Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Dear Rohini,  It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine. If I have lied I pray to  Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.  Best wishes,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Malla Ji, SKB is lying, please read the following summary to learn the truth about this fellow : SKB says <<< " Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana " >>> It is a lie, I never said so. I said Vayu Purana is not present in my residence at present, and I am unable to visit libraries because I am busy in developing software. It does not mean I never read Vayu Purana. As for SKB's sincerity and honesty in carrying out a fair discourse, here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? -VJ ======================= ====== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:46:13 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Shri Harimallaji, You may read the chapter 57 of the Vayu purana, if you wish. You will have to procure the book yourself. You can take your own time. Sincerely6, Sunil K. Bhattacxharjya Vayupurana Chapter 57 --- On Tue, 7/14/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 8:20 PM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 SKB (Sunil Bhattacharjya) said that two tolas of wine per day are good for health in the topic " Tantric Astrology " started by me to discuss Medini Jyotisha of ancient Yaamala Tantras in AIA around Jan 15, 2009. In spite of my repeated requests not to divert an astrological topic, he kept on discussing wine till I left that thread. then, I was forced to declare that I was under an path of lifelong brahmacharya and it was sinful for me to participate in or endorse discussions on wine. After that, i was attacked by him for posing as a brahmachaari and bragging for it. But before SKB's advertisement of wine in my thread, I was not forced to declare that I am a brahmachaari. Thereafter, SKB made it a policy to abuse me on a regular basis, till I left AIA. He soon followed me in this forum, and posted a message that WHO has certified that wine is good for health. He does not know that all past messages are preserved in archives, and I can reproduce these messages. But there are 15495 messages in my archive from January 2009 onwards, and SKB knows it will take quite some time to search for those mails. But I am 100% sure that he has not forgotten those mails, and he is praying falsely. I am already under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, which includes oaths like never lying & c. Yet, I am here swearing by God (although I dislike swearing) that if I am lying then I must get what SKB has wished for me ( " the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon " ), but I do not wish anything bad for him, I merely wish that he should give up wine, abusing, lying, & c, and become a good person if he can. -VJ =========================== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Subject:Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha < vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha < vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro.ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ======================== ==== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya), who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============================ ==== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Dear Rohini,  Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas.  Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses " Peetva peetva----------------na vidyate " . I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra.  Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested  me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him.  Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma.  Best wishes,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AM Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============ ========= ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 5:00 PM Dear Rohini, Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas. Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses "Peetva peetva------ --------- -na vidyate". I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra. Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him. Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasWednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AMRohini Da,Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him :<<<As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms>>>What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was "Tantric Astrology" and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : "you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it". I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ("peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate") ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he "corrected" !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying.In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as "Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only" ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to "kill" me. He lies again : "All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you." Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism "very polite" behaviour !! Yes, they did not "kill" me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !!After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions).Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!!-VJ============ ========= ======= ====____________ _________ _________ __Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PMRe: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasDear Rohini,It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.Best wishes,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasTuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PMRohini Da,Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his "image" ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology.He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW.-VJ============ ========= ===____________ _________ _________ __Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com>Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasSadhu Sadhu!If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically "dismember" one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well!But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-)RR, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:>> Sunil Ji,> > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty.> > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me.> > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ("idiot" & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations.> > -VJ> > ============ ========= ===== ==> > > ____________ _________ _________ __> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a> > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists.> > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM> > The socalled "latest developments" have not be supported by the mainstream.> > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them.> > -VJ> > ____________ _________ _________ __> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>> > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the "Red-shift", which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > To: > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM> > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts.> > -VJ> > ============ ======== ==> > ____________ _________ _________ __> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > Dear Johnji and Vinay,> > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe.> > Sincerely,> > SKB> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM> > Jihn Ji,> > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another.> > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses.> > -VJ> > ============ ========= = ===> > ____________ _________ _________ __> > John <jr_esq >> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > Namaste Sunilji,> > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes?> > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe.> > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours.> > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe.> > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas.> > Regards,> > John R.> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > >> > > Namaste Johnji,> > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated.> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote:> > > > > > John <jr_esq@>> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji,> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.> > > > > > > > > > > > JR> > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > To All,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum).> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says :> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<> > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause "in that medium". Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > ============ ========= ===> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed> > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com>> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote :> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<<> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes> > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of> > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is :> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder> > science> > > :> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "it would be impossible for any objects to> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed." it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is "I stated that> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond". This statement is contradicting his own statement : ""it would be impossible for any objects to> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed." He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers).> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of> > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background> > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu).> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler> > > Effect> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the> > universe> > > is> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line ofsight> > > due> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === ===> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating> > > Universe,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Mallaji, I have already given the reference of chapter 57 of the Vayu purana which says that Divyavarsha is Solar year and Manushya varsha is the Sidereal Lunar year. Now ask Vinay Jha to quote the reference where it is written that one Divya Varsha is equal to 360 Human years. This itself will show that Vinay Jha is telling a lie. He also told that Svetasvatara upanishad does not mention Sankhya and this is a lie as I have given reference that the Chapter 6, verse 13 of Svetasvatara upanishad does mention Sankhya. I am giving concrete evidence and Vinay Jha only asserts vaguely as only a liar does. Does he think that the members of the forum cannot see through his lies? Sincerely, SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Mallaji, Vinay Jha is lying that he has not seen Vayu purana. He does not want to admit as it shows that Vinay Jha was wrong. When I said that it is difficult here in Australia to get the scriptures easily then he did not accept that argumeyt. Now how can anybody accept that he had not yet got the Vayu puirtana? This is another lie of Vinay Jha. He had definitely seen the Vayu purana. SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological advice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. After lying so many times, he may call me a " fake brahmachaari " and " obsessed with wine and women " and " idiot " . If I retaliate with similar epithets for him, he will not reap the results of his words and deeds. -VJ ========================= == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:30:10 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas. Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses " Peetva peetva------ --------- -na vidyate " . I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra. Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him. Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AM Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============ ========= ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c).. That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe.. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 SKB is trying to cheat others by posting false statements. I have myself given him links of websites from which he can download ancient texts. He knew many links beforehand. He can ask for further links if he wants. A large number of ancient Indian texts can be freely downloaded from internet, and the rest can be procured from reputed publishers from any part part of the world. He lives in Sydney, which has many world class libraries. I have definitely seen the Vayu Purana, but the text is not in my home for at least two decades. Why should I quote without the text before me ? It is deplorable that SKB is abusing me as a liar on the " evidence " that he imagines Vayu Purana lies in my house. I live in a backwack town of North Bihar. If SKB is unable to procure texts in advanced City like Sydney, why he expects me to get texts at my will in a flood-affected backward town in world's most backward (economically) region of the world ?? Abusing me without proofs speaks something about his character. I have asked my friends in other towns about Vayu Purana, because the bookseller is taking too much of time. Pt Girija Shankar Shanlkara Shasti, the foremost astrologer of Allahabad (chief editor of its only panchanga, HOD of Sanskrit, editor and author of many important books) has told me on telephone that Vayu Purana says that the yuga values are in " divya " varsha and not not in terms of " maanusha " varsha, and he also said that he has not found any clear value of " divya " varsha " in Vayu Purana as yet (he is still searching), if the same author Vyaasa Ji says in other Puranas and MBh that divya varsha is of 360 maanusha varshas, why his opinions should not apply to his own text (Vayu purana), and we should use the definitions given by miderners which do not tally with original definitions of Vyaasa Ji ?? SKB is skilfully skipping to answer my mail which narrates how he shifted his stances so many times : initially he said Siddhantas and MBh were his evidences, when I showed him verses from MBh and Siddhantas, he shifted to Vishnu Purana, thereafter to Bhagavata Purana, and after learning that all these texts falsify him, now he says Vayu Purana is the ONLY proof (and all other Puranas and MBh are false texts) !!! But he quotes Vayu Purana, which says yugas are measured in divya varshas and not in maanusha or saura varshas. I have already sent him the measure of Divya Varsha in detail, from all extant ancient Siddhnatas, MBh, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana, which have now become false to SKB and Vayu Purana is the only proof just because I do not possess it. But Vayu Purana also refutes his statement : no ancient text says a divya varsha is equal to maanuahs or saura varsha, and all texts mnentioned above say one divya dina is equal to one maanuisha year, which falsifies SKB's stand. In spite of so many evidences, he sticks to falsehood and is now resorting to abuses. Abusing is the weapon of a weaker mind which fails in argumentation and shifts stands. -VJ ========================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:08:35 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Mallaji, Vinay Jha is lying that he has not seen Vayu purana. He does not want to admit as it shows that Vinay Jha was wrong. When I said that it is difficult here in Australia to get the scriptures easily then he did not accept that argumeyt. Now how can anybody accept that he had not yet got the Vayu puirtana? This is another lie of Vinay Jha. He had definitely seen the Vayu purana. SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 To All : Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya (SKB) is now caught red handed again while citing ancient texts falsely. He imagined I have no access to Vayu Purana, and therefore deliberately lied about it. Although I do not possess Vayu Purana at present, I have a large network of scholars on account of being the panchanga-maker of 9 panchangas in UP, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and being trustee and secretary of many centrally recognized Sanskrit schools and colleges where post-dictoral reaserches are carried out. I contacted my friends, who searched Vayu Purana and told me on telephone that SKB is lying. He says : " Vayu purana which says that Divyavarsha is Solar year " . It is a lie. Ask this fellolw to cite the verse in full, if there is any such verse in Vayu Purana or in any ancient text. Vayu Purana or no ancient text ever said that. Ask him to quote the verse verbatim. SKB is a confirmed liar, who lied about Siddhantas, then about MBh, then about Vishnu Purana, then about Bhagavata Purana, and when I supplied him verses from these texts, he now falsely quotes Vayu Purana, thinking I will never be able to procure it. -VJ ========================= === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:55:37 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Mallaji, I have already given the reference of chapter 57 of the Vayu purana which says that Divyavarsha is Solar year and Manushya varsha is the Sidereal Lunar year. Now ask Vinay Jha to quote the reference where it is written that one Divya Varsha is equal to 360 Human years. This itself will show that Vinay Jha is telling a lie. He also told that Svetasvatara upanishad does not mention Sankhya and this is a lie as I have given reference that the Chapter 6, verse 13 of Svetasvatara upanishad does mention Sankhya. I am giving concrete evidence and Vinay Jha only asserts vaguely as only a liar does. Does he think that the members of the forum cannot see through his lies? Sincerely, SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 1) Vinay Jha's lie No. 1  Quote     SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. Unquote   It was Vinay Jha, who was the first to quote a verse about excessive drinking of wine in Tantra and he misinterpreted it to malign Tantra. If a brahmachari was not suuposed to talk about how could he talk about wine first ? That shows he was not a monk at all as his own action proves it. I wanted to give the true image of Tantra by saying that there are substitutes of the 5-M and if at all wine is permitted for some then only a maximum of two tolas were allowed. He wasannoyed as I defeated his attack on Tantra. He is not ashamed of lying.  2) Vinay Jha's lie No. 2  Quote His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down.  Unquote   Vinay Jha may not agree with me like he said that the Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Sankhya but I did tell the truth, which he did not know.  3) Vinay Jha's lie No.3  Quote Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated.  Unquote  Why not substantiate by asking Sreenadhji and Bhaskarji directly. Tell the members what Bhaskarji said if your memory is so good. One can always retrieve the past mails.  4) Vinay Jha's lie No. 4  Quote After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological dvice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things.  