The speed of light in the sacred hindu texts....

[nitesh]

Ancient Pakistanis refers to the ancestors of the majority of people living within the borders of modern day Pakistan - their history.

pakistan as a country start existing from 1947, before that all the people were Indian, so they can be called as ancient indian not ancient pakistani.

 

[Vinod2070]

That's a margin of error of:

1,339,192

One million three hundred thousand meters per second. Good enough? Ok.

Margin of error, yes.

But on whose part?

 

[Awesome]

pakistan as a country start existing from 1947, before that all the people were Indian, so they can be called as ancient indian not ancient pakistani.

By that argument, India didn't exist before 1947 either.

The Indus valley civillization predominantly grew distinctively from the others in India.

You can't just say that Pakistanis started off in 1947. The struggle for Pakistan started in the 1930s, the Muslim league was formed in 1906, Tipu Sultan dies in battle, Bahadur Shah Zafar was deposed/exhiled, the british arrived, Bulley Shah, Waris Shah, Shah Hussein, the Mughal Era, The Lodhi era, the arrival of Mohammad Bin Qasim... The civillization of mohenjedaro, Taxilla, the Kashmiri Jesus, Alexander the Great, Buddhism, Hinduism, cave men...

You'll take all of this in your own account?

Don't steal from our history, go get your own. Or at least be ethical and give proper citations . If anything the geographical area of present day India owes some of its history to Pakistan, not the other way round.

You guys have your own little chronology.

 

[Awesome]

Margin of error, yes.

But on whose part?

Of course, Einstein got it wrong.

 

[nitesh]

By that argument, India didn't exist before 1947 either.

The Indus valley civillization predominantly grew distinctively from the others in India.

You can't just say that Pakistanis started off in 1947. The struggle for Pakistan started in the 1930s, the Muslim league was formed in 1906, Tipu Sultan dies in battle, Bahadur Shah Zafar was deposed/exhiled, the british arrived, Bulley Shah, Waris Shah, Shah Hussein, the Mughal Era, The Lodhi era, the arrival of Mohammad Bin Qasim... The civillization of mohenjedaro, Taxilla, the Kashmiri Jesus, Alexander the Great, Buddhism, Hinduism, cave men...

You'll take all of this in your own account?

Don't steal from our history, go get your own. Or at least be ethical and give proper citations . If anything the geographical area of present day India owes some of its history to Pakistan, not the other way round.

You guys have your own little chronology.

Don't twist the words, India got independent and divided in 1947 and pakistan was born out of undivided India.

 

[Vinod2070]

Of course, Einstein got it wrong.

It was not Einstein who measured the speed of light.

Various scientists have measured the speed of light for many centuries.

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May be they should have just read the Rigveda or Quran and spared the effort!

 

[QuickSilver]

That's a margin of error of:

1,339,192

One million three hundred thousand meters per second. Good enough? Ok.

margin of error is calculated in terms of percentage of the deviation.. hence

if we consider
299 792 458 m / s as mean (original)
and
301 131 650 m / s as the value that was found then

error =(301 131 650 -299 792 458)/299 792 458 = 0.00446

thats 0.44%

and that is a very very good accuarte calculation considering that humans have discovered it and its not given from god (as in Quran!)

 

[QuickSilver]

By that argument, India didn't exist before 1947 either.

The Indus valley civillization predominantly grew distinctively from the others in India.

You can't just say that Pakistanis started off in 1947. The struggle for Pakistan started in the 1930s, the Muslim league was formed in 1906, Tipu Sultan dies in battle, Bahadur Shah Zafar was deposed/exhiled, the british arrived, Bulley Shah, Waris Shah, Shah Hussein, the Mughal Era, The Lodhi era, the arrival of Mohammad Bin Qasim... The civillization of mohenjedaro, Taxilla, the Kashmiri Jesus, Alexander the Great, Buddhism, Hinduism, cave men...

You'll take all of this in your own account?

Don't steal from our history, go get your own. Or at least be ethical and give proper citations . If anything the geographical area of present day India owes some of its history to Pakistan, not the other way round.

You guys have your own little chronology.

