The wonder that was Srila Prabhupada

[shvu]

 

There is a book titled Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by one Richard Thompson aka Sadaputa dasa. He is a devout disciple of his divine grace and has written about Srila Prabhupada's observations on Physics, Astronomy and the credibility of the US astronauts.

 

Some interesting points,

 

(Note: The author for some reason thinks that Puranas are Vedic and hence the title)

 

1. His divine grace has asserted in this book that the astronauts could not have travelled to the moon because the moon is much further away from the earth than believed by people of science and hence the conclusion. In general, the US govt was conning the world.

 

2. SP has pointed out that according to Vedic understanding, planets float in outer space by the manipulation of air. He has rejected the idea of gravitation calling it an imaginary law.

 

3. The geocentric theory may be correct.

 

4. SP says, "... therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns in the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature .... The Sun is one and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. The twinkling stars are not suns but similar to the moon."

 

Quite a lot of such interesting facts as pointed out by his Divine grace that upsets modern science as we know it. I find it fascinating that a religious person also has such an amazing grasp of Physics and Astronomy. Shame on Sir Isaac Newton for giving false gravitational theories.

 

We are truly blessed to have this unique opportunity of reading true science which is different from modern science. For more information refer to this book of Richard Thompson who is a Phd.

 

(Note again: The author thinks that Puranas are Vedic and hence the title)

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The author thinks that Puranas are Vedic and hence the title.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

The concept that different categories of books were written over different periods of time generally has its foundation on the Aryan invasion theory. Those who hold such a view like to refer to periods such as the Vedic period, Puranic period, etc.

 

But there are others who consider "Vedic" to refer to an ancient civilization and culture, and thus all the books written by that culture would be referred to by them as Vedic literatures.

 

Thus the word Vedic is defined and used differently based on one's concept of ancient history.

 

Of course this analysis of the two schools is quite generic and blunt. There are countless combinations of beliefs, and we can't exactly define everyone in a few categories.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I have read this book a long time ago, and over all I liked it, though I didn't accept everything. In my opinion the author tries too hard to reconcile modern scientific opinions with Vedic opinions to show that they almost say the same thing.

 

One point he does make that is worth noting, is that when the scriptures say the moon is farther than the sun from the earth, it is refering to vertical distance from the bhu-mandala. The bhu-mandala is a flat plane, practically from one side of the universe to the next. The earth is situated in the center of this bhu-mandala.

 

So if a planet was situated at the end of the universe, but was relatively close to the bhu-mandala vertically, it would be described as closer than a planet situated very near earth, but higher vertically.

 

 

Over all I think the book is worth reading. We need more indepedent thinkers who are willing to research alternative concepts of the universe, history, etc.

 

The same author has recently published a new book on similar lines, explaining universal cosmology from the Bhagavata Purana. I will find a link to the site and post it.

 

[animesh]

Let me just say something regarding geocentric theory. As such, there is nothing wrong in assuming Earth to be at rest and Sun to be moving. In Physics, there is no meaning of absolute rest. Rest is always relative. We can fix the frame of reference on anything we like. So, if we want we can fix the frame of reference on Earth and assume everything else in the universe to be moving. (Of course, those things that appear to be at rest from Earth will definitely be considered to be at rest). Why Earth? If I want, I can fix the frame of reference on myself (thus assuming myself to be at absolute rest). Now the question is: Why was geocentric theory rejected?

Geocentric theory is wrong not because it assumes Earth to be stationary, but because it gives wrong path for Sun, moon and planets. If we assume Earth to be at rest, then Sun and moon have got elliptical paths.(nearly circular because these ellipses have small eccentricities). The planets in the solar system (other than Earth) will have elliptical paths with lots of epicycles in it. But the earlier geocentric theory assumed Earth to be at rest and everything else in the solar system to be moving in circular paths around it. They ignored epicycles. Of course latter on epicycles were added. But to have as much accuracy as we get in heliocentric theory, we have to assume lots of epicycles. The calculation becomes extremely complicated in that case.

 

In summary: Theoretically, we can assume Earth to be at rest to explain movement of bodies in solar system, but we do not do because then the calculations become very complex.

[animesh]

There are some people who have given many arguments to prove that moon landing was a hoax. (I am not referring to Sri Prabhupada here.) They claim that the complete moon landing was a stage play. But none of the arguments given by them proves that it was a hoax.

[ethos]

I read much of "Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy." Much I didn't understand and eventually put it down. I was left with a feeling Sadaputa didn't really understand it either, but was just conjecturing more than anything.

 

However, I can share some arguements about the moon landing I've heard.

 

First of all, they supposedly landed on the moon 30 years ago. Before this event, there was propaganda of going to the moon as a stepping stone to the stars, or colonize it - you know, put up vested billboards or something. Or it could have been a strategic military outpost.

 

Now, isn't it a bit suspect that they haven't returned in 30 years. I mean there's alot of common sense in this perspective. If they can go there, why don't they? They return everywhere else they can reach. I suggest they can't go there and they can't get any more mileage out of their ploy. And why hasn't Russia or China or anyone else gone?

 

Remember the broadcasts of the moonwalks? Now didn't the movements look a bit hokey? And where were the stars in the sky? The shadows and the whole ambience smacked of a studio. The special effects are much better now.

 

There was a famous picture - also in the video - of the flag at the bottom of the spacepod steps along with a footprint representing the first step of mankind. The pod was also visible. Now, within that shot was a well-defined footprint in the ground that was soft enough to make the impression. Yet, there was no disturbance to the soil directly under the engine thrusters! Uh, it's amateur hour.

