to spatiotemporal variations - till it is modified by fresh inputs. The variations of the object, energy or interaction under different specific circumstances and the predetermined result thereof form part of knowledge. In a mathematical format (ºÉÉRÂóEäòÊiÉEò), it depicts the right hand side of each equation or inequality representing determinism (EòÉ®úhÉMÉÖhÉ{ÉÚÌ´ÉEòÉ). Once the parameters represented by the left hand side are chosen and the special conditions represented by the equality sign are met, the right hand side becomes deterministic and starts a new chain (|ÉÉ®ú¤vÉ). In ancient times, this knowledge was technically called +ÉÎx´ÉÊIÉEòÒ, which literally means describable facts about the invariant nature of everything. Vedic research methodology is also called +ÉÎx´ÉÊIÉEòÒ.

Engineering and Management which deal with the efficient use of objects or persons respectively; are related to left hand side of an equation – free-will (ÊGòªÉ¨ÉÉhÉ Eò¨¨ÉÇ); which presupposes knowledge of the deterministic behavior of objects or humans that can be chosen or effectively directed to create something or function in a desired manner in a maximally economic and regenerative way. This was called jɪÉÒ – literally the three phases of mass (three states of solid, fluid and plasma - wÉÖ´É, vÉjÉÇ, vɯûhÉ), energy and radiation in all combinations – physical and chemical properties (protestation, loyalty and expectation in the case of humans). Since the three Vedas contain knowledge about these three aspects (@ñSÉɨÉÚÌkÉ& ªÉÉVÉÖË¹É MÉÊiÉ ºÉÉ¨É¨ÉªÉ iÉäVÉ&), they are also called jɪÉÒ. The responsive mechanism was called nùhb÷xÉÒÊiÉ – principles of inducement through reward and punishment (essentially material addition or reduction both for men in management and materials in Engineering). The regenerative mechanism was called ´ÉÉkÉÉÇ – problem solving. It solved the problems of deficiency through regenerative agriculture, diary farming, marketing, etc, and kept machines production-ready through maintenance. These four basic tenets, equally valid for both technology and management, are also immutable - invariant in time, space and culture leading to deterministic results. Hence from Manu to Brihaspati (in his ¤ÉɽÇþ{ÉiªÉ +lÉǶÉɺjɨÉÂ, which was followed by Kautilya in his +lÉǶÉɺjɨÉÂ) to later day authors like Kamandaki, everyone has described +ÉÎx´ÉÊIÉEòÒ jɪÉÒ ´ÉÉkÉÉÇ nùhb÷xÉÒËiÉ SÉ ¶ÉÉ·ÉiÉÒ. Lack of knowledge of the deterministic behavior to guide choice of the freewill components has led engineering and management astray. The fast changing technology and management principles point to their inherent deficiencies that need immediate rectification. But first, what causes such distortion?

According to the Vedic tradition, excellence in action is Dharma and non-excellence is Adharma (EÖò¶É±ÉÉEÖò¶É±ÉÉèEò¨ÉÉê vɨÉÉÇvɨÉÉê). Excellence ({É®ú¨ÉÉä ʽþ ¨ÉxjÉ&) is the harmonization of one’s talents with thought and action (¨ÉxɺªÉäEäò ´ÉSɺªÉäEäò Eò¨¨ÉÇhªÉäEäò ¨É½þÉi¨ÉxÉɨÉÂ). Its opposite is called ÊVÉÀ - ¨ÉxɺªÉäxªÉiÉ ´ÉSɺªÉäxªÉiÉ Eò¨¨ÉÇhªÉäxªÉiÉ nÖù®úÉi¨ÉxÉɨÉÂ. Excellence has two components: 1) acquisition of the presently unavailable - orientation towards growth (ªÉÉäMÉ-¦ÉʴɹªÉ±ÉɦɺªÉ ºÉRÂóMɨÉÉlÉǨÉÂ) and 2) maintenance of the available assets (IÉä¨É- +iÉÒiÉ ±ÉɦɺªÉ ºÉÖ®úIÉhÉÉlÉǨÉÂ), which includes provisions for disaster management (+É{Éi|É{ÉzɺªÉ SÉ ¨ÉÉäIÉhÉÉlÉǨÉÂ). When such principles of ªÉÉäMÉ-IÉä¨É are applied for the body, it is called nourishment ({ÉÖι]õ), for sense organs, it is happiness (ºÉÖJÉ), for mind, it is contentment (iÉÖι]õ) and for the self or consciousness, it is peace (¶ÉÉÎxiÉ). Increasing prosperity of the body and sense organs are called development orientation (+¦ªÉÖnùªÉ) and that for mind and soul are called the ultimate goal (ÊxÉ&¸ÉäªÉºÉ).