Unquote  It was he who continued to post to me and most of the time I replied for the sake of  courtesy. Vinayji is unable to do any astrological predictions because of his imaginary knowledge, unrelated to the actual location of the Grahas and Nakshatras.  You have seen that he is a compulsive liar. How can anyone call him Brahmachari as he is obsessed with wine and woman.  SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:44 PM  SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological advice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. After lying so many times, he may call me a " fake brahmachaari " and " obsessed with wine and women " and " idiot " . If I retaliate with similar epithets for him, he will not reap the results of his words and deeds. -VJ ============ ========= ==== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:30:10 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas. Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses " Peetva peetva------ --------- -na vidyate " . I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra. Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him. Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AM Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============ ========= ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c).. That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe.. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 To All, 1) I started a topic " Tantric Astrology " (Medini Jyotisha of Yaamala Tantra) to discuss Medini Jyotisha in AIA in Jan 2009. SKB (Mr Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya) diverted the discussuion to wine, which ultimately compelled me to get out of that topic. And now he falsely accusing me of starting the discussion on wine. A great deal of my work is about Medini Jyotisha, and when I found I cannot discuss astrology properly I left AIA. Anyone can visit my site to see how much work I did on Medini Jyotisha, which this fellow did not allow me to discuss : (http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Annual+Rains & c ). Read my articles on Medini Jyotish, there is no place of wine and women in Medini Jyotish which he falsely charges me of being " obsessed with wine and woman " . His comments are fit for a libel suit, but I am leaving it to the mercy of members and moderators. Whether wine is good or bad has no place in a topic on Medini Jyotisha. Yaamala Tantras are the source of panch-shalaakaa and sapta-shalaakaa chakras, sapta,naadi chakra, sarvatobhadra chakra, koorma chakra, etc. I made many softwares on these Tantras, but SKB is not an astrologer and diverted the discussion to Vaamamaargi Tantra which was not the topic. Destroying a topic on astrology of Yaamala Tantra is a victory for SKB : he gloats : " I defeated his attack on Tantra. " !!! 2) The verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. The verse is : peetvaa peetva punar-peetvaa , yaavat patati bhootale / punar-utthaanam vai peetva, punar janma na vidyate Anyone can guess whether this verse from Kularnava Tantra speaks of excessive drinking till one falls down to earth, or contyrolled drinking as SKB falsely infers. He does not know Sanskrit. 3) why not retrieve the past mails and show them, instead of spreading lies ? 4) After I left AIA, there was no question of posting mails to members there. But this lier says 'It was he who continued to post to me " . He says : " Vinayji is unable to do any astrological predictions " . The fact is SKB cheats NRIs by posing as an expert of Astrology, Philosophy, Astronomy, etc, by being paid for his foolish lectures, and he needs a scapegoat for enhancing his image , for which he has found me, thinking a sadhu must be the weakest goat to sacrifice, esp on internet which lacks the presence of pandits. Otherwise, why he cannot cite which of my predictions failed ??? My rainfall predictions were verified by NASA headquarters, but instead of being happy over this achievement of Indian Astrology, SKB is burning with jealousy. Ask him if he can analyse a chart. He does not know astrology, except for some superficial things. Yet he is wasting our time. If he thinks me to be a worthless fellow, why he cannot forget me ?? Why SKB cannot pay attention to other tasks ?? The fact is he has no other task. Hewastes many hours daily on me. Why I am so important for him ??? I had requested him to discuss the comparative studies of 25 charts made from pgysical astronomy and from Suryasiddhanta (http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Annual+Rains). Instead of discussing a single point, he simply wants to abuse me out of all fora, that is his only objective. He does not know the only way to expel me from all fora is to forget me, because I have stopped posting any new threads in these fora since I found the case studies so many times demanded from me are being neglected by astrologers. Why should I continue in fora where my works cannot be judged ?? For months, I have not posted anything but in replies to messages addressed to me or about me. But now, I have decided to comeback, because my keeping away from fora induced SKB to launch a personal attack on me. -VJ =================================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:59:46 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 1) Vinay Jha's lie No. 1 Quote SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. Unquote It was Vinay Jha, who was the first to quote a verse about excessive drinking of wine in Tantra and he misinterpreted it to malign Tantra. If a brahmachari was not suuposed to talk about how could he talk about wine first ? That shows he was not a monk at all as his own action proves it. I wanted to give the true image of Tantra by saying that there are substitutes of the 5-M and if at all wine is permitted for some then only a maximum of two tolas were allowed. He wasannoyed as I defeated his attack on Tantra. He is not ashamed of lying. 2) Vinay Jha's lie No. 2 Quote His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Unquote Vinay Jha may not agree with me like he said that the Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Sankhya but I did tell the truth, which he did not know. 3) Vinay Jha's lie No.3 Quote Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. Unquote Why not substantiate by asking Sreenadhji and Bhaskarji directly. Tell the members what Bhaskarji said if your memory is so good. One can always retrieve the past mails. 