PRASHASTAPAADA OF ANCIENT INDIA REFUTED RELATIVITY.

PRASHASTAPAADA OF ANCIENT INDIA REFUTED RELATIVITY.

VAISHESHIKA SUTRAs LAWS OF MOTION and MOMENTUM –

-- that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. ... वेगो मूर्तिमत्सु पञ्चसु द्रव्येषु निमित्तविशेषापेक्षात् कर्मणो जायते ।

--- In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma (for projectile). वेगो .... निमित्तविशेषापेक्षात् कर्मणो जायते नियतदिक्क्रियाप्रबन्धहेतुः ।

Rather he wrote further about scalar howitzers using the formula E = t MC2. (δt is change in time for scalar brahmastras )

----that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. Whether leaf falls on thorn or thorn falls on leaf effect is same - (वेगो ...स्पर्शवद्द्रव्यसंयोगविशेषविरोधी)

--- that if two objects A and B collide in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision.

वेगो ... क्वचित् कारणगुणपूर्वक्रमेणोत्पद्यते ।

Sometime ego, I had posted a paper on the above subject and a friend shared it for wider evaluation. Some of the respondents have further asked some scientists to comment on it. He commented: First of all Relativity involved what Ken Hughes correctly points out - the issue of time and the finiteness of the speed of light. So that is where the above "philosophical" analysis collapses. The author ASSUMES that all measurements are done in one all-encompassing temporal frame. But we know today that is NOT the case. An equivalence relation on Minkowski spacetime can be defined for events and Set Theory as we know it - applies without contradiction only on Minkowskian Spacetime. The analysis above is very typical of pre Relativity ideas of one single cosmic time. But in Relativity where there is RELATIVE MOTION between the 2 frames, then their temporal coordinates are related by a Lorentz transformation. If there is NO relative motion then they are in the SAME frame of reference. Differs only by a translation. So the best way to deal with sets of events - is to define the set on Minkowskian spacetime and NOT Galilean spacetime. I responded as follows:

“Relativity involved the issue of time and the finiteness of the speed of light” – this is Special Relativity and not General Relativity. Darshana in India is used synonymously with Science. For example, Nyaya Darshana is our research methodology. Vaisheshika deals with particle physics. Ignorance of these aspects does not change their content. Thus, it does not collapse “the above ‘philosophical’ analysis”, as it is different from the Western philosophical approach.

Einstein did not define what time is except that it is the same as the tick of the clock. Then he tries to mislead as follows: 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. 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!

“But in Relativity where there is RELATIVE MOTION between the 2 frames, then their temporal coordinates are related by a Lorentz transformation”. Lorentz transformation are coordinate transformations between two coordinate frames that move at constant velocity relative to each other. The experimental basis of the Lorentz transform is the Michelson-Morley experiment. Michelson-Morley used light rays in their famous experiment. Light is a transverse wave and by definition, all transverse waves are background invariant. Hence, the null result of M&M experiment does not prove anything. The Lorentz transformation is based on this null foundation. Thus, it is only apparent and not real. A man standing on the platform sees the train along with the passengers contracting in length as they also see the man on the platform contracting in length. But really there is no such contraction. It is as apparent as the water in the mirage. What the observer observes is only apparent – there is no physical contraction. Yet, it has been treated here as if it is real! And instead of applying your mind independently, you are calling it real!

In fact, Einstein starts with misleading notions: Two possibilities of measurement of a moving rod suggested by Einstein in his 1905 paper on Special Theory of Relativity were:

(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 any unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading because:

•             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 different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats as if all three were at rest, one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will have zero relative velocity. Einstein missed this point when in the same paper, he said: Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, they will measure the velocity of k differently. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and got misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.

All objects fall in similar ways under the influence of gravity. Hence locally, it is said, the difference between an accelerated frame and an un-accelerated frame cannot be known. But these must be related to be compared as equivalent or not? In the example of a person in an elevator falling down a shaft, it is assumed that 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, where there is no gravity. This is a wrong description – distinction of what? Unless we relate the elevator to the outside space, we cannot relate motion of the elevator to it. The moment we relate to the structures beyond the elevator, we can know the relative motion of the elevator. Inside a spaceship in deep space, objects behave like Brownian motion (unaccelerated) or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt (accelerated). Usually, they are relatively stationary within the medium unless some other force acts upon them. If the person can see the outside objects, then he can know the relative motions by comparing objects at different distances. If he cannot see the outside objects, then he will consider only his position with reference to the spaceship – stationary or floating within a frame. There is no equivalence because there is no other frame for comparison. Relativity theory needs revision.

A same logic applies to the ray of light that appears curved to the occupants of the spaceship. The light can be related to the spaceship only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing the source of light and the spaceship. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the spaceship, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside it. If the passenger could observe the scene outside, he will notice this difference and know that the spaceship is moving. Otherwise, the consideration will be restricted to the rays emanating from within, which will move straight. In either case, the description is faulty. Thus, the foundation of GR - the EP - is wrong description of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon such wrong description are wrong. There is no inertial mass increase.

Einstein has used equations x2+y2+z2- (ct)2 = 0 and ξ2 + η2 + ζ2 – (cτ)2 = 0 to describe the evolution of the same light pulse that the observers see. But x2+y2- (ct)2 = 0 describes a circle with ct as the radius! Hence z and ζ have to be zero. It can’t be a sphere! Since (x. y. z) is a point on the circumference, moving in z direction will be tangential. It describes a cylinder and not a sphere! The geometer’s descriptions of π-sphere and the topologist’s descriptions of n-dimensional sphere are mathematically and physically void.

Einstein can describe two concentric spheres with the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on their respective circumferences. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation relates to sighting from his here-now (new origin). Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse). In case he takes a new measurement from his origin, according to Einstein, the reading from two frames will be different. In other words, he will either measure it independently as different or measure the same radius as the other, implying:  either:

x2+y2+z2- c2t2 ≠ x’2+y’2+z’2-c2 τ 2,     t ≠ τ.

Or c2t2 = c2 τ2   or t = τ.   

This creates contradictions, which invalidates his mathematics.

Minkowski spacetime is just a name with manipulated “mathematics”. He was trying to solve a practical problem – how to treat the curvature of hot metal plates – when he coined these words. When heated, a metal plate curves. But everything does not curve when heated. Some get burnt also. And the universe is not a hot metal sheet. There only one analog space and one analog time. We use digitized segments of these two analog entities that coexist. If you do not agree, please precisely and scientifically define what space is, what is time, what is spacetime, and how is Minkowski spacetime different from the common spacetime? How can there be so many space-times? Are you suggesting we should not believe our experience, but think that we are living in a filmy matrix? Also if you disagree with their mathematics, please define what mathematics is. I had posted a paper challenging the foundations of tensors. While most of those who responded appreciated it, no one challenged it. You are welcome for a debate on the validity of tensors.