The rig veda is the sacred text of hindu s and brahmins still follow the texts. We do not identify ourselves with the invaders or occupiers from the lands in central asia and hence we have continued belief in the texts that have been written by whom we cosider as our ancestors.

brahminical knowledge passes from father to son and only ancestry can guarantee the flow of this knowledge and hence it is possible to say that our ancestors were indeed the rigvedic people. It may be that people bifurcated later into present day pakistani s and Indians but it is hindus who still follow the texts- since we belived these scriptures and not something that was brought upon by someone else- I guess we had enough faith in our sacred texts and hence did not change loyalties. This is not to infringe upon anyone else's faith s or religion.

Why always call it 'pakistani' culture when there was no such boundary then? There is no clear evidence that the IVC is totally in pakistan, In fact this is an on going debate and until the conclusion is reached, it is unethical to call it pakistani culture alone.

Let us for once understand that both the texts - Quran and Vedas have demonstrated scientific capabilities far beyond their times and we need to uncover such truths to make sure the due recognition is given to both the cultures.

Alas, we just indulge in fighting petty wars as to whom does the rotten pie belong to!!!

 

[roadrunner]

Don't twist the words, India got independent and divided in 1947 and pakistan was born out of undivided India.

India did not exist as a country prior to 1947. Even Churchill admitted India was no more a country as the equator.

However India has a history, and Pakistan has a separate history. Much of what you claim as Indian history is actually Pakistani history. The Rig Veda was written in Pakistan and therefore is part of Pakistani history. You can claim the book or worship it all you want, but it is an ancient Pakistani authored book.

 

[roadrunner]

The rig veda is the sacred text of hindu s and brahmins still follow the texts. We do not identify ourselves with the invaders or occupiers from the lands in central asia and hence we have continued belief in the texts that have been written by whom we cosider as our ancestors.

You've actually managed to prove the Rig Veda was a Pakistani book, even though you don't know it.

Brahminism was and is, the complete opposite of Rig Vedic thought. You will find passages in the Rig Veda that completely forbid Brahminism. Therefore what modern day Brahmins and therefore Hindus follow, cannot be the Rig Veda. I agree however that later Vedas were based or copied off the Rig Veda and changed into Hinduism.

The Rig Veda was a Pakistani book, the Yajur and Artha Vedas are all Indian.

brahminical knowledge passes from father to son and only ancestry can guarantee the flow of this knowledge and hence it is possible to say that our ancestors were indeed the rigvedic people. It may be that people bifurcated later into present day pakistani s and Indians but it is hindus who still follow the texts- since we belived these scriptures and not something that was brought upon by someone else- I guess we had enough faith in our sacred texts and hence did not change loyalties. This is not to infringe upon anyone else's faith s or religion.

What a load of nonsense. Even if Brahaminical knowledge passed from father to son (which is way too idealistic in a corruption ridden society under centuries of warfare and poverty and invasions), one can easily envisage some ancient Indian reading the Rig Veda calling himself a priest, and then passing the book on to his sons. This would not even need the same lineage as the original authors.

Why always call it 'pakistani' culture when there was no such boundary then? There is no clear evidence that the IVC is totally in pakistan, In fact this is an on going debate and until the conclusion is reached, it is unethical to call it pakistani culture alone.

This is ignorance. IVC has nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're talking about the Rig Veda. But let's discuss the IVC since you brought it up. No doubts a minority was in India, but also a minority was in Afghanistan and Iran. The MAJORITY was in Pakistan though. So it's an ancient Pakistani civilization. The Afghanis and the Indians can claim to have been a part of the IVC however, but not the driving force.

Let us for once understand that both the texts - Quran and Vedas have demonstrated scientific capabilities far beyond their times and we need to uncover such truths to make sure the due recognition is given to both the cultures.

Alas, we just indulge in fighting petty wars as to whom does the rotten pie belong to!!!

Rig Vedic science was far ahead of its time. Of that there's little doubt. This was ancient Pakistani science.

 

[QuickSilver]

India did not exist as a country prior to 1947. Even Churchill admitted India was no more a country as the equator.

However India has a history, and Pakistan has a separate history. Much of what you claim as Indian history is actually Pakistani history. The Rig Veda was written in Pakistan and therefore is part of Pakistani history. You can claim the book or worship it all you want, but it is an ancient Pakistani authored book.

Churchill is a politician and he is not a historian, why not take Karzai's remarks on pakistan then?? he has some interesting things to tell about pakistan!!