Everyone wants to be happy. Happiness (ºÉÖJÉ) in the world depends on six factors. These are:
1.      Regular source of income to meet one’s requirements (+lÉÉÇMɨÉÊxÉiªÉ¨ÉÂ).
2.      Freedom from any disease (+®úÉäÊMÉiÉÉ).
3.      A loving spouse (Ê|ɪÉÉ ¦ÉɪÉÉÇ)
4.      A soft spoken and well behaved spouse (Ê|ɪɴÉÉÊnùxÉÒ ¦ÉɪÉÉÇ).
5.      Obedient children (´É¶ªÉ& {ÉÖjÉ&).
6.      Productive vocational education (+lÉÇEò®úÒ Ê´ÉtÉ).

Of these, the last is most important, because, happiness is defined as that, which fulfills the following three conditions:
·        That which is not curtailed by sorrow (ªÉzÉnÖù&JÉä¹ÉÖºÉÆʦÉzÉ),
·        Which does not get exhausted (xÉ SÉ OɺiɨÉxÉxiÉ®ú¨ÉÂ) and
·        That which is in conformity with one’s desires (+ʦɱÉʹÉiɨÉÉ{xÉÉäÊiÉ).
Cherished happiness fulfills all three conditions (ºÉ& ºÉÖJÉ& ºÉ¨{Énùɺ{Énù¨ÉÂ). While we cannot do much about the first two, the third can be achieved in most cases with money. With the right vocational education, we could get a job to earn good money. With money, we could treat the diseases, get a good wife (with luck favoring), and bring up our children properly. In today’s world, money is the most cherished object (vÉxÉÉÊxÉ ¶±ÉÉPÉxÉÒªÉÉÊxÉ). Thus, choosing the right branch of education has become most important. The issue will be clear if we examine the decline in popularity of vernacular languages like Odia and increasing popularity of English in general and obscure languages like Pali in Civil Service Examinations in particular.

In the earlier times, our daily routine was regulated by the seasons. Sporadic hard work in some seasons was followed by long periods of leisure and enjoyment in other seasons. People enjoyed cultural activities including music, drama, etc. As music climaxed, dopamine flooded the right caudate nucleus, correlating with the listener’s experience of anticipation rushing out from the synapses of neurons in the right nucleus accumbens (NAc) increasing heart rate and sweating, rapid breathing and a drop in skin temperature indicating emotional arousal. The music generated interest in vernacular language. But modern day life is stereotyped without variation. Electronic media has demolished cultural barriers. The “variety” in culture is a mix with emphasis on “change”, which is contrary to happiness. Our body’s internal clock is set for two 12-hour periods of light and darkness. Shift duty is affecting the immune system (NFIL3 genes keep the production of TH17 cells synchronized with periods of light and darkness). With this job-shift, searching, calibrated, indifferent, reactant and apathetic boredom increases. Thus interest in literature - which was the main source of entertainment - has declined. Increased competition has forced the students to search for avenues that give maximum return with minimum effort. Thus, English and other foreign languages that facilitate getting jobs are preferred over vernacular languages like Odia or Bengali. Languages like Pali or subjects like geography, are preferred not for interest in them, but for getting more marks by studying comparatively less. In IT and other international business sectors, learning a foreign language is considered an added asset.

In this scenario, what is the future of Sanskrit language or for that matter, the Sanskrit Universities? The job prospects of Sanskrit scholars are very limited. It will be increasingly acute in times to come – particularly when the quality of teachers are declining rapidly. Without jobs, interest in Sanskrit Degrees will decline. Can Sanskrit Universities, where compartmentalization due to reductionism is distorting textual meaning (as the Vedas can be interpreted correctly only after reading all the Vedangas), survive only with Government grant? With increasing emphasis on the weeding out of subsidies to reduce current account deficit, they may not survive long. Their survival depends on their vocationalization. Even top institutions like IIM Calcutta are changing to tech-enabled education and restructuring the curriculum to stay afloat. Why not they.

This is the age of science. But currently physics is at cross-roads. There are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. Quantum Mechanics is not compatible with Einstein’s Relativity. General Relativity does not work beyond solar system. Most of the ‘established theories’ have been questioned as the latest observations find mind boggling anomalies in theoretical prediction and actual measurement. In hierarchy problem of dark energy, the theory and observation differ by a mind boggling factors ranging from 1057 to 10120. Similarly fantasies like extra-dimensions have not been proved even after more than a century. In short, there is a severe crisis in physics, though no one is publicly admitting it, as they fear that international funding will dry up. The Sanskrit Universities should use this opportunity to fill the void by scientifically interpreting the Vedas and presenting the science inherent in it.