1.            The date of Vatsayana quoted in EB was based on the views of A. B Keith. Vatsayana is also treated as the 4th Acharya of Kamasootram after Nandikeshwara, Shwetaketu Audalaki and Babhravya Panchala. None of his predecessors could be dated. There is no direct evidence of his time, as in ancient India, authors avoided claiming credit for any work by them. The dates have been variously described by references to other works which resemble the description of Kamasootram. This is not a fool-proof method. As can be shown from the treatise of Gautama, he raised all possible questions regarding any statement and called it Vipratipatti. He refuted all these and established his statement irrefutably. As I have already written, Buddha’s philosophy is a miniature version of certain segments of Gautama’s work. Vatsayana was only elaborating on Gautama’s work. He never refers to any concept other than the Vipratipatti. Later writers tried to bring in Buddhist views in their commentaries and refuted it. Thus, Vatsayana cannot be linked to any other concept including “some varieties of Shunyavada skepticism” as mentioned by EB. Had it been so, he would have refuted ALL such contrary views, which were more than 18 different types during the life time of Buddha himself. I can describe the full list if you so desire. According to our tradition confirmed by Kautilya, the author of Arthashastram, and the famous Buddhist poet Ashwaghosha, the Rishis left the Earth long before 700 BC. Gautama was one of the last to leave. Siddhartha, the Buddha was born many years after that. Since Vatsayana was a Rishi, he must have existed long before 700 BC. Buddha, was born in 623 B.C. If "Gautama’s sutras were commented upon about 400 ce by Vatsayana”, the statement: “Vatsayana was much older than Buddha himself”, could not be true.

2.            Regarding the extension of Kanada’s work by Prashastapaada, one must understand the various nature of commentary in ancient India, such as Bhashya, Vritti, Vaartika, etc. In the first category, the original Sootra is first written followed by the commentator’s explanatory note. This can be of two types: one which does not add to anything more and the other which adds more from other sources or on his own (Vaartika). There can be others which explains everything including Vaartikas. Prashastapaada follows a mixed procedure. Hence there is some controversy about the nature of his work. But he had written another treatise, which discussed the science elaborately, but which is not available now. Only a few people like my ancestors memorized those and passed on to the next generation orally. I learnt about it from my late father. We hear about commentaries on Kanaada Sootram called Katandi by Ravana and Vritti by Bharadwaaja, our remote ancestor, who wrote Yantra Sarvaswa, a scientific treatise of the highest order, of which only one chapter is available, which captivates modern scientists. Prashastapaada has nowhere transgressed Kanaada, but explains everything by drawing upon from the original Sootras – possibly based on Bharadwaaja Vritti. Kanaada in his 2nd Chapter has mentioned about the nature of matter. In his 5th Chapter, he has described all about motions. Prashastapaada followed this principle. Since there is no bare charge or bare mass, Kanaada classifies Vaayu, the prime mover of everything, among the Dravya, which is generally translated as material or matter, but which actually means that which is capable of changing state. In this classification, it is accepted that everything is a composite – agnishomaatmaka – of both matter and energy (fermions and leptons). Depending upon the degree of excellence (tama or raja), one is classified as matter or energy. While the other three before Vaayu: Prithwi, Jala and Teja are composites of matter and energy, Vaayu is pure energy that propels all matter. Thus, while the others have been divided into 3 categories depending upon their relationship with body, senses and objects, Vaayu has one additional division related to life called Praana. Life is not only related to living beings, but also to inert objects (scientists talk of half-life of inert particles) including the Universe itself. Hence, after discussing Vaayu, Prashastapaada discussed the creation event. No Sootra contains elaborations. It is the commentator, who elaborates the Sootra. Hence, Prashastapaada followed the traditional practice and did nothing new. Ignorance of traditional practice is at the root of such contrary opinion that “the theistic background was initially lacking”.

3.            Anatta is “non-self” or “substanceless” in Pali, the precursor to my mother tongue and Anaatman in Sanskrit, means the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. Instead, the individual is compounded of five khandha (Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing. The Buddha taught that the sense of being a permanent, autonomous self is an illusion. According to an ancient book called Briddha Trayi, he was made to feel shamed as born of mixed class as his mother belonged to the warrior caste and his father belonged to a tribal group. Thus, he rebelled against Hinduism and tried to counter its tenets using the knowledge he got from his Brahmin Gurus. He propagated the concept of anatta, or anatman to counter the Hindu concept of Aatman or Self. For constructing his theory, he took three ingredients 1, 8 and 9 from Gautama Sootras 1-1-9.  However, his doctrine has already been considered by Gautama and refuted in 13 Sootras of the 3RD Chapter of his book. "Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. Since Buddha could not refute rebirth, there is no such teaching in Buddhism. Buddha asserted that there is no soul, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation. However, Buddhists often speak of "rebirth" as evident in Jataka tales. This presents a contradiction. Regarding rebirth, please see Gautama Sootras 4-1-10. The absence of a self - Anatta, Anicca (Anitya - the impermanence of all being), and Dukkha (“suffering”) are the three characteristics of all existence (ti-lakkhana) in Buddhism. These are a brief discussion taken out from Chapter 4 of Gautama Sootras.

It is a misconception that “India's greatest contribution to the world is spiritual”. In fact Mundaka Upanishad 3-2-6 says: “Vedanta Vijnaana Sunishchitaarthaah…”, which means, “after mastering the science of the Vedas…”. Most of the Vedic literature can only be understood through science. For example, till date, no one could explain the first word of Rhk Veda “Agnimile” to me. I had proved even the so-called great authorities wrong. But I could explain it to them only through science. Same with the first Mantra of Aitareya Braahmanam. Vaimanika Shastra of Bharadwaja Maharshi is highly rated among scientific communities with many international seminars held on it and still research continuing to understand it. This contradicts the statement that “Indian philosophies are basically spiritual systems which use philosophy to justify and explain the spiritual path/approach/endeavor”.

Though “Indian spiritual systems were based on supernaturalism, revelations, intuitions, spiritual visions and experiences, inner and higher experiences and realizations”, these itself were based on science. There is plenty of evidence regarding these.

Gautama Sootras is our research methodology and not philosophy. Its subsidiaries like Tarka Samgraha etc., are taught as Logic. Thus, “Therefore proving Indian spirituality by means and methods of logic and science is bound to be a failure”, is contrary to the truth. True, “Spirituality is a different paradigm and it requires faith and other spiritual traits”, but in Vedic context, these are not “in direct opposition to reason based, empiricism based science and philosophy”, because the Vedic method is based on “Drashtavya, shrotavya, mantavya, nididhyaasitavya” – “observe, listen to authoritative sources, analyze applying research methodology, and experiment in practice before accepting anything”.

As I have repeatedly said, there is a lot of misconception about the Vedas, which are the Universal Book of Knowledge, as the very name suggests. Even prayer (stuti) in the Vedas has been defined as “Stutistu Namnaa Rupena Karmanaa Baandhavenacha” – nomenclature and classification, physical characteristics, chemical properties and interactive property with others”.  Ignorance of the true meaning of technical terms has led ALL commentators to give a wrong interpretation. Till date I have not seen an authoritative commentary of even Gita. These wrong books by the ignorant calling themselves as experts is giving a wrong message about Vedas. As A. A. McDonald had written in his book published in 19^th Century, since 7^th Century, some Jesuits forged Vedas to give it a bad name. Now ignorance is doing the same thing.