4) Vinay Jha's lie No. 4 Quote After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological dvice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. Unquote It was he who continued to post to me and most of the time I replied for the sake of courtesy. Vinayji is unable to do any astrological predictions because of his imaginary knowledge, unrelated to the actual location of the Grahas and Nakshatras. You have seen that he is a compulsive liar. How can anyone call him Brahmachari as he is obsessed with wine and woman. SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:44 PM SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological advice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. After lying so many times, he may call me a " fake brahmachaari " and " obsessed with wine and women " and " idiot " . If I retaliate with similar epithets for him, he will not reap the results of his words and deeds. -VJ ============ ========= ==== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:30:10 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas. Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses " Peetva peetva------ --------- -na vidyate " . I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra. Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him. Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AM Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============ ========= ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c).. That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe.. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ .....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating > > > Universe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Friends, The facts are as follows: 1) Quote SKB is trying to cheat others by posting false statements. I have myself given him links of websites from which he can download ancient texts. He knew many links beforehand. He can ask for further links if he wants. A large number of ancient Indian texts can be freely downloaded from internet, and the rest can be procured from reputed publishers from any part part of the world. He lives in Sydney, which has many world class libraries. I have definitely seen the Vayu Purana, but the text is not in my home for at least two decades. Why should I quote without the text before me ? It is deplorable that SKB is abusing me as a liar on the " evidence " that he imagines Vayu Purana lies in my house. I live in a backwack town of North Bihar. If SKB is unable to procure texts in advanced City like Sydney, why he expects me to get texts at my will in a flood-affected backward town in world's most backward (economically) region of the world ?? Abusing me without proofs speaks something about his character. Unquote As he lies he thinks that everybody lies. Let him find out from Sydney through his sources and prove to the group as to how easy or difficult to get the Indian scriptural texts in Sydney public libraries. Now he says he read the Vayu purana, which is definitely a lie as showed that he was completely unaware of what Vayu purana says about the Yuga. He told that I will not give the reference4s as I want to escape but I gave the references to Vayu purana, Bhagavata purana and Vishnu purana. Now he says he is unable to get it even after more than a couple of months. He is great liar. 2) Quote I have asked my friends in other towns about Vayu Purana, because the bookseller is taking too much of time. Pt Girija Shankar Shanlkara Shasti, the foremost astrologer of Allahabad (chief editor of its only panchanga, HOD of Sanskrit, editor and author of many important books) has told me on telephone that Vayu Purana says that the yuga values are in " divya " varsha and not not in terms of " maanusha " varsha, and he also said that he has not found any clear value of " divya " varsha " in Vayu Purana as yet (he is still searching), if the same author Vyaasa Ji says in other Puranas and MBh that divya varsha is of 360 maanusha varshas, why his opinions should not apply to his own text (Vayu purana), and we should use the definitions given by miderners which do not tally with original definitions of Vyaasa Ji ?? Unquote Yuga Varsha is in terms of Divya varsha which is the Solar year. Manushya varsha is the Sidereal Lunar year. 2700 Divya varsha (Solar year) = 3030 Manushya varsha, ie. Sidereal Lunar year. Nowhere Vedavyasji had said that Divyavarsha is 360 Manusha year. It is one of Vinay Jha;s lies. 3) Quote SKB is skilfully skipping to answer my mail which narrates how he shifted his stances so many times : initially he said Siddhantas and MBh were his evidences, when I showed him verses from MBh and Siddhantas, he shifted to Vishnu Purana, thereafter to Bhagavata Purana, and after learning that all these texts falsify him, now he says Vayu Purana is the ONLY proof (and all other Puranas and MBh are false texts) !!! But he quotes Vayu Purana, which says yugas are measured in divya varshas and not in maanusha or saura varshas. I have already sent him the measure of Divya Varsha in detail, from all extant ancient Siddhnatas, MBh, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana, which have now become false to SKB and Vayu Purana is the only proof just because I do not possess it. But Vayu Purana also refutes his statement : no ancient text says a divya varsha is equal to maanuahs or saura varsha, and all texts mnentioned above say one divya dina is equal to one maanuisha year, which falsifies SKB's stand. In spite of so many evidences, he sticks to falsehood and is now resorting to abuses. Abusing is the weapon of a weaker mind which fails in argumentation and shifts stands. Unquote What he writes is vague. I have not shifted from one purana to another just for the heck of it. I quoted from the appropriate purana such as the Bhagavata purana, Vishnu purana and Vayu purana whenever the occasion demanded. I already gave above from the Vayu purana (chapter 57) that 2700 Divya varsha ,ie. Solar year, is equal to 3030 Manusha year, ie. Sidereal Lunar year just in one sentence. Let him give reference to a purana, where according to him Vedavyasa had given that one Divyavarsha is equal to 360 Human years. I have not said anything bad to him. Is it not natural that if an intelligent person reads the Svetasvatara upanishad he would obviously find the mention of Sankhya in that. Now if anybody claims that he had read the Svetasvatara upanishad and yet claims that Sankhya is not mentioned there then he has to be either an idiot or a liar. Other people may even use other terms such as crook or hypocrite. On the otherhand Vinay Jha had called me, who is a teetotaller, many times that I am addicted to drinking. He abused me like that just because I did not agree to his denigration of Tantra. Is it not an abuse? -SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:17 PM SKB is trying to cheat others by posting false statements. I have myself given him links of websites from