Vedas contain knowledge from which science can be derived. In various international fora, we have challenged most of the leading scientific theories by pointing out their deficiencies and pointing out alternative theories derived from the Vedas. These are in the public fora including in our blog: We are getting many queries indicating interest in Vedic science. There is ample scope for research in Vedic science. But scientists do not understand Vedas and Vedic scholars do not know science.

Knowledge cannot be imparted – it has to be acquired (xÉɪɨÉÉi¨ÉÉ |É´ÉSÉxÉäxÉ ±É¦ªÉÉä xÉ ¨ÉävɪÉÉ xÉ ´É½ÖþvÉÉ ¸ÉÖiÉäxÉ* ªÉ¨Éä´Éè¹É ¤ÉÞhÉÖiÉä iÉäxÉ ±É¦ªÉÉä iɺªÉä¹É +Éi¨ÉÉ Ê´É¤ÉÞhÉÖiÉä iÉxÉÖÆ º´ÉɨÉÂ). Hence the schools are called Ê´ÉtÉ±ÉªÉ and not YÉÉxÉɱɪÉ. If the student contemplates on any question with an open mind (Ê´ÉÊSÉxiɪÉäÊzÉiªÉ¨ÉÖnùÉ®únù¶ÉÇxɨÉÂ), the answer is revealed to him in a flash. But when that flash will appear depends on many factors. We are not discussing these here. Memorization and reproduction of certain facts is not education. The teacher only teaches – tries to make the student enabled – regarding how to solve some problems by himself. The student solves the problems using his talent - heritability coefficients, which is inborn. Education and practice only enhances skill - cognitive abilities. Since talent is inborn, the same education will not develop the same cognitive abilities in all students.

THE PUZZLE: BEòÉänù®ú ºÉ¨ÉÖnÂù¦ÉÚiÉÉ BEòxÉIÉjÉVÉÉiÉEòÉ&* xÉ ¦É´ÉÎxiÉ ºÉ¨ÉÉ& ¶ÉÒ±ÉèªÉÇlÉÉ ´Énù®úÒEòh]õEòÉ&*

Whether and how heritability coefficients vary across specific cognitive abilities has been debated for ages. In the West, the traditional “investment” theory of cognitive abilities classifies intelligence into two main categories: fluid and crystallized (different in detail from our view). Differences in fluid intelligence are thought to reflect novel, on-the-spot reasoning, whereas differences in crystallized intelligence are thought to reflect previously acquired knowledge and skills. Crystallized intelligence develops through the investment of fluid intelligence in a particular body of knowledge. Genetically, this theory predicts that in the general population; in which people differ in their educational experiences, the heritability of crystallized intelligence is expected to be lower than the heritability of fluid intelligence. This theory assumes that fluid intelligence is heavily influenced by genes and relatively fixed, whereas crystallized intelligence is more heavily dependent on acquired skills and learning opportunities.

In a recent study: “On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture Dependent” published in Psychological Science, (DOI: 10.1177/0956797613493292), researchers investigated how heritability coefficients vary across specific cognitive abilities both theoretically and empirically. They assessed the “Cultural load” of various cognitive abilities by taking the average percentage of test items that were adjusted when the test was adapted for use in 13 different countries. The finding suggests that:
1.In adult samples, culture-loaded subtests tend to demonstrate greater heritability coefficients than do culture-reduced subtests; and
2.In samples of both adults and children, a subtest’s proportion of variance shared with general intelligence is a function of its cultural load.
The above finding implies that, the extent to which a test of cognitive ability correlates with Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is the extent to which it reflects societal demands and not cognitive demands. “IQ” here refers to the general intelligence factor: technically defined as the first factor derived from a factor analysis of a diverse battery of cognitive tests, representing a diverse sample of the general population, explaining the largest source of variance in the dataset. Further, in adults, higher heritability of the cognitive test reflects more test-dependence on culture. The effects were medium-to-large and statistically significant. Highly culturally loaded tests such as Vocabulary, Spelling, and Information had relatively high heritability coefficients and were also highly related to IQ. This counterintuitive finding is inconsistent with the traditional investment theory and aggravated the nature-nurture debate of intelligence.