Ralph Griffith, Max Muller or Puqun Li are NOT authorities on the Upanishad. Ishopanishad or Ishaavaasyopanishad discusses about Brahmasatya and Devasatya starting from Amrhtaatmaa. The first three Mantras are called Purushaatmaadhikarana and discuss about the totality that existed before creation. The next Mantra (4^th) is Avyaktaatmaadhikarana and discusses the state immediately after creation. The next three Mantras (5-7) describe the relationship of the initial state with the first evolutionary state called Brahmasatya. The next (8^th) is Mahadaatmaadhikarana that describes the inter-galactic space. The next 3 Mantras (9-11) is Vijnaanaatmaadhikarana, which describes the galaxy and star formation. Till now everythin was evolving mechanically. The next three Mantras (12 to 14) are Prajnaanaatmaadhikarana, which describes the formation of planets, conscious processes and primordial life. The next 2 and 1/2 Mantra are Pranaatmaadhikarana, which describes the formation of life on Earth. The second half of the 17^th Mantra is Shareeratrayaatmaadhikarana, which describes human life. The last 18^th Mantra describes the relation between Brahmasatya and Devasatya and their relationship with the heat principle. This last Mantra is not in the Maadhyandina recension. This is the traditional interpretation, but you will never find it in ANY commentary on the Upanishad.

To give one example of how it is different from the published books, I will give just one example. Nowhere in the Vedas, the statements are repeated or described more than the minimum necessary. Hence, for interpreting anything related to Vedas, we must have a knowledge of the whole Vedas. Otherwise, we will not understand the technical terms, which might have been described elsewhere. Take the first quarter of the 4^th Mantra. Literally it says: “There is one which is immobile, but moves faster than the fastest……” Apparently it is self-contradictory. But if we understand the context, everything becomes simple.

When we look at the universe, we find everything in a state of transition – from one state to another state continuously – at different speeds regulated by the initial application of force and density of the medium. How do we know? Because of observation. But observation needs two things: Observable and Observer. The observable undergoes transition, which is an action. Observation is the comparison between similars, which also is an action. Observation returns a result in scalar quantities. The Observer gives meaning to the scalar quantities by linking that to the dimensions of the unit of measurement. Observer do not perform any action. It only perceives or gives meaning to the observation of the observable based on prior knowledge of the dimension of the unit. It is the repository of the prior knowledge, otherwise we could not perceive anything. When someone takes a tape and measures a cloth and says 5 meters, we must have the prior knowledge of meter. Otherwise we will not understand anything. Thus, everything in the universe can be categorized as 1) action, which describes the state, and 2) knowledge, which makes the state meaningful. Both are related to the same thing. The Mantra refers to this division.

At the before creation was beyond description (singularity), as there was no distinction between the Observer, the Observable and the mechanism of Observation. It became meaningful when the Observer started observing the Observable. The Observable moves at the fastest pace (hence light has the limiting velocity). But the Observer (in the universal sense) does not move (movement is an action), yet, He observes the entire expanse. How could it be explained? Let us examine the following scenario.

There are three types of motion in the universe. The first is 1) Avayava Gati or the motion of the part. A potter’s wheel is an example. Every point on the wheel are rotating, but the wheel itself is stationary. There are innumerable examples of this type of motion. The second is 2) Avayavee Gati or motion of the whole. A passenger in a running car represents a good example. The parts of the passenger are not moving, but he/she as a whole is moving. The third is 3) Ubhaya Gati or motion of both the part and the whole. The motion of the car is an example. Everything in it including the car itself is moving. Of these three, the Mantra refers to the first. At the moment of creation, an inherent instability described in the first three Mantras, creates a ripple, which spreads out at the fastest possible speed due to inertia of motion (vega described by Kanaada) breaking the equilibrium of the background structure. This generates a stress in the static background giving rise to inertia of restoration (sthitisthaapaka described by Kanaada) or elasticity. This creates a bow-shock effect that reduces the speed of expansion till it reduces to zero and reverts back slowly starting a process of reconnection. This process is described in Gopatha Braahmanam. The volume thus cut off is the universe, which remains static like the potter’s wheel, while everything in it moves at the fastest speed.

I can go on describing the entire creation process based only on this Mantra. Would you still call it spiritual! Is it not logical and scientific? Can you find such explanation in any book on Ishopanishad or Ishaavaasyopanishad?

“When we synchronize clocks, we are making an equivalence relation and the equivalence classes are the frames of references”. This means, for synchronizing two clocks, you are taking the frames of reference as a “privileged frame”, just like Einstein used the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference to synchronize the clocks at B and C. Then how can you say the two clocks are relative? Relativity does not allow privileged frames of reference and Einstein made everyone fool by first using it and then denying its existence.

“Secondly, the Lorentz transformations have been verified in a wide class of phenomena beyond just the Michelson Morley expt. Time dilation, length contraction, relativistic doppler effect etc etc have been observed in astrophysical phenomena as well as in particle physics”. How many times shall I repeat with proof that these are wrong notions? Time dilation experiment using atomic clocks was FORGED. The GPS evidence can be explained by refraction. Length contraction and Doppler shift have two other explanations. In some cases like the man on the train, it is apparent and not real. In other cases like the sound of the horn of a train, it is compression or rarefaction of the medium due to mechanical motion and not relativity. The same principle applies to Astrophysics and particle physics.

“Finally the equivalence between a locally accelerated frame and the effects of gravity can be tested - and has been tested - by looking at phenomena that is sensitive to gravitation. Such tests have been carried out”. It is laughable. Till date no one has a clear idea about gravity. General Relativity, apart from being conceptually wrong as had been shown long ego by Prashastapaada, cannot explain Pioneer Anomaly, Fly-by Anomaly, deflection of Voyager 2 beyond the orbit of Saturn, etc. The wobbling of Mercury’s perihelion was explained by Gerber much before Einstein without using Relativity and EINSTEIN PLAGIARIZED GERBER’S WORK. It is all on the net. MOND has not been up to expectation. Scientists are fooling public with technology and enjoying a cozy life by fictionalizing physics.

Unfortunately, such half-truths and distorted knowledge are going round in the name of Indian Philosophy and Indian spirituality. Let me clarify some points. Wiki says: “Para Vidya, concerned with Brahman, the highest reality and value, and the final terminus, cannot be conceived as an inquiry; all scientific and ethical inquiries are Apara Vidya, nevertheless, the scientists engaged in such inquiries not only guide the selection of means to an end but also guide choice of the ends”. But this is not the meaning of the Mantra it quotes earlier: अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिग्म्यते || - (Mundaka Upanishad I.i.4-6). Literally it means Para is that through which (one) learns about Akshara. The word Akshara literally means Non-Perishable. Hence everybody has taken it to mean the Non-Perishable Self or as you say: “higher and true and direct knowledge which refers to the actual/practical/experienced knowledge of the spiritual truths/experiences/realizations/Brahman”. But this is wrong, as Aitareya Aaranyaka 2-3-8-10 says: “Yadaksharam Panchavidham sameti yujo yukata abhiyat samvahanti” and “Yadaksharaadaksharameti yuktam”, etc. Even Gita 8-3/4 (though wrongly interpreted in all commentaries), says clearly that Akshara is related to “visarga” and “karma”, meaning the primordial energy. It also talks about Kshara as all material objects and the same Mundaka Upanishad 3-2-7 says: “Karmaani Vijnaanamayashcha Aatmaa pare-avyaye sarva ekeebhavanti. This means that both Kshara and Akshara as described by Gita 15-16, combine or submerge in Avyaya. This trilogy together form everything. Of these, the Avyaya is the conscious part, the Akshara is the energy part and Kshara is the material part. For this reason, the same Mundaka Upanishad I.i.6 describes the characteristics of Akshara in terms not used for any material constituent.