which he can download ancient texts. He knew many links beforehand. He can ask for further links if he wants. A large number of ancient Indian texts can be freely downloaded from internet, and the rest can be procured from reputed publishers from any part part of the world. He lives in Sydney, which has many world class libraries. I have definitely seen the Vayu Purana, but the text is not in my home for at least two decades. Why should I quote without the text before me ? It is deplorable that SKB is abusing me as a liar on the " evidence " that he imagines Vayu Purana lies in my house. I live in a backwack town of North Bihar. If SKB is unable to procure texts in advanced City like Sydney, why he expects me to get texts at my will in a flood-affected backward town in world's most backward (economically) region of the world ?? Abusing me without proofs speaks something about his character. I have asked my friends in other towns about Vayu Purana, because the bookseller is taking too much of time. Pt Girija Shankar Shanlkara Shasti, the foremost astrologer of Allahabad (chief editor of its only panchanga, HOD of Sanskrit, editor and author of many important books) has told me on telephone that Vayu Purana says that the yuga values are in " divya " varsha and not not in terms of " maanusha " varsha, and he also said that he has not found any clear value of " divya " varsha " in Vayu Purana as yet (he is still searching), if the same author Vyaasa Ji says in other Puranas and MBh that divya varsha is of 360 maanusha varshas, why his opinions should not apply to his own text (Vayu purana), and we should use the definitions given by miderners which do not tally with original definitions of Vyaasa Ji ?? SKB is skilfully skipping to answer my mail which narrates how he shifted his stances so many times : initially he said Siddhantas and MBh were his evidences, when I showed him verses from MBh and Siddhantas, he shifted to Vishnu Purana, thereafter to Bhagavata Purana, and after learning that all these texts falsify him, now he says Vayu Purana is the ONLY proof (and all other Puranas and MBh are false texts) !!! But he quotes Vayu Purana, which says yugas are measured in divya varshas and not in maanusha or saura varshas. I have already sent him the measure of Divya Varsha in detail, from all extant ancient Siddhnatas, MBh, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana, which have now become false to SKB and Vayu Purana is the only proof just because I do not possess it. But Vayu Purana also refutes his statement : no ancient text says a divya varsha is equal to maanuahs or saura varsha, and all texts mnentioned above say one divya dina is equal to one maanuisha year, which falsifies SKB's stand. In spite of so many evidences, he sticks to falsehood and is now resorting to abuses. Abusing is the weapon of a weaker mind which fails in argumentation and shifts stands. -VJ ============ ========= ===== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:08:35 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Mallaji, Vinay Jha is lying that he has not seen Vayu purana. He does not want to admit as it shows that Vinay Jha was wrong. When I said that it is difficult here in Australia to get the scriptures easily then he did not accept that argumeyt. Now how can anybody accept that he had not yet got the Vayu puirtana? This is another lie of Vinay Jha. He had definitely seen the Vayu purana. SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Let Vinay Jha show that one Divyavarsha is 360 Human years. Vinay Jha is an incorrigible lliar. -SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:42 PM To All : Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya (SKB) is now caught red handed again while citing ancient texts falsely. He imagined I have no access to Vayu Purana, and therefore deliberately lied about it. Although I do not possess Vayu Purana at present, I have a large network of scholars on account of being the panchanga-maker of 9 panchangas in UP, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and being trustee and secretary of many centrally recognized Sanskrit schools and colleges where post-dictoral reaserches are carried out. I contacted my friends, who searched Vayu Purana and told me on telephone that SKB is lying. He says : " Vayu purana which says that Divyavarsha is Solar year " . It is a lie. Ask this fellolw to cite the verse in full, if there is any such verse in Vayu Purana or in any ancient text. Vayu Purana or no ancient text ever said that. Ask him to quote the verse verbatim. SKB is a confirmed liar, who lied about Siddhantas, then about MBh, then about Vishnu Purana, then about Bhagavata Purana, and when I supplied him verses from these texts, he now falsely quotes Vayu Purana, thinking I will never be able to procure it. -VJ ============ ========= ==== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:55:37 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Mallaji, I have already given the reference of chapter 57 of the Vayu purana which says that Divyavarsha is Solar year and Manushya varsha is the Sidereal Lunar year. Now ask Vinay Jha to quote the reference where it is written that one Divya Varsha is equal to 360 Human years. This itself will show that Vinay Jha is telling a lie. He also told that Svetasvatara upanishad does not mention Sankhya and this is a lie as I have given reference that the Chapter 6, verse 13 of Svetasvatara upanishad does mention Sankhya. I am giving concrete evidence and Vinay Jha only asserts vaguely as only a liar does. Does he think that the members of the forum cannot see through his lies? Sincerely, SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:03 AM Malla Ji, Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human sense organs only. SKB is a liar. Here are some examples of his falsehoods : SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a dishonest person. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives. -VJ ============ ========= === ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:16:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Vinay Jha has not given a single proof that Divya varsha is to be multiplied by 360 to get Hman years. Let him give one single clear reference to prove wha he claims. With his lying and boasting he will not be able to convince anybody. Will he take this challenge? In 24 hours you will know Vinay Jha. SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ ============ ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Friends,  Vinay Jha is lying. It was he who opened the topic on wine. I only closed it. He does not know the inner meaning of the verse he has quoted as he does not know etymology.  