The question: “why did the most culturally-loaded tests have the highest heritability coefficients” – returns many puzzles. The society is a homogenous learning environment – school systems are all the same; everyone in a class has the same educational experiences; yet the cognitive ability varies. If the traditional investment theory is correct and crystallized intelligence (such as vocabulary, general knowledge) is more cognitively demanding than solving the most complex abstract reasoning tests, then tests such as vocabulary would have to depend more on IQ than fluid intelligence. But why tests such as vocabulary would have a higher cognitive demand than tests that are less culturally-loaded but more cognitively complex (such as tests of abstract reasoning)? Also, this theory doesn’t provide an explanation for why the heritability of IQ increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. One way out is to abandon some long held assumptions in the West. These findings are best understood in terms of genotype-environment covariance, in which cognitive abilities and knowledge dynamically feed off each other. Those with a proclivity to engage in cognitive complexity will tend to seek out intellectually demanding environments. As they develop higher levels of cognitive ability, they will also tend to achieve relatively higher levels of knowledge. More knowledge will make it more likely that they will eventually end up in more cognitively demanding environments, which will facilitate the development of an even wider range of knowledge and skills.

Societal demands influence the development and interaction of multiple cognitive abilities and knowledge, thus causing positive correlations among each other, and giving rise to the general intelligence factor. These findings do not mean that differences in intelligence are entirely determined by culture. The structure of cognitive abilities is strongly influenced by genes also. What these findings do suggest is that there is a much greater role of culture, education, and experience in the development of intelligence than mainstream Western theories of intelligence have assumed. Behavioral genetics researchers - who parse out genetic and environmental sources of variation – have often operated on the assumption that genotype and environment are independent and do not co-vary. These findings suggest they very much do co-vary.

Attempts were made to link perception and intelligence - for instance, do intelligent people see more detail in a scene? Now scientists at the University of Rochester and at Vanderbilt University have demonstrated that high IQ may be best predicted by combining what we perceive and what we cannot. In two studies in the journal Current Biology, researchers discovered that performance on this test was more correlated with IQ than any other sensory-intelligence link ever explored - but the high-IQ participants were not simply scoring better overall. Individuals with high IQ indeed detected movement accurately within the smallest frame - a finding that suggests that the ability to rapidly process information contributes to intelligence. More intriguing was the fact that subjects who had higher IQ, struggled more than other subjects to detect motion in the largest frame. The authors suggest that the findings underscore how intelligence requires that we think fast but focus selectively, ignoring distractions. Earlier, analysts of the US Army data claiming black-white difference invented a “Spearman’s hypothesis” to show that “the magnitude of the black-white differences on tests of cognitive ability are directly proportional to the test’s correlation with IQ”. In “Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” 2005, Vol. 11, DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235, the authors made the case that this proves that black-white differences must be genetic in origin. But the recent findings discussed above suggest just the opposite: The bigger the difference in cognitive ability between blacks and whites, the more the difference is determined by cultural influences. More study on the role of genotype-environment covariance in the development of cognitive ability needs to be done.

This conclusion is the same as that we discussed in the beginning. The Vedic principles are re-establishing itself. According to Samudra, the inventor of Samudrika, the heritability coefficients can be judged from human body by analyzing a conglomeration of eight characteristics: “ºÉƽþÊiɺÉÉ®úÉxÉÖEòºxÉä½þÉäx¨ÉÉxÉ|ɨÉÉhɨÉÉxÉÉÊxÉ* IÉäjÉÉÊhÉ |ÉEÞòÊiɺlÉÉä ʨɸɨÉäiÉnùÊ{É ¶ÉÉ®úÒ®ú¨ÉÂ*”. He has given detailed descriptions. Similarly, according to Manu, analysis of a conglomeration of seven external signs indicates the cognitive abilities: “+ÉEòÉ®èúÊ®úÎRÂóMÉiÉèMÉÇiªÉÉ SÉä¹]õªÉÉ ¦ÉÉʹÉiÉäxÉ SÉ* xÉäjÉ´ÉCjÉÊ´ÉEòÉ®èú¶SÉ MÉÞÁiÉäxiÉMÉÇiÉÆ ¨ÉxÉ&*”. The mechanism of perceptive or cognitive ability has been elaborately discussed by Gautama (|É´ÉkÉÇxÉɱÉIÉhÉÉ nùÉä¹ÉÉ&) and in its commentary by Vatsayana (Eò¨¨ÉDZÉIÉhÉÉ& JɱÉÖ ®úHòÊuù¹]õ¨ÉÚføÉ&, ®úHòÉä ʽþ iÉiÉ Eò¨¨ÉÇ EÖò¯ûiÉä ªÉäxÉ Eò¨¨ÉÇhÉÉ ºÉÖJÉÆ nÖù&JÉÆ ´ÉÉ ±É¦ÉiÉä, iÉlÉÉ Êuù¹]õºiÉlÉÉ ¨ÉÚfø <ÊiÉ). Unfortunately, people have forgotten how to interpret the Vedas and allied texts, as the meanings of most of the technical terms used in the Vedas and other related literatures have been forgotten. We are not discussing these in detail here.