There is another interpretation of “Para Vidya” and “Apara Vidya”, according to other Upanishads. Dwevidye veditavye shabda brahmam param cha yat. In this classification, knowledge about Shabda Brahma is Aparavidya and knowledge about the other - Parambrahma is Paravidya. Hence, the Vedas and the related subjects have been classified by Mundaka Upanishad as Apara Vidya. Interpreting it will require a big book. Hence I stop here.

Dharma literally means that which upholds. To understand the concept of Dharma, imagine a boat floating in a river. What is upholding it? Water and air – both partly. These two have their own intrinsic dynamics beyond the control of the boat or the boatman. If the boat harmonizes its motion with the dynamics of water and air, it will reach smoothly. Otherwise it will suffer. Dharma is harmonizing one’s actions to one’s surroundings that holds him/her. We are held by our family, which has its own laws. Our family is held successively by the locality, the state, the country, the world, the universe. Each of them have their own laws and dynamics. If we adhere to these, we will be happy; otherwise we will suffer. This is dharma and adharma and not “acting according to the spiritual law of one's being”.

Swabhava is the inherent potential based on genetics at birth. No one is useless, but everyone is not equally talented for all works. Selecting the work in which one can excel requires judging one’s potential. A person talented for a particular skill cannot excel in another field.

Ashrama is the accumulation of knowledge according to one’s talent (Brahmacharya - dharma for 25 years), then earning livelihood and enjoying family life (Gaarhastya - artha and kama till 50 years) during the first half. This is attachment to life. In the second half detachment begins with withdrawal from worldly affairs (Vaanaprastha till 75 years). And finally, total renunciation of everything till one dies. This is uniform for all Varnas.

Varna is the quality or talent by which describe (hence Varna – not body color) a person. Those talented in knowledge related areas, administration/protection related areas, meeting general requirement areas, are called Braahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya respectively. Those who are highly skilled, but cannot take pressure, hence lack initiative, but can be gainfully utilized by others for their skills, are called Shudras. According to Manu and others, father acts as the seed and mother acts as the field. Depending upon the nature of parentage (and whether they are married socially or secretly), the child is prescribed different mixed Varnas to tap his potential to the maximum. It is important to mention here that Manu has described the Varna system in detail not in the section related to marriage, but to profession.

Purushartha are the four: 1) accumulating knowledge to practice Dharma, 2) Accumulating wealth to maintain family, 3) Conjugal happiness, and 4) renunciation for liberation from the cycle of birth and death.

Satya and Rhta is not “the outer law and the inner law of one's being are not 2 different laws but the same”. Whatever is directly perceptible (sthitisiddha), has a central structure around which a fixed body exists (sahrhdaya), and has a perceivable body (sashareeri), is called Satya. The opposite (bhaati siddha, ahrhdaya, ashareeri) is called Rhta. They are like fermions and bosons and not the same. However, there can be no Satya, without Rhta. Since writing on these will require a book, I stop here.

Every subject has its context. The same word labor would have different meanings in medical and industrial context. Similarly, there are methods for interpreting Vedas – the Vedic context. These are called Vedaanga. Unless one reads those, it will not be possible to interpret Vedas correctly. When I said "listen to authoritative sources", it means authoritative in those areas, which means infallible. Whether they are religious or divine, etc. are immaterial. If we have chosen a person in whom we can have the faith for expertise in the subject, the other points mentioned by you do not arise.

The "experiment in practice before accepting anything" is not as simple as it sounds. It has to be achieved in five steps. The first is postulate based on observation, reading/listening and analysis. The next step is corroborative evidence to justify it. The third is proof that its opposite is false. The fourth is its universality. If there are exceptions, those must be listed. The last is proof that all other postulates on that subject are wrong. Thus, it is quite tougher than modern scientific methods.

Your example will make thinks clear. Brahman is different from Brahmaa. Vishnuand Shiva are used in the context of Brahmaa and not Brahman. Krishna is used only in the context of Vishnu. Karma is not used in the context of others. Yet, each of these terms have intrinsic meaning. What is motion? We say that equilibrium is the total mutual cancellation of all forces acting on a body. Everything is at equilibrium till one of the forces acting on it is removed. Then the body not only moves, but brings an equal and opposite reaction. The equilibrium is called Brahmaa. The force that moves out from the center is called Indra. The incoming force to balance that is called Vishnu. Where the outgoing forces interacts with the body (for example, when a gravitational force comes from the Sun to the Earth and another from Earth goes to the Sun, by the time they reach the other body, the body would have moved, so that they reach at another point and interact with it), it is called Agni. Its complement is called Soma. Only if someone has read the Rhk Veda 6-69-8 and its interpretation in the respective Braahmanam and Aaranyaka, he/she would understand this meaning. This meaning is too difficult for general people. Hence, the same principle explained to them through story form in Purana. The concept of Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu comes there. Similarly, Indra becomes Rudra, who, later becomes Shiva under certain scientific conditions. The Vedic description is used only for scientific purposes.  If someone is ignorant of this and has read only the Purana, he will behave as you have described. To avoid that problem, I used the words Vedic context, which is highly scientific. It has nothing to do with religion or metaphysics. It is empirical science.

1. “It is against the spirit of modern science -- they hold -- to believe that something is beyond rational examination and criticism”. Can science be different with time? Can modern science be superior to the earlier science? They might have different knowledge. But “science related to some subject” - like the nature and use of iron or planetary motions - cannot be different in different ages, though the technologies may be different. We can have knowledge of things that we come across directly or indirectly. But there may be things about which we may not have any idea at all. For example, what is outside our universe? How the universe came into being? We can only speculate about these – but cannot know for sure. Scientists talk about multiverses without any proof. It is pure speculation. Vedas also accept multiple universes as a logical necessity as there is no reason to believe that we are unique. But Vedas say: whatever is beyond reality, cannot be known.

a)      I could understand your point. It arises from lack of information relating to Vedas. Even after more than 50 years study, I am nowhere near knowing even a miniscule portion of the Vedas. Firstly, there are various meanings of the word Veda, which confuses almost all. At one level, Veda means Knowledge about everything. Since it is impossible for one to know about everything, some believe it as revelation “from a supreme, divine source”. But then the books interpreting Vedas say: Rhk Veda is the science of structures, Yajurveda is the science of motion, Sama Veda is the science of radiations and Atharvan Veda is the science of consolidation and application. This makes the Vedas pure science that is revealed from a tangible source – from Guru or by oneself through relentless pursuit to know about something. “Western scientists, being often non-religious, do not consider the Vedas as supremely authoritative” – makes scientists sound superstitious. Even for rejecting something, you must have evidence after analysis. How many of them have analyzed Vedas and came to the conclusion that it is not authoritative? If anyone has done so, I will like to have a debate with them to prove them wrong. Of course analysis can be GIGO – garbage in garbage out. If they that studied Veda without Vedaanga, it is GIGO.

b)      What is Vedanga? It is six preliminary branches that helps to understand things. The first branch Shikshaa deals with the science of phonetics. Vedic language is a highly structured scientific language. Each letter of the alphabet is generated through specific mechanism inside our body till it is released by our mouth or nasal cavity. These are so advanced that most technologists dealing with AI are following it. Recently, Microsoft has undertaken a project in which a team consisting of computer scientists and Vedic Scholars are trying to understand the structure of Taitteeriya Praatishaakhya – one such text. Can it be unscientific? How?

c)       The second Vedaanga is Kalpa. It is all about the processes. The Vedic method of getting the desired result is by imitating Nature. For example, if we are deficient in blood or bones, we should drink blood (it is being done now through transfusion) or eat bones. But since it may not be always desirable as a continuing process, Nature has provided substitutes. By properly choosing the specific diet, we can have plenty of blood or bones. A similar process is followed in Vedic processes – imitating Nature. This has to be done in prescribed manner through substitutes. This procedure is Kalpa. Can it be unscientific? How?

d)      The third is Grammar and the fourth is Nirukta – etymology of technical words with meanings not generally known. Can it be unscientific? How?

e)      The fifth is Chhanda. It is a measure of the units of force and manner of its application. Can it be unscientific? How?

f)       The last is Jyotisha. It has three sub-divisions. The first subdivision is Siddhaanta - mathematics. This includes Stellar mathematics - Astronomy. The second and third sub-divisions – Horaa and Samhitaa - relate to environmental influence on individual and the Universal. Can it be unscientific? How?

