Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

July 15, 2009

Dear Rohini,

Â

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 liedÂ I pray to Â 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.

Â

Best wishes,

Â

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Â

--- 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 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒâ€¦'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

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

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

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

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 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒâ€¦'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