The Vedic Vak is not limited to speech. It includes all perceptions as they are expressed only through speech form. We cannot even think without speech form. Hence Patanjali in his Mahabhashya says: ´ªÉÉEò®úhÉÉä{ɨÉÉxÉEòÉä¶ÉÉ{iÉ´ÉÉCªÉÉnÂù ´ªÉ´É½þÉ®úiɶSÉ iÉjÉ ¶ÉÊHòOÉɽþEòʶɮúÉä¨ÉhÉä´ÉÞÇrù´ªÉ´É½þÉ®úºªÉ <ÊiÉ |ÉɽÖþÌ´ÉrÆùɺÉ&*. In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ moves outward ({É®úÉÎ\SÉJÉÉÊxÉ) to perceive different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field (={ɪÉɨÉ) set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. We cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction (´ÉʽþªÉÉǨÉ). Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction (+xiɪÉÉǨÉ). Skin perceives when some external object reaches/moves out of it that is macro equivalent of radioactive disintegration (beta decay - ªÉÉiɪÉɨÉ). Ear perceives when the impulse reaches it by traveling through space that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction (=tɨÉ). Individually these perceptions have no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are turned inwards to be pooled in memory (|ÉYÉÉxɨÉxÉ) and interpreted by intelligence (Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ or ¤ÉÖÊrù).

At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel at any instant to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one discrete frame at every instant, but due to the high speed of their reception, mix it up so that it appears as continuous. This happens due to an active transport system against concentration gradient with input of energy like the sodium-potassium pump in our body, which moves the two ions in opposite directions across the plasma membrane through break down of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The concentrations of the two ions on both sides of the cell membrane are interdependent, suggesting that the same carrier transports both ions. Similarly, the same carrier transports the external stimuli through the sense organs in the opposite direction to the cerebral cortex. This carrier is the mind (|ÉYÉÉxɨÉxÉ).

The first experience of decoding of the signals is the sensory impression that is uni-modal and without any symbolism (ÊxÉÌ´ÉEò±{ÉEò), because it is an impression in isolation. This is the simplest of the transactions that occur between our sensory modes and the observable. A sensation is a combination of sensory impressions and is multi-modal with alternate symbolism (ºÉÊ´ÉEò±{ÉEò). Since measurement is a process of comparison between similars, perception occurs when sensation is accompanied by an interpretation with reference to what is already experienced and stored in memory. Measurement is done at a time t, when the result is frozen for use at other times t’, t’’, etc, even though the observed evolves in time. As experience becomes less immediate and more remote, and as the processes of inference increase, cognition enters the picture. Then thinking and knowing become predominately operative (Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ or ¤ÉÖÊrù).

In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier. Then only we give the concept a name (following the principle described by Patanjali) and use it. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we refer to the data bank and see whether it (+ʦÉYÉÉxÉ – specific defining characteristic) matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. This is why the binary number system is used in computers. Commentator Vatsayan calls this naming process of two types (whole by part or one by other) of perceptions (´ªÉ{Énäù¶É& - ÊGòªÉÉEò®úhɪÉÉä& EòkÉÉÇ ºÉ¨´ÉxvɺªÉÉʦÉvÉÉxɨÉÂ) as general definition (ºÉ{ÉÊ®ú¹EòÉ®úÉ ºÉÆYÉÉ). He divides this into two categories: causative definition (ÊxÉʨÉkɺÉÆYÉÉ) and descriptive definition (+ʦɴªÉ\VÉEòºÉÆYÉÉ). Causative definition is the general description that arises out of perception (ºÉɨÉÉxªÉYÉÉxÉ) of a concept following rules of cognitive assimilation (¶ÉÊHòOɽþ). Descriptive definition is the imposition of other characteristics due to similarity (+xªÉäxÉÉxªÉºªÉ ´ªÉ{Énäù¶É&). This imposition differs in the case of each individual based on both heritability coefficient (natural attraction or repulsion) and past experience (description), which is regulated by the cultural environment (naming). This is what the Western researchers found out. It is not Nature versus nurture; it is Nature-cum-nurture.


In the present day context of industrialization and economic redistribution, diversified vocational courses have been considered as the panacea for all evils. Unfortunately, it has turned into a dumping ground for children, without properly judging their proclivity for learning the subject. During 1936, Gandhiji started “Nai Talim” Sangh, which imparted training to students for identified occupation. Kulandaiswamy described vocational education as something designed to prepare skilled personnel at lower levels of qualification for one or more jobs, (which) must include general education, practical training, and related theory. This is the right approach, but it need not be aimed at skills at lower levels only – it can go for excellence.