2. a) If someone rejects something without proper examination, he/she cannot be called a scientist. They are superstitious. What can we say about them? They are occupying high positions by chance – rather due to the inefficiency of the system. I can only pity the system. If someone ignorant about the diamond calls it glass and says that examining them is “irrelevant for the unprejudiced empirical inquiry”, how can I help?

2 b). The interpretation I gave to the Vedic context is not my invention or fiction. I have given specific reference to the Veda Mantra from which these could be derived. It is not “an invitation to a figurative (NON-literal) interpretation of the ancient Indian religious scriptures”. These are: “codified descriptions and explanations of PHYSICAL (NATURAL) principles and forces, personified as gods only for the use of the less sophisticated minds”. However, translation has its own deficiencies. For example, in your above statement, the word Gods can be misleading. The Vedic name is Devaah. Everything we perceive is divided into two parts: directly perceived (Bhaava Pratyaya) and indirectly inferred (Upaaya Pratyaya). The second category has further two subdivisions: Devaah or Quantum (which you call here Gods) and Prakrhtilayaah or beyond quantum. Vedas discuss ALL. The number of Devaah as given by the Vedas is 33. The Standard Model of Particle Physics treats 17 particles. Vedas go much beyond that. It is not my statement, but if you want, I can quote specific reference to it in the Vedas. Based on this, I had theoretically calculated the charge of quarks and the value of the fine-structure constant alpha, which matches modern measured values. Till date modern science has no theory to derive these values. It was presented in an International Seminar at SVV University, Tirupati and the University has published it. Hence there is great science in the Vedas. Only those who have no idea about Vedas are condemning it. This is what I intend to convey.

I had posted a paper to show that Prashastapaada in ancient India had discussed relativistic principles and rejected it as unscientific description of reality. This was hotly debated. Dr. Andrei Mirovan, a great intellectual, referred my paper to many scientists for their views. While I had replied to all their views, one Dr. Sylvain Poirier had made some disparaging comments on my view that GR could not explain Pioneer Anomaly, Fly-by Anomaly, sudden change in the flight path of voyager beyond the orbit of Saturn, etc. Dr. Sylvain Poirier wrote: "You're just absolutely ridiculous saying: 'General Relativity is a theory of gravitation, which is known to be incomplete because it cannot explain Pioneer Anomaly' “ and “You really should resign." This was my response to his post. I invite scientists to criticize my view on the solution to Pioneer Anomaly. I have a solution, which, as is akin to what Dr. Sigurd Vojnov says: “a unimodular relativity effect (unimodular relativity is GR plus conformal degrees of freedom for handling dark energy)”. I will discuss about my solution later. But first: Has the Pioneer Anomaly been solved?

This was my reply to Dr. Sylvain Poirier:

Before I prove who is ridiculous: “me saying GR failed to solve Pioneer Anomaly” or “you pointing to a solution for it by others”, let me examine your statement: "The difference between *exit* and *entry* is purely poetical and has absolutely nothing to do with logic nor with physics. Therefore such a discussion is absolutely out of science and unable to address a topic of physics such as Relativity theory."

How is the “difference between *exit* and *entry* is purely poetical”? Could it be scientific if I say: “a person is put in a room-size box high above the moon (chosen because there is no air and hence no air friction) with a bunch of measuring devices. This box is then taken high above the lunar surface and then let go: the box is then freely falling. The question is now, can the observer determine whether he/she is falling or whether he/she is in empty space unaffected by external forces (of course the answer is supposed to come before the box hits the surface). The answer to that is a definite NO!” By your standards, “freely falling” and “in empty space unaffected by external forces” would be purely poetical. Then most of science will be poetry. How do you define poetry and how do you differentiate it from science? By equations? But equations only say how much a system change when any or many of the parameters of the left hand side change with corresponding changes in the right hand side. It cannot explain “how, why, when, where, etc.” about the system. Mathematics can tell you the proportion of sugar in a cake, but cannot describe the change in sweetness of the cake. You cannot describe the smile of your child by any equation. It is not the curvature of her lips. And what about the Observer, who occupies an important position in Quantum sciences. Is there any equation for it? If not, is it poetry also? Are you not ridiculing yourself by such a statement?

Again before coming to Pioneer Anomaly, let me examine your other statements. From your statement it appears that your belief in relativity is utmost and according to you, anything conflicting with relativity is wrong. Is it not superstition? And can a superstitious person be called a scientist? Regarding velocity of light, do you have any proof that the measured velocity is the same outside the Solar System? Was the velocity of light the same at all times? Without these, how can you cling to a belief that velocity of light is the invariant limiting velocity? A clock is not the same as time. You can blame anything that contradicts your views, on the “bad clock”. But there is nothing as a bad clock. It is a mechanical device that malfunctions. But if you use the same clock for all readings, then it is as good as a good clock.

Now let us come to the Pioneer Anomaly. Unlike you, I apply my mind to everything. Hence kindly have the patience to go through my analysis instead of rejecting it as ridiculous without reading it.

I hope you have thoroughly read the reference you have forwarded to me. Hence I will not waste time and space in reproducing those. Voyager 1 is the most distant spacecraft, about 17.5 billion kilometers (10.9 billion miles) away from the sun at a northward angle. Pioneer 10, the next most distant, is about 15.4 billion kilometers (9.6 billion miles) away from the sun on the opposite side of the solar system. Voyager 2 is about 14.2 billion kilometers (8.8 billion miles) away from the sun on a southward trajectory, on the same side of the solar system as Voyager 1. Pioneer 11 is about 12.4 billion kilometers (7.8 billion miles) away from the sun. New Horizons is about 3 billion kilometers (2 billion miles) away from the sun, on its way to Pluto. Voyager is the first man made object to leave the Solar System (which it did in 2012) and enter interstellar space.

Pioneer 10 and 11 were sent in early seventies and the anomaly in their velocity was detected after about 10 years in the early eighties. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecrafts were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. When all known forces acting on the spacecraft were taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remained. It appeared to cause an approximately constant sunward acceleration of (8.74±1.33)×10^−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year. The effect is equivalent to a reduction of the outbound velocity by 1 km/h over a period of ten years. This apparent discrepancy grew over time as the measurements were repeated, suggesting that whatever was causing the anomaly was still acting on the spacecraft.