In AIA he could not answer questions on varga etc. AIA does not have good opinion on him. His knowledge on Medini Jyotish is also suspect.  Instead of writing long mails he should show the past mails. A fake Sadhu can imagine only and live in fancy. I told him many a times that let us agree to disagree but he goes on repeating his vesions as if everybody must accept his versions, which have no sense at all. One lady in one group was enquiring about her handicapped child and Vinay Jha told her so many negative things about the child as if he was wndering how the child is still alive. Such is Vinay Jha's predictive ability. He will not reply to what is asked but will speak unwanted things. Even though I do not claim to be a great expert in astrology, I tell people, free of course, what is useful to them.  -SKB --- On Thu, 7/16/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 16, 2009, 2:09 AM  To All, 1) I started a topic " Tantric Astrology " (Medini Jyotisha of Yaamala Tantra) to discuss Medini Jyotisha in AIA in Jan 2009. SKB (Mr Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya) diverted the discussuion to wine, which ultimately compelled me to get out of that topic. And now he falsely accusing me of starting the discussion on wine. A great deal of my work is about Medini Jyotisha, and when I found I cannot discuss astrology properly I left AIA. Anyone can visit my site to see how much work I did on Medini Jyotisha, which this fellow did not allow me to discuss : (http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains & c ). Read my articles on Medini Jyotish, there is no place of wine and women in Medini Jyotish which he falsely charges me of being " obsessed with wine and woman " . His comments are fit for a libel suit, but I am leaving it to the mercy of members and moderators. Whether wine is good or bad has no place in a topic on Medini Jyotisha. Yaamala Tantras are the source of panch-shalaakaa and sapta-shalaakaa chakras, sapta,naadi chakra, sarvatobhadra chakra, koorma chakra, etc. I made many softwares on these Tantras, but SKB is not an astrologer and diverted the discussion to Vaamamaargi Tantra which was not the topic. Destroying a topic on astrology of Yaamala Tantra is a victory for SKB : he gloats : " I defeated his attack on Tantra. " !!! 2) The verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. The verse is : peetvaa peetva punar-peetvaa , yaavat patati bhootale / punar-utthaanam vai peetva, punar janma na vidyate Anyone can guess whether this verse from Kularnava Tantra speaks of excessive drinking till one falls down to earth, or contyrolled drinking as SKB falsely infers. He does not know Sanskrit. 3) why not retrieve the past mails and show them, instead of spreading lies ? 4) After I left AIA, there was no question of posting mails to members there. But this lier says 'It was he who continued to post to me " . He says : " Vinayji is unable to do any astrological predictions " . The fact is SKB cheats NRIs by posing as an expert of Astrology, Philosophy, Astronomy, etc, by being paid for his foolish lectures, and he needs a scapegoat for enhancing his image , for which he has found me, thinking a sadhu must be the weakest goat to sacrifice, esp on internet which lacks the presence of pandits. Otherwise, why he cannot cite which of my predictions failed ??? My rainfall predictions were verified by NASA headquarters, but instead of being happy over this achievement of Indian Astrology, SKB is burning with jealousy. Ask him if he can analyse a chart. He does not know astrology, except for some superficial things. Yet he is wasting our time. If he thinks me to be a worthless fellow, why he cannot forget me ?? Why SKB cannot pay attention to other tasks ?? The fact is he has no other task. Hewastes many hours daily on me. Why I am so important for him ??? I had requested him to discuss the comparative studies of 25 charts made from pgysical astronomy and from Suryasiddhanta (http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains). Instead of discussing a single point, he simply wants to abuse me out of all fora, that is his only objective. He does not know the only way to expel me from all fora is to forget me, because I have stopped posting any new threads in these fora since I found the case studies so many times demanded from me are being neglected by astrologers. Why should I continue in fora where my works cannot be judged ?? For months, I have not posted anything but in replies to messages addressed to me or about me. But now, I have decided to comeback, because my keeping away from fora induced SKB to launch a personal attack on me. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ===== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:59:46 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 1) Vinay Jha's lie No. 1 Quote SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. Unquote It was Vinay Jha, who was the first to quote a verse about excessive drinking of wine in Tantra and he misinterpreted it to malign Tantra. If a brahmachari was not suuposed to talk about how could he talk about wine first ? That shows he was not a monk at all as his own action proves it. I wanted to give the true image of Tantra by saying that there are substitutes of the 5-M and if at all wine is permitted for some then only a maximum of two tolas were allowed. He wasannoyed as I defeated his attack on Tantra. He is not ashamed of lying. 2) Vinay Jha's lie No. 2 Quote His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Unquote Vinay Jha may not agree with me like he said that the Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Sankhya but I did tell the truth, which he did not know. 3) Vinay Jha's lie No.3 Quote Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. Unquote Why not substantiate by asking Sreenadhji and Bhaskarji directly. Tell the members what Bhaskarji said if your memory is so good. One can always retrieve the past mails. 