The Radhakrishnan Commission (1948), which had eminent academic leaders from universities in the UK and the US among its members, deemed vocationalization not as a break-away from higher education and recommended it in Intermediate Courses. The Mudaliar Commission (1952) advocated it in the post-secondary stage as a terminal which automatically sieved the audience for higher education, as a result of which multipurpose schools were set up. The Education Commission (1964-66) recommended introduction of Work Experience to combine education with work in schools. It recommended the split between the two streams: academic and vocational. Strengthening of research in the university system was also recommended. The National Policy on Education (1986) was brought into force in 1991 and gave shape to the Action Plan of 1992 for the NPE. It recommended that the schools and community should be brought closer through suitable programs of mutual service and support. It led to encouragement of emerging sectors like Information Technology, which witnessed an upsurge following the opening up of the technical education sector, particularly in capacity expansion in the private sector. Although the 1986 policy spoke against commercialization of education, the rapid expansion of private institutions has resulted in deterioration in quality. In some sectors, corruption, ego clash between administrating/regulating agencies (e.g. Medical education) and concerns over quality is alarming necessitating review all deemed universities by the Centre.

In his Independence Day speech of 2011, the Prime Minister has announced setting-up of a commission “to make suggestions for improvements at all levels of education”. The proposed commission should recommend as to what could be a new National Policy on Education. The commission is expected to be headed by an eminent educationist, assisted by experts from the fields of higher, technical, medical, secondary, elementary, vocational and other sectors of education. It will also have inputs from the reports of the National Knowledge Commission, the Yashpal Committee and the Valinathan Committee. The proposed commission would address all sectors of education irrespective of the domain interests of Ministries. Thus, here is an opportunity for Sanskrit Universities to present their case for vocationalization. As can be seen, all the above Committees, which consisted of Western experts or people with Western education, considered the issue from the Western perspective of guided education, which spreads superstition with its “memorize and reproduce” system instead of the desired self-development.

Education sector reviews or analysis consist of conducting a critical analysis of both internal and external aspects of an education system. Education institutions review the internal dynamics of the education system from various angles, as well as the external conditions affecting educational provision such as macro-economic and socio-demographic contexts. Education sector analysis include: (i) Macro-economic and socio-demographic frameworks; (ii) Access and equity issues in education; (iii) Quality of education; (iv) External efficiency; (v) Costs and financing of education; and (vi) Managerial and institutional aspects. In all these high sounding but open-ended goals, real education that should be aimed at enabling the student to solve the problems faced by him in life all by himself, is overtaken by guided education with maximum emphasis on economic and material considerations. Whatever be a country’s level of development, there is a demand for education reform in order to be able to face political, social and cultural changes, scientific and technological transformations, and the need for reconstruction in the wake of armed conflicts and social unrest. Yet, 90% of the text book materials are not required or ineffective to serve the purpose. Value education is more economic than moral. Modern economic theories are more redistributive (exploitative) than regenerative.

If UGC gives only the broadest of guidelines and leaves it to the Universities to decide the content, it would lead to a lot of incoherence between them. The right approach would look at how the curriculum can be slimmed down from an “over-prescriptive” approach that contained too much that is not essential. It would emphasize a core of vital knowledge while leaving teachers free to decide how this should be conveyed. Only competent (in quality - not position) teachers should be allowed to decide the specifics of what is taught within a broad and balanced centrally agreed framework. But in all these, the real goal of education must be preserved.

We have already shown that the West is rediscovering the Vedic values even in the field of educational system including cognitive abilities. Excellence could be achieved only if one has the propensity (|É´ÉÞÊkÉ) for the subject of knowledge. The propensity is generated only when the knowledge is eminently meaningful (+lÉÇEò®úÒ Ê´ÉtÉ) to the person concerned, as all knowledge is not equally meaningful to all persons. “º´É¦ÉÉ´É” is a special attribute (ʴɶÉä¹É) of every individual. Hence it has to be tested differently from the general attributes (ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ). Proficiency in general education cannot determine the inherent “º´É¦ÉÉ´É” – talent or instinct - that determines the cognitive response of someone. Hence for vocational/higher education, dependence on marks obtained in general education or a common entrance test can not only be ineffective, but also counter-productive.