 

Look how intense our deserts made of sand reflect the light and generate heat. Where was all that in those pictures of rock and sand. And if that desolate environment can make such a uniquely beautiful luminance as the moon, why don't our desert hint of that from our satellite pictures?

 

Somewhere, maybe the Srimad-bhagavatam, the luminescience is described as resulting from a combination of fire and ice. It is also much bigger than the sun and very populated. We know there is life everywhere without exception.

 

All they brought back were rocks. And now the so-called Mars pictures are looking an aweful lot like the moon.

 

And here's the bottom line. America hoaxed the world for prestige and money. Through their prestige of advanced technology, they were able to sell their technical wares all around the world at great profit. So it all comes down to a quick buck which makes America what it is.

 

 

[transient]

The question on whether American ever went to the Moon have been passionately debated all over the Internet in different forums. As far as I can see the pro have never been able to convincingly refute the evidences and arguments presented by the anti-Moon landing evangelists like Bill Kaysing, author of "We Never Went to the Moon", Ralph Rene, author of "NASA Mooned America", James Collier, who produced a video documentary entitled "Was It Only a Paper Moon?" and David Percy, award winning film and TV producer who zeroed in on the questionable "Moon landing" photographs.

 

To me the strongest argument that we never went to the Moon is, as ethos pointed out, common sense. With the tremendous progress in technology, it is unbelievable that America or Japan or any other country did not pursue going back to the moon. It is said the computer that controlled the lunar module that supposedly landed on the moon had a staggering memory of 64k!!! (Remember this was 1969; Bill Gates was quoted later saying that 64k memory was enough for everyone).

 

So why? Why not go back to the moon?

 

The answer is quite simple: Not possible. You do your own research.

 

Here is an interesting article written by Ameyatma das on the subject: Moon Shadows

 

[dna]

moan hoax arguments debunked:

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[ethos]

I looked at your so-called evidence in your link here dna. I find the explanations to be no better than an alien "weather ballon" at Roswell.

 

Even scientists interpret and dispute the evidence. So many sophisticated explanations for everything in the world, but no common sense.

[theist]

They claim to have left a flag along with whatever equipment they didn't bring back.That should be visible from common earth telescopes, right?

[Avinash]

Moon landing is definitely very expensive. Just because it is possible to go there, does it mean that one must go there? What will US get by going there again?

[Guest guest]

How about the wonder that IS Srila Prabhupad.

He went way beyond the moon and came back to tell us all about it, in vivid detail.

He lives in every moment.

When two or more come together in His name, he is right here, right now.

[transient]

"... To permanently build manned lunar base to provide a springboard for the stars...

 

"Our Universe contains over a billion galaxies; star cities each with a hundred billion inhabitants. Around these stars must exist planets and perhaps life. The temptation to explore these new realms is too great."

 

-- Damon Wright, Science.com

[ethos]

Transient, Hare Bol!

 

I finally went to your Moon Shadow site listed above. Thanks for the reference.

 

I found it really sad how these scientists live in secrecy and seclusion, even to the detriment of their own families. What misplaced faith! The government turns these people into little pet rats that scurry through the shadows... and all for what? To cheat and rape the public.

 

There are several pictures here too. Seeing the proposed pod again that weighed about 6,000 lbs. on the moon with something more than 10,000 lbs. thrust is just funny. I was about 12 when they pulled this hoax off and too young to judge the physics for myself. Now, when I see the pod and consider the fuel and effort to land and again return to space, I simply laugh. I am laughing loud and long inside.

 

No wonder the government is so arrogant - the crap they get away with!

[Avinash]

I do not deny the possibility that there may be life elsewhere.

But, how does it prove or disprove that Neil Armstrong really went to Moon?

[Guest guest]

The wonder that IS Srila Prabhupada!

 

 

 

Jagadananda Gauranga Dasa

[Guest guest]

<<2. SP has pointed out that according to Vedic understanding, planets float in outer space by the manipulation of air. He has rejected the idea of gravitation calling it an imaginary law.

 

...

 

4. SP says, "... therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns in the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature .... The Sun is one and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. The twinkling stars are not suns but similar to the moon." >>

 

yes, any one has freedom to say so, but there is no scientific proof for it.

 

either SP talked casually as an opinion, or he wanted his followers to distance from science and scientists.

 

i disagree with SP on this with full respect for his KC preaching. SP was a preacher, not a scientist.

 

it also could be that shruv is posting the post sarcastically preasing SP.

 

i would prefer to tell the truth as i know.

the vedic advise is: asato ma . gamaya

 

jai sri prabhupada!

 

 

[gHari]

Any astronomer will admit that the house of cards that is modern cosmology is founded on a few simple principles and a number of unprovable assumptions. They suggest that the laws of physics remain constant throughout space for instance. Every year, every month they 'discover' new unexplainable phenomenon which creates even more cards in the house of cards. This house can fall if any one assuption is incorrect; the universe can shrink a billion-fold overnight. Does light always travel at the speed of light?

 

Based on the 'advancement' of astronomy since I stopped studying it in the university observatory in 1970, I fully expect that all that astronomers think they know now will be proven wrong, even laughable in the next one hundred years. And so on, and so on, and so on.

 

The sober man will have no problem admitting he doesn't know, rather than spouting theory after theory after theory.