4) Vinay Jha's lie No. 4 Quote After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological dvice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. Unquote It was he who continued to post to me and most of the time I replied for the sake of courtesy. Vinayji is unable to do any astrological predictions because of his imaginary knowledge, unrelated to the actual location of the Grahas and Nakshatras. You have seen that he is a compulsive liar. How can anyone call him Brahmachari as he is obsessed with wine and woman. SKB --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:44 PM SKB's lie no 1 : he started discussing wine in an astrological topic started by me, and in spite of my requests he insisted on discussing wine till I left the topic, and when I said it was sinful for me to participate in a discussion eulogising the role of wine he said two tolas of wine per day is good. He repeated this advice in JG by citing WHO. He lies that he cited " Tantric practice " ; Tantric practice of wine was not the topic , the topic was " Tantriic Astrology " which has no place for wine. He deliberately introduced wine to harass me. His second para is also false. Firstly, the verse from Kularnava Tantra clearly says one should drink till one falls down, and should repeat the process thrice, which is not possible with two tolas ; moreover, no mention of tolas is made in the text. It was SKB's invention, who said that two tolas is good which implied that and excessive drinking may harm, while Kularnava Tantra explicitly asks for excessive drinking till one falls down. Another lie from SKB : Mr Sreenadh did not participate in that discussion at all, it was Mr Bhaskar who participated. SKB has a malafide intention : he cites Mr Sreenadh because he imagines Mr Sreenadh will vote against me. But as far as I know Mr Sreenadh, he is not a debased person to lie, he is against me because he thinks Suryasiddhanta to be outdated. After I left AIA, SKB continued posting messages to me, and I replied that I cannot continue in AIA due to abuses and could answer him in other fora. I have my own forum and SKB does not know it, I never told him about it, because I know he is not an astrologer and I do not want a non-astrologer in astrological forum unless a non-astrologer is there to seek astrological advice. There are many other fora for discussing history, indology, philosophy, & c, astrrological fora are not for such things. After lying so many times, he may call me a " fake brahmachaari " and " obsessed with wine and women " and " idiot " . If I retaliate with similar epithets for him, he will not reap the results of his words and deeds. -VJ ============ ========= ==== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:30:10 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, Vinay Jha's lie No. 1. He says i have advised him to take two tolas of wine but I did not tell him to take wine. I told him about the Tantric practice and did not advise him to take two tolas. Vinay Jha's lie No. 2. He quoted the verses " Peetva peetva------ --------- -na vidyate " . I correceted him in the sense that this verse is not to be taken literally, in view of the other directions to take only a maximum of two tolas. If my memory is correct Sreenadhji of AIA also supported me by saying like that from the Kularnava tantra. Vinay jha's lie No. 3. He himself requested me to join the groups and now he tells me that I joined the groups to hound him. Now I openly call him a fake Brahmachari as a true Brahmachari does not lie. Ramakrish\na Paramhansa says that in the Kaliyuga if one can remain truthful then that is the highest Dharma. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:02 AM Rohini Da, Message number 22789 in this group was addressed to me from this liar SKB (Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) , who knows wine should not be eulogised before someone who is under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya ( I needed to declare this when he started started eulogising wine, otherwise why should I boast, which is otherwise sinful ?). This message contained following para from him : <<< As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms >>> What he hides in this message is the fact that the topic was " Tantric Astrology " and that thread was started by me to discuss Merucentric Medini Jyotisha as described in ancient Yaamala Tantras which are Aagama texts. I was not allowed to discuss anything about astrology by this lover of wine, in spite of my repeated requests. He has added 'in case of one, who is used to drinking wines' which was absent in his original message. His statement is false : " you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it " . I had quoted a verse from Kularnava Tantra which says that one has to drink till one falls down, and repeat the process thrice for getting rid of the cycle of rebirths ( " peetvaa peetvaa punar-peetvaa yaavat patati bhootale / punaru-tthaane vai peetva , punar-janma na vidyate " ) ! This he cites here not as a verse in Kularnava Tantra but as my wrong opinion which he " corrected " !! SKB is false to the core. He does not feel ashamed while lying. In the same message, he makes many false statements, such as " Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only " ; the fact is Chandrahariji used foul words till his last post about me, and even instigated once others to " kill " me. He lies again : " All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. " Many members know that Chandrahariji , Sreenadhji & c were excessively barbaric in their behaviour which made me quit AIA, and SKB calls this barbarianism " very polite " behaviour !! Yes, they did not " kill " me as Chandrahariji demanded, which was really an act of politeness !! After I quit AIA, SKB followed me in JG and VA just to harass me, and played politics by praising and trying to invite his teammates from AIA (which happened on many occassions). Why this fellow recommends the benefits of wine to me alone ?? As far as I know, he does not recommend wine to others. The fact is that when I informed him that wine should not be mentioned before me because I am under an oath of lifelong brahmacharya, he made a policy of discussing ONLY wine in all his posts till I left that thread , and later started calling me a fake brahmachaari, & c. This lover of wine talks of Saamkhya, Yoga, Upanishadas and Gita !!! -VJ ============ ========= ======= ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:04:18 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini, It is my challenge to the liar Vinay Jha to show even a single mail where I advised him to take two tolas of wine.. If I have lied I pray to Lord Krishna to give me the worst punishment possible in this world and that too very soon. If Vinay Jha is lying then the same punishment be given to him at the aearliest. I an really fed up with facing this liar.. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:31 PM Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ============ ========= === ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail..com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c).. That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe.. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > & gt%3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.