Vocationalization is deemed to be predominantly practical oriented, with theory playing an insignificant role (the difference between a mechanic and an Engineer). Theory without technology is lame, but technology without theory is blind. They require each other. However, the person must “know” what he/she is doing is right. Otherwise it will lead to unintended consequences.  Thus, Vedic method advocates theory before technology. For all these reasons, all ancient texts prescribed four preliminary expositions - +xÉÖ¤ÉxvÉ& SÉiÉÖ¹]õªÉ¨É - that must be fulfilled before any subject is taught. These are:
ʴɹɪÉ& Eò& ¡ò±ÉÆ ËEò Eò& ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ& EòÉä%ÊvÉEòÉ®ú´ÉÉxÉ * *

According to the traditional method, any discourse, all books start with four initial or introductory stipulations (+xÉÖ´ÉxPÉ), which define the subject (ʴɹɪÉ&), the necessity of the subject to fulfill any particular need (|ɪÉÉäVÉxÉ), relationship of the knowledge to the object sought to be achieved (ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ&), and the category of persons that would benefit best from such knowledge (+ÊvÉEòÉ®úÒ). Let us consider one example: The ´Éè¶ÉäʹÉEò ºÉÚjɨÉ begin with “+lÉÉiÉÉä vɨ¨ÉÈ ´ªÉÉJªÉɺÉɨÉ&”. Literally it means, now begins the exposition about Dharma. ºÉÚjɨÉ literally means a thread, which is used to join objects in a proper sequence like a necklace. Thus, it cannot be seen in isolation. vɨ¨ÉÈ here indicates the subject of the text (ʴɹɪÉ&).

Dharma is different from religion, which is a way of life. The word dharma literally means that which upholds. To understand Dharma, let us take the example of a boat moving in a river. It is held partially by water and partially by air. Both water and air have their distinctive dynamics independent of the boat. If the boat harmonizes its motion with those which hold it – water and air – it will reach its destination safely. Otherwise it will land in problem. This is the concept of upholding vɨ¨ÉÈ - harmonization with one’s environment. But unless we know about the nature or dynamics of our environment, we cannot harmonize our actions with it. Hence there is a necessity of knowing about everything in our environment. The word +iÉÉä literally means by this teaching. Here the word +iÉÉä conveys the necessity of the knowledge of the special nature of the objects in the Universe – hence ´Éè¶ÉäʹÉE. - to fulfill any desired need (|ɪÉÉäVÉxÉ).

The word +lÉ literally means here-after, which indicates that something has been done before this. Traditionally, is used before reciting the Vedas. +lÉ is used before reading everything else. Here the word +lÉ indicates that the ´Éè¶ÉäʹÉEò ºÉÚjɨÉ should be read only after reading the Vedas, which discusses only the theory (YÉÉxɨÉÂ) from which science (Ê´ÉYÉÉxɨÉÂ) has to be derived. This can be done only with separate teaching. Hence the word +lÉ indicates the category of persons that would benefit best from such knowledge (+ÊvÉEòÉ®úÒ). This also is the view of Gautama Buddha in ´ÉÉäÊvÉÊSÉkÉ Ê´É´É®úhÉ (näù¶ÉxÉÉ ±ÉÉäEòxÉÉlÉÉxÉÉÆ ºÉk´ÉɶɪɴɶÉÉxÉÖMÉÉ&). This also indicates that theory should precede trial and error based technology to prevent unintended consequences. Everyone does not possess the same talent. Hence it is necessary to identify the talent needed for learning the technology. Thereafter, the students should be tested to see if they possess that talent or not. Only the deserving candidates with the appropriate talent should be trained in the relevant technology. The less talented should be trained properly to develop them to come up in life in the fields in which they can excel. But selection should be according to talent and not arbitrarily imposed on them.

The text is being discussed after the student has learnt the Vedas – has a theoretical knowledge about the nature of the Universe. But without the requisite technology, we cannot use the theoretical knowledge to fulfill our needs. Hence the text proposes to teach the technology by the word “´ªÉÉJªÉɺÉɨÉ&”. This word indicates that by knowing the technology described there-in, the objective can be achieved (ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ&). It may be mentioned that we have references about commentaries on the ´Éè¶ÉäʹÉEò ºÉÚjɨÉ by Atri and Bharadwaja, though these are not available now. Similarly, Ravan had written a commentary named Eò]õxnùÒ on this text. Those were scientific treatises. The book {ÉnùÉlÉÇvɨÉǺÉÆOɽþ” written by +ÉSÉɪÉÇ |ɶɺiÉ{ÉÉnù does not describe its scientific aspects fully. For example, EòhÉÉnù in ºÉÚjÉ 1-1-6 lists 17 MÉÖhÉÉ& and ends the list with . |ɶɺiÉ{ÉÉnù interprets the by adding 7 other MÉÖhÉÉ&, by deriving those from the same text. What distinguishes these 7 from the other 17? The answer is that while the 17 MÉÖhÉÉ& are natural appearances that exhibit the excellence of those aspects based on the net energy content of the objects, the 7 other MÉÖhÉÉ&, are induced (|ÉäÊ®úiÉMÉÖhÉÉ&) by the seven types of gravitational interactions (+ɴɽþÉÊnù ºÉ{iÉ´ÉɪɴÉ&) in Vedic theory (Rk 1-164-15). Similarly, the other ºÉÚjÉÉ& have scientific meanings.