1)The texts were composed over a period of time. Hinduism is not a revealed religion and hence its roots cannot be fixed on one place (Like jerusalem, Mecca etc) and hence the texts belong to the 'people' not the 'place'

2)The people of IVC lived on both sides of the border and there is a very clear indication of that (please search for BBC documentary titled 'STORY OF INDIA" in VEOH TV which u get online) and hence there is NO CLEAR PROOF that rig veda was written in Pakistan. hence you cannot claim as such.

3) People in India still follow the texts and these have been handed over through generations and will continue to do so.

Please understand that the debate of whether IVC is completely in pakistan is still on going and there is no outcome of that although it is clear that IVC was on both sides of the border. Hence REFRAIN from making the same statement again and again.

Cheer

 

[QuickSilver]

You've actually managed to prove the Rig Veda was a Pakistani book, even though you don't know it.

I proved that it is a text on which the Hindu religion particulary the brahmin school of thought is based on.

Brahminism was and is, the complete opposite of Rig Vedic thought. You will find passages in the Rig Veda that completely forbid Brahminism. Therefore what modern day Brahmins and therefore Hindus follow, cannot be the Rig Veda. I agree however that later Vedas were based or copied off the Rig Veda and changed into Hinduism.

I am a brahmin and we are required to perform a puja called gayathri mantra, the roots of which are in Rig Veda. Please refrain from talking of something you do not know of.

The Rig Veda was a Pakistani book, the Yajur and Artha Vedas are all Indian.

It belongs to the rig vedic people period.

What a load of nonsense. Even if Brahaminical knowledge passed from father to son (which is way too idealistic in a corruption ridden society under centuries of warfare and poverty and invasions), one can easily envisage some ancient Indian reading the Rig Veda calling himself a priest, and then passing the book on to his sons. This would not even need the same lineage as the original authors.

Please do not infringe a sacred religion, the order of the society was quite rigid and was followed with utmost devotion for a long time and this does not mean that people were oppressed.. it only means there was a classification of work and worship.

[/QUOTE]
This is ignorance. IVC has nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're talking about the Rig Veda. But let's discuss the IVC since you brought it up. No doubts a minority was in India, but also a minority was in Afghanistan and Iran. The MAJORITY was in Pakistan though. So it's an ancient Pakistani civilization. The Afghanis and the Indians can claim to have been a part of the IVC however, but not the driving force.
[/QUOTE]

To say that one piece of history is completely un related to the next is ignorance. Rig Veda has a beginning and it also has continuation. The later texts would not be called 'vedas' if they were not a continuum.
And again, the debate of that history is still going on and calling it pakistani alone is not prudent at this juncture.

Rig Vedic science was far ahead of its time. Of that there's little doubt. This was ancient Pakistani science.

Again, you cannot call this 'pakistani' exclusively as there is no concrete proof where these hymns were composed. this is not a revealed religion like ISLAM or CHRISTIANITY that it just appears in one place. it takes genrations to compose such literature and during that time, the gravity of a civilisation may shift. there is no clear indication where it was composed.

Please refrain from making such statements.

Cheers

 

[vish]

Roadrunner:

If I go by your logic, prior to 1971, a Dhaka sentinent can claim Rig Veda to be his, and now that same sentinent cannot.

Modern day geography cannot be the basis on which history can be divided.

Plus when the Rig Veda was written (and it was written over centuries across a wide expanse of land area that was spread evenly across India and Pakistan), was there even an iota of the idea of Pakistan? There was an India then.

Then how is it Pakistani?

 

[Awesome]

Actually there was no INDIA.

Who is playing with words, mate? You pounced on the guy for saying "ancient Pakistan", which obviously meant the geographical location of Pakistan in ancient times (which was never really called INDIA).

You can keep your side of the history but why poach from ours?

 

[Vinod2070]

India did not exist as a country prior to 1947. Even Churchill admitted India was no more a country as the equator.

However India has a history, and Pakistan has a separate history. Much of what you claim as Indian history is actually Pakistani history. The Rig Veda was written in Pakistan and therefore is part of Pakistani history. You can claim the book or worship it all you want, but it is an ancient Pakistani authored book.

Churchill admitted that India did not exist as a country! Did he admit that Pakistan existed as a country? Did he have to admit that a country existed for it to be eligible? Is it a rule for UN membership?

He admitted some other things that may not be palatable to you (I told that to you earlier). Why is he a yardstick to go by!

Rigveda is as Pakistani as the Greco-Romam empire is Turkish or as the ancient Jewish history is Arab: Zilch.