These were not the only spacecraft to feel the drag, but others like Galileo and Cassini also felt the Sun-ward drag when they approached the orbit of Jupiter. Voyager 1 and 2 did not clearly exhibit these drag for other reasons (in fact it was not fully measured and left as anomalous). The Pioneer 10 and 11 were spin stabilized, which gave a clear scope for measuring the anomaly (Voyagers were designed differently). But other space crafts such as Delta II on some flights and Minotaur V were spin stabilized. The Schiaparelli EDM lander was spun up to 2.5 RPM before being ejected from the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter prior to its attempted landing on Mars in October 2016. Another spin-stabilized spacecraft is Juno, which arrived at Jupiter orbit in 2016. The Pioneer 4 spacecraft, the second object sent on a lunar flyby in 1959, maintained trajectory using spin-stabilization. But most of these did not show such anomaly. This shows that there was something special as a space craft approached beyond Jupiter.

Most deep-space probes launched after the Pioneers either stopped at one of the planets, or used thrusting throughout their mission. Galileo and Ulysses indicated a similar effect, although for various reasons (such as their relative proximity to the Sun) firm conclusions could not be drawn from these sources. The Cassini mission has reaction wheels as well as thrusters for attitude control, and during cruise could rely for long periods on the reaction wheels alone, thus enabling precision measurements. It also had radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) mounted close to the spacecraft body, radiating kilowatts of heat in hard-to-predict directions. After Cassini arrived at Saturn, it shed a large fraction of its mass from the fuel used in the insertion burn and the release of the Huygens probe. This increases the acceleration caused by the radiation forces because they are acting on less mass. This change in acceleration allows the radiation forces to be measured independently of any gravitational acceleration. Comparing cruise and Saturn-orbit results shows that for Cassini, almost all the unmodelled acceleration was due to radiation forces, with only a small residual acceleration, much smaller than the Pioneer acceleration, and with opposite sign. But it was still there.

Spacecraft like the Voyagers acquired small and unpredictable changes in speed as a side effect of the frequent attitude control firings. This 'noise' makes it impractical to measure small accelerations such as the Pioneer effect; accelerations as large as 10^−9 m/s2 would be undetectable. The radiation environment around Jupiter, as found out by Pioneer 10 was far harsher than expected. By some measures, it was 1,000 times stronger than anyone had thought it would be. Io, one of Jupiter’s moons, has volcanoes that spew tons of sulfur into space every second, which, through a complex series of interactions, exacerbates the radiation around Jupiter. For this reason, changes were made to the design of Voyagers 1 and 2.

A paper in Physical review letters: (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101) tried to give a thermal solution to the anomaly. This paper investigated the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. They constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, they numerically solved thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. They used the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. As a novel element of investigation, they developed a parametrized model for the thermal recoil force and estimated the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. But here lies the problem. The data they used was in obsolete formats. Hence they had to retrieve the data to the current format. But they did not retrieve the entire data. Further analysis of the retrieved Pioneer data. This includes not only the data that was first used to detect the anomaly, but additional data that until recently was saved only in older, inaccessible computer formats and media. This data was recovered in 2006, converted to more modern formats, and is now available for analysis. Only after the latest data is analyzed, the 2012 paper can be evaluated.

There are two features of the anomaly, as originally reported, that are not addressed by the thermal solution: periodic variations in the anomaly, and the onset of the anomaly near the orbit of Saturn. Firstly, the anomaly has an apparent annual periodicity and an apparent Earth sidereal daily periodicity with amplitudes that are formally greater than the error budget. However, the same paper also states this problem is most likely not related to the anomaly: "The annual and diurnal terms are very likely different manifestations of the same modeling problem. [...] Such a modeling problem arises when there are errors in any of the parameters of the spacecraft orientation with respect to the chosen reference frame."

Secondly, the value of the anomaly measured over a period during and after the Pioneer 11 Saturn encounter had a relatively high uncertainty and a significantly lower value. The Turyshev, et al. 2012 paper compared the thermal analysis to the Pioneer 10 only. The Pioneer anomaly was unnoticed until after Pioneer 10 passed its Saturn encounter. However, the most recent analysis states: "Figure 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of mis-modeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data"

Thirdly, does the Pioneer Anomaly continue beyond the orbit of Saturn? My solution says: NO.

MOND hypothesis proposed that the force of gravity deviates from the traditional Newtonian value to a very different force law at very low accelerations on the order of 10−10 m/s2. Given the low accelerations placed on the spacecraft while in the outer Solar System, MOND may be in effect, modifying the normal gravitational equations. The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment combined with data of LAGEOS satellites refutes that simple gravity modification is the cause of the Pioneer anomaly. The precession of the longitudes of perihelia of the solar planets or the trajectories of long-period comets have not been reported to experience an anomalous gravitational field toward the Sun of the magnitude capable of describing the Pioneer anomaly. There are other solutions, which are unsatisfactory.

The New Horizons spacecraft to Pluto is spin-stabilized for much of its cruise, and there is a possibility that it can be used to investigate the anomaly. New Horizons may have the same problem that precluded good data from the Cassini mission - its RTG is mounted close to the spacecraft body, so thermal radiation from it, bouncing off the spacecraft, may produce a systematic thrust of a not-easily predicted magnitude, several times as large as the Pioneer effect. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to study the non-gravimetric accelerations on the spacecraft, in the hopes of having them well modeled for the long cruise to Pluto after the Jupiter fly-by that occurred in February 2007. In particular, despite any large systematic bias from the RTG, the 'onset' of the anomaly at or near the orbit of Saturn might be observed.

You have not discussed the other anomalies. Hence I presume that you have no idea about those. Your statement that: “Physicists were rather indifferent, because they knew how solid was the experimental basis of Relativity” ridicules Physicists by portraying them as Blind Believers or Superstitious. But all are not like you. I could have explained all these, but to a scientist and not to a superstitious person like you. Hence please stop denigrating Physicists and instead of advising me to resign, please resign yourself.  

TO Mart Malakoff: Many people who have not even seen the original Vedas are writing books and giving lectures on Vedas. Some have admitted it to me when I questioned them. There is NOT A SINGLE book that translates the Vedas faithfully even by 0.000001%. The only way to interpret Vedas is through its phonetic system, its grammar and etymology, its procedural detail, its unit and nature of force, etc., which are detailed in a set of texts called Vedaanga. These are unique by themselves. No one interprets Vedas according to Vedaanga. Interpreting it according to Sanskrit or any other grammar is not sufficient, as Vedic grammar and phonetics are totally different from that of Sanskrit. Vedic grammar is the ONLY GRAMMAR that is totally scientific. It can be used as computer language with translation and retranslation showing exact form and content, which is not seen in any other language. Even Microsoft is making research on one of its texts called Taittiriya Praatishaakhya. There is nothing like “Vedic ideas”, as Veda is not an idea, but the UNIVERSAL BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE MANKIND. Even prayer in Vedic context has been defined as “Nomenclature and classification, physical characteristics, chemical characters and interactive potential – स्तुतिस्तु नाम्ना रूपेण कर्मणा वान्धवेन च. There is no way to interpret Vedas without science, though we have to derive scientific formulations through prescribed procedures. It is much more rigorous than modern physics, because only after one step is fully established, the next step is approached. I am willing for an open debate on this issue with anyone on any forum.

Regarding 'indistinguishable particle', I must point out to the Vedic classification of particles as 1) directly perceived (भावप्रत्यय) through observation and 2) indirectly inferred (उपायप्रत्यय) through its interaction or effects. The second has two categories: quantum (देवाः) that belongs to the category 'indistinguishable from each other particle of its category' and beyond quantum (प्रकृतिलयाः), that are 'indistinguishable as particle itself'. It goes much deeper into the subject till it explains creation and structure formation without any anomalies or contradictions. Condemning something only from hearing about it is superstition – not science.