The ¨ÉÒ¨ÉÉƺÉÉ also begins with “+lÉÉiÉä vɨ¨ÉÇ ÊVÉYÉɺÉÉ”. Here, the word ¨ÉÒ¨ÉÉƺÉÉ stands for resolution. This text resolves the doubts or apparent contradictions in the various ¥ÉÉÀhÉ texts, which deal with the operational aspects of the Vedic theories. The ¥ÉÀºÉÚjÉ begins with “+lÉÉiÉä ¥ÉÀ ÊVÉYÉɺÉÉ”, because it resolves the doubts or apparent contradictions in the various ={ÉÊxɹÉnù, which deal with consciousness. The Nyaya school is Vedic research methodology, which has universal application. The Samkhya school deals with the first phase of creation before structure formation. The Yoga school deals with the application part of consciousness.

Sanskrit teachers should understand these properly and teach the Vedas and allied texts scientifically. We have challenged many modern theories by pointing out their deficiencies and explaining them by Vedic principles. It has appeared in many international forums. Till date no scientist in the world had found fault with our analysis. The unfortunate part is that the scientists are taught to follow the beaten path and believe only in the so-called “established theories” and discard everything else. They discard Vedic concepts as metaphysics or philosophy. The Sanskrit teachers are ignorant about the scientific interpretation of the Vedas. They have no idea about modern science, so that they cannot link Vedas to science. They fail to interpret the Vedas correctly starting from +ÎMxɨÉÒ¡âô (not +ÎMxɨÉÒbä÷). Hence we should start with training Sanskrit teachers in both Vedic methods of interpretation and science. While presenting the Vedic theories, we should follow the traditional method of the process (|ÉÊGòªÉÉ), concomitant or connected issues (+xÉÖ¹ÉRÂóMÉ), example, counter arguments, illustrations, analysis, etc., to test the validity of the theories (={ÉÉänÂùPÉÉiÉ) and final conclusion (={ɺÉƽþÉ®ú) scientifically. Then only we can proudly say:

ªÉäxÉ i´ÉªÉÉ ¦ÉÉ®úiÉiÉè±É{ÉÚhÉÇ& |ÉV´ÉÉäʱÉiÉÉä YÉÉxɨɪÉ& |ÉnùÒ{É&*
xɨɺiÉÖRÂóMÉʶɮú¶SÉÖΨ¤É SÉxpùSÉɨɮúSÉÉ®ú´Éä *
jÉè±ÉÉäCªÉ xÉMÉ®úÉ®ú¨¦É ¨Éڱɺiɨ¦ÉÉªÉ ¶É¨¦É´Éä *
 MÉÞhÉÒiÉä iÉk´É¨ÉÉi¨ÉҪɨÉÉi¨ÉÒEÞòiÉVÉMÉiÉ jɪɨÉÂ* ={ÉɪÉÉä{ÉäªÉ°ü{ÉÉªÉ Ê¶É´ÉÉªÉ MÉÖ®ú¤Éä xɨÉ&*
+ÊEòÎ\SÉÎSSÉxiÉEòºªÉè´É MÉÖ¯ûhÉÉ |ÉÊiɤÉÉävÉiÉ&* VÉɪÉiÉä ªÉ& ºÉ¨ÉÉ´Éä¶É& ¶Éɨ¦É´ÉÉäºÉÉ´ÉÖnùɾþiÉ&*
ºÉ´ÉÇYÉÉä ʽþ ʶɴÉÉä ´ÉäÊkÉ ºÉnùºÉSSÉäι]õiÉÆ xÉÞhÉɨÉÂ* iÉäxÉɺÉÉè xÉÉxÉÖMÉÞ¼hÉÉÊiÉ ÊEòÎ\SÉiYɺªÉ MÉÖ®úÉäÌMÉ®úÉ*
+ÊvÉEòÉ®úÒ Ê´É¦ÉÉMÉäxÉ ¶ÉɺjÉÉhªÉÖHòÉxªÉ¶Éä¹ÉiÉ& * ºÉ´ÉÈ xªÉɪªÉÈ ªÉÖÊHò¨ÉiÉÉÆ Ê´ÉnÖù¹ÉÉÆÊEò¨É¶ÉÉä¦ÉxÉ *