Regarding 'ADS/CFT correspondence’, IS IT ANY BETTER THAN MERE WORDS? Only physicists know about physics and developments in physics. The anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence is a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. On one side are anti-de Sitter spaces (ADS) which are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory. On the other side of the correspondence are conformal field theories (CFT) which are quantum field theories, including theories similar to the Yang–Mills theories that describe elementary particles. A previous exposure to string theory, Dbranes and some minimal knowledge of supersymmetry is also necessary to understand it. THESE ARE MERE WORDS TO FOOL THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WHO FUND SCIENTIFIC PROJECTS. Supersymmetry has been proved to be wrong by LHC. String theory requires ten dimensions and EVEN AFTER MORE THAN A CENTURY’S RESEARCH, SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW WHAT THESE EXTRA DIMENSIONS ARE. Yet they cling to this notion to build castles in the air. The STRING HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED. The name string theory arose from the Vedic concept वायुर्वै गौतमः तत् सूत्रम्, which literally means: Vaayu is verily that string. But lack of understanding of the meaning and implication of this statement has led scientists to disarray. GRAVITY CANNOT BE QUANTIZED. Scientists are still searching for a correct theory of gravity. It can only be solved through Vedic knowledge.

I request scientists to develop a scientific temper where they stop building theories on non-existent or proved to be wrong bases and stop their superstitious belief in “established theories”. They should not accept anything until it is proved to be true or false.

I had posted a paper to show that Prashastapaada in ancient India had discussed relativistic principles and rejected it as unscientific description of reality. This was hotly debated. Dr. Andrei Mirovan, a great intellectual, referred my paper to many scientists for their views. While I had replied to all their views, one Prof. ശ്റീധരൻ എം (Sreedharan Modon) had made some disparaging comments on my view. Here is my open challenge to him to prove me wrong.

Being a Professor, it is expected that you should not brand opposing views as “semantic jugglery” – that too for a highly respected Aacharya of Vaisheshika School. Any decent person will apologize for such statement. If you can, I dare you to refute his statement scientifically.

Only superstitious people will claim that: “Relativity theory is well-established by any number of experimental evidence”. Internet is full of millions of pages questioning relativity. Just type “Anti-relativity” on Google and see for yourself. E = mc^2 was discovered by Henri Poincare in 1900 AD - 5 years before Einstein without involving relativity. The problem with the perihelion of Mercury was solved by Gerber much before Einstein without relativity. EINSTEIN PAGIARIZED GERBER’S THEORY. It is well documented, since in a meeting Gerber challenged Einstein, who left without answering. Time dilation experiment with atomic clocks was forged. It can be verified from the records still kept in the Naval Archives in USA. Time dilation noticed in GPS systems can be explained by refraction. Gravitational lensing experiment was forged by Eddington. There is much about this on the internet, which can be seen by anyone. I challenge Prof Sreedharan Modon to prove these wrong.

Let us come to the paper on Special Relativity presented by Einstein on 30-06-1905. Two possibilities of measurement of a moving rod suggested by Einstein in his 1905 paper on Special Theory of Relativity were:

(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 any unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading because:

•             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 different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats as if all three were at rest, one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will have zero relative velocity. Einstein missed this point when in the same paper, he said: Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, they will measure the velocity of k differently. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and got misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.

On the definition of synchronization Einstein says: 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. 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!

Prashastapaada had shown that 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. In the case of EP, Einstein did blunder.

All objects fall in similar ways under the influence of gravity. Hence locally, it is said, the difference between an accelerated frame and an un-accelerated frame cannot be known. But these must be related to be compared as equivalent or not? In the example of a person in an elevator falling down a shaft, it is assumed that 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, where there is no gravity. This is a wrong description – distinction of what? Unless we relate the elevator to the outside space, we cannot relate motion of the elevator to it. The moment we relate to the structures beyond the elevator, we can know the relative motion of the elevator. Inside a spaceship in deep space, objects behave like Brownian motion (unaccelerated) or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt (accelerated). Usually, they are relatively stationary within the medium unless some other force acts upon them. If the person can see the outside objects, then he can know the relative motions by comparing objects at different distances. If he cannot see the outside objects, then he will consider only his position with reference to the spaceship – stationary or floating within a frame. There is no equivalence because there is no other frame for comparison. Relativity theory needs revision.

A same logic applies to the ray of light that appears curved to the occupants of the spaceship. The light can be related to the spaceship only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing the source of light and the spaceship. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the spaceship, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside it. If the passenger could observe the scene outside, he will notice this difference and know that the spaceship is moving. Otherwise, the consideration will be restricted to the rays emanating from within, which will move straight. In either case, the description is faulty. Thus, the foundation of GR - the EP - is wrong description of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon such wrong description are wrong. There is no inertial mass increase.

Einstein has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2- (ct)^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 – (cτ)^2 = 0 to describe the evolution of the same light pulse that the observers see. But x^2+y^2- (ct) ^2 = 0 describes a circle with ct as the radius! Hence z and ζ have to be zero. It can’t be a sphere! Since (x. y. z) is a point on the circumference, moving in z direction will be tangential. It describes a cylinder and not a sphere! The geometer’s descriptions of π-sphere and the topologist’s descriptions of n-dimensional sphere are mathematically and physically void.

Einstein can describe two concentric spheres with the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on their respective circumferences. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation relates to sighting from his here-now (new origin). Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse). In case he takes a new measurement from his origin, according to Einstein, the reading from two frames will be different. In other words, he will either measure it independently as different or measure the same radius as the other, implying:  either:

x^2+y^2+z^2- c^2t^2 ≠ x’^2+y’^2+z’^2-c^2 τ ^2,     t ≠ τ.

Or c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2   or t = τ.   

This creates contradictions, which invalidates his mathematics.

I can go on. But I challenge Prof Sreedharan Modon to prove me wrong. Otherwise, he should apologize to the scientific community for the language he has used.

Syed Alwi Ahmad has asserted: "Regarding the Pioneer Anomaly - we do NOT throw out a well-founded theory - nay - a well-founded paradigm supported by tonnes of evidence just because of one single mechanical issue in the Pioneer spacecraft which could be due to any number of engineering problems or faults. Much more quality evidence needs to be provided before an overthrow of Relativity is announced”. This statement is against the very scientific convention of falsifiability. Even a single proof can falsify the greatest of theories. He should have PROVED ME WRONG instead of condemning me. I have given reasons in support of my rejection of the solution. I dare Syed Alwi Ahmad to prove me wrong.

He further says: “If one is allowed to use vague and ambiguous terms which are poorly defined, then I suppose that one can prove that the Holy Books of The Flying Sphagetti Monster contains the solutions of M Theory in 11 Dimensions. And on top of that, it also contains cryptic messages from aliens from a parallel universe emanating from the Black Hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy”. But does modern science precisely define anything? They have only operational definitions that can be manipulated to mean even the exact opposite to suit their convenience. For example, they have not defined what is dimension, yet for over a century, they are searching for extra-dimensions.

Modern physics is totally vague. 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. Quantum Mechanics (QM) cannot justify this equivalence principle on its own, even though it is the theory concerned about the energy exchanges and interactions of fundamental particles. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the extension of QM (dealing with particles) over to fields. In spite of the reported advancements in QFT, there is very little back up experimental proof to validate many of its postulates including Higgs mechanism, bare mass/charge, infinite charge etc. It seems almost impossible to think of QFT without thinking of particles which are accelerated and scattered in colliders. But interestingly, the particle interpretation has the best arguments against QFT. Till recently, the Big Bang hypothesis held the center stage in cosmology. Now Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) with its postulates of the “Big Bounce” is taking over. Yet there are two distinctly divergent streams of thought on this subject also. The confusion surrounding interpretation of quantum physics is further compounded by the modern proponents, who often search historical documents of discarded theories and come up with new meanings or discard earlier theories to back up their own theories. For example, the cosmological constant, first proposed and subsequently rejected as the greatest blunder of his life by Einstein; has made a come back in cosmology. Bohr’s complementarity principle, originally central to his vision of quantum particles, has been reduced to a corollary and is often identified with the frameworks in Consistent Histories.

There are a large number of different approaches or formulations to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. There is the Heisenberg’s Matrix Formulation, Schrödinger’s Wave-function Formulation, Feynman’s Path Integral Formulation, Second Quantization Formulation, Wigner’s Phase Space Formulation, Density Matrix Formulation, Schwinger’s Variational Formulation, de Broglie-Bohm’s Pilot Wave Formulation, Hamilton-Jacobi Formulation etc. There are several Quantum Mechanical pictures based on placement of time-dependence. There is the Schrödinger Picture: time-dependent Wave-functions, the Heisenberg Picture: time-dependent operators and the Interaction Picture: time-dependence split. The different approaches are in fact, modifications of the theory. Each one introduces some prominent new theoretical aspect with new equations, which needs to be interpreted or explained. Thus, there are many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, which are very difficult to characterize. Prominent among them are; the Realistic Interpretation: wave-function describes reality, the Positivistic Interpretation: wave-function contains only the information about reality, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation: which is the orthodox Interpretation. Then there is Bohm’s Causal Interpretation, Everett’s Many World’s Interpretation, Mermin’s Ithaca Interpretation, Brukner-Zeilinger interpretation, etc. With so many contradictory views, quantum physics is not a coherent theory, but is truly weird.

General relativity breaks down when gravity is very strong: for example when describing the big bang or the heart of a black hole. And the standard model has to be stretched to the breaking point to account for the masses of the universe’s fundamental particles, which are regularly revised. The two main theories of the last century; quantum theory and relativity, are also incompatible, having entirely different notions: such as for the concept of time. The incompatibility of quantum theory and relativity has made it difficult to unite the two in a single “Theory of everything”. There are almost infinite numbers of the “Theory of Everything” or the “Grand Unified Theory”. But none of them are free from contradictions. There is a vertical split between those pursuing the superstrings route and others, who follow the little Higgs route.

String theory, which was developed with a view to harmonize General Relativity with Quantum theory, is said to be a high order theory where other models, such as supergravity and quantum gravity appear as approximations. Unlike super-gravity, string theory is said to be a consistent and well-defined theory of quantum gravity, and therefore calculating the value of the cosmological constant from it should, at least in principle, be possible. On the other hand, the number of vacuum states associated with it seems to be quite large, and none of these features three large spatial dimensions, broken super-symmetry, and a small cosmological constant. The features of string theory which are at least potentially testable - such as the existence of super-symmetry and cosmic strings - are not specific to string theory. In addition, the features that are specific to string theory - the existence of strings - either do not lead to precise predictions or lead to predictions that are impossible to test with current levels of technology.

There are many unexplained questions relating to the strings. For example, given the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, what happens when a string is measured? Does the uncertainty principle apply to the whole string? Or does it apply only to some section of the string being measured? Does string theory modify the uncertainty principle? If we measure its position, do we get only the average position of the string? If the position of a string is measured with arbitrarily high accuracy, what happens to the momentum of the string? Does the momentum become undefined as opposed to simply unknown? What about the location of an end-point? If the measurement returns an end-point, then which end-point? Does the measurement return the position of some point along the string? (The string is said to be a Two dimensional object extended in space. Hence its position cannot be described by a finite set of numbers and thus, cannot be described by a finite set of measurements.) How do the Bell’s inequalities apply to string theory? We must get answers to these questions first before we probe more and spend (waste!) more money in such research. These questions should not be put under the carpet as inconvenient or on the ground that some day we will find the answers. That someday has been a very long period indeed!

The energy “uncertainty” introduced in quantum theory combines with the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity to allow the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs by quantum fluctuations when the theories are merged. As a result there is no self-consistent theory which generalizes the simple, one-particle Schrödinger equation into a relativistic quantum wave equation. Quantum Electro-Dynamics began not with a single relativistic particle, but with a relativistic classical field theory, such as Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. This classical field theory was then “quantized” in the usual way and the resulting quantum field theory is claimed to be a combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. However, this theory is inherently a many-body theory with the quanta of the normal modes of the classical field having all the properties of physical particles. The resulting many-particle theory can be relatively easily handled if the particles are heavy on the energy scale of interest or if the underlying field theory is essentially linear. Such is the case for atomic physics where the electron-volt energy scale for atomic binding is about a million times smaller than the energy required to create an electron positron pair and where the Maxwell theory of the photon field is essentially linear.

However, the situation is completely reversed for the theory of the quarks and gluons that compose the strongly interacting particles in the atomic nucleus. While the natural energy scale of these particles, the proton, meson, etc. is on the order of hundreds of millions of electron volts, the quark masses are about one hundred times smaller. Likewise, the gluons are said to be quanta of a Yang-Mills field which obeys highly non-linear field equations. As a result, strong interaction physics has no known analytical approach and numerical methods are said to be the only possibility for making predictions from first principles and developing a fundamental understanding of the theory. This theory of the strongly interacting particles is called Quantum Chromo-Dynamics or QCD, where the non-linearities in the theory have dramatic physical effects. One coherent, non-linear effect of the gluons is to “confine” both the quarks and gluons so that none of these particles can be found directly as excitations of the vacuum. Likewise, a continuous “chiral symmetry”, normally exhibited by a theory of light quarks, is broken by the condensation of chirally oriented quark/anti-quark pairs in the vacuum. The resulting physics of QCD is thus entirely different from what one would expect from the underlying theory, with the interaction effects having a dominant influence.

It is known that the much celebrated Standard Model of Particle Physics is incomplete as it relies on certain arbitrarily determined constants as inputs - as “givens”. It is often compared to a Gormenghast - a sprawling castle modified by adding new rooms as and when needed, with no underlying grand design. Initially it housed the observed particles. Then it was periodically expanded to accommodate the postulated Higgs Bosons, gravitons and other exotic derivatives of the string theory. Since these are yet to be discovered, it is not possible to say whether the present structure is real or belong to a fairy tale. Thus, some scientists have proposed to demolish the structure completely. For example, LHC at Geneva was built to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of these particles – thereby resurrecting or demolishing the Standard Model.

Even after this, will Dr. Syed Alwi Ahmad say that: “If you are going to open Pandora's Box and allow unjustified speculation, as well as rubber stretching and elastic interpretation of ancient texts, so as to make it sound scientific, you might as well allow Flat Earthers, Biblical Creationists and whatever else out there - to push their so-called 'scientific ideas' in this forum. The business of science is to be precise. Not purposely vague and elastic in interpretation. I hope very much that this is the last of this sequence of posts."