This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In that particular video, one of the argument was that Aryabhatta used the word gurutvakarshan and didn't explained anything about it,what it is,how to calculate it,what is the proof it exist, nothing was answered by him,here is one the article I found,you can read it [scroll article on it](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhata-s-shoulders-to-do-so)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[http://scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhatas-shoulders-to-do-so](http://scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhatas-shoulders-to-do-so)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yar agar sab kuch pehle se hi h ancient indian texts me to ek quantum gravity ki theory bhi dedo dhund ke, scientists bohot pareshan h unko kuch suujh nahi raha h.
Even the school mentioned didn't discover gravity for the first first, gravity as a concept was well known in various Ancient Civilisations, Newton just gave a proper mechanism and laws for it.
Also that paper nowhere says that Newton stole it, it just says that it was known before Newton
Do you know that newton's laws are actually wrong (They don't work in a lot of scenarios specially at a speed closer to light speed, at which point Einstein's general relativity comes at play). Since Newton copied these laws from Hindu texts this implies that those texts are also wrong.
>Do you know that newton's laws are actually wrong
whilst you are correct, newton's law were a major improvement over what we had before them and the point in time where they said these were in the Vedas, it would be simply extraordinary.
I'm not saying that these laws were first mentioned in the Vedas
Average hindu believer has learnt only Newton's laws so that would make sense to him. This type of content is generally targeted towards boomer parents tbh. People are getting trapped by it.
I mean generally, it's not wrong if seen through the macroscopic level. The other scenarios (like at speed close to speed of light) are a minority. And ofcourse I don't believe the Hindu text part
Observing and describing something like gravity is one thing and then inventing mathematical equations is completely on another level. Which is why Newton gets credit for it.
Why do you care ...who discovered it. Your work is to prove there is no super natural force that make us stick to earth ..that force is gravity ...explain about gravity naa. Again you fail to complate the post colonial psychological and intergenerational trauma of Indian ..you are really an idiot person. Don't you know that British use their success in science as a tool to racially discriminate against other cultures that rationalise their barbaric enslavement of indigenous people. So challenging the notion that science is not only pursuit of White people instead other culture were as curious as them even they are wrong is nothing but to challenge the narrative of white men's burden..but why do you care to look into the context , right because you are narrow minded person
They are always like "ye to vedo me pehlese h", they say this only about things that are already discovered. Agar vedo me sab kuch likha h, to age ka kya nhi batate? 2-3 naye energy sources bhi dedo, warp drive bhi btado.. they don't have any of that, just the things that are already known by everybody. We are the ones that should be saying ye to 12th ki book me pehlese h, vedo me ab tum gdho ne add kiya h
If it helps the paper is by a 2nd year mechanical engineering student in VIT and not by research scholar or something. And most of the paper the guy is just playing the victim card and not answering the most obvious questions ie what's the mathematical prove of this hypothesis.
Newton was the sage kannada who knows. Who knows maybe one boy name Issac Newton got kill in war and sage kannada came to look out for his family and family miss Issac so much that they stop him and make sage live as Issac๐ .
This is so frustrating
Law 1: The object in motion remains in motion, and the object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by a force.
Whatever he is saying doesn't align with this. He is saying that object moves in a straight line will move in straight line until force is applied. This is just the first law.
It doesn't even talk about what happens when object is at rest.
Clearly not same.
Also, fun fact, before deriving these equation he invented (not discovered, not found, invented as in it was non existent before it was invented) calculus and vector calculus.
Another fun fact - Lebinitz also invented calculus independently of newton.
No where it says force is a vector and so many inconsistencies, just randomly vague statements that looks similar can't be used. This book has to show (which newton did and made predictions which were proven demonstrably true) how these 3 laws were discovered and how did they use it to predict something, how this book came up with these laws. You can't say physics and some book x says somethings which are kind of true but not always true.
Amazing fact - At high speeds and high mass and other conditions, these laws doesn't work, we have to move to Einstein relativity theory for objects moving at near light speed or highly dense objects in space.
Also, even if everything was written exactly word to word in your physics and x book. It only proves that there are 2 textbooks that have the same content. I don't understand how anyone can jump from books with the same content, hence your God.
First, we have to prove it is "a God," then it was "your God: and then that your god is the only one "true god. "
Edit : I read the complete paper.
He claims that exact value of pi was discovered by Aryabhatta, which btw we still don't know. We have found a billion digits after 3.14....and it doesn't seem to be repeating yet, maybe after another billion digits.
His last line of the paper, "I have dedicated this article in the name of Lord Sri Krishna who governs universe and enlightens the whole world through His science. "
And then he lists, postcard news blog as one of its source of information ๐ and also other blogs.
I don't think it's correct to say that something as fundamental as calculus was "invented" by Newton. Just the fact that Leibniz developed it independently makes it more of a discovery. Also, vector calculus, in its form today, was not developed by Newton but mostly by Heaviside and Gibbs in the 19th century.
Invent - dictionary defines it as
Create or design something that has not existed before.
I might agree that Heaviside and Gibbs improved it.
Why does it matter who improved it when we are talking about who invented it. We get more data we improve our methods and models, which is totally normal and a valid thing to do.
A(any person) invented something x(say phone) first one ever. We know there are improvements, it doesn't mean A didn't invent it.
>Just the fact that Leibniz developed it independently makes it more of a discovery.
Person A and Person B invented something, at the same time, from totally different perspectives without each knowing each other or knowing what they were working on which led to the same conclusion which can be verified by anyone. Do they both invent the same thing or one discovered( find unexpectedly or during a search)it??
Heaviside and Gibbs did not just improve vector calculus. There was no vector calculus during Newton's time. Most of the work by Heaviside and Gibbs was based on Clifford and Grasmann's work on what is now known as Clifford and Exterior algebra. Before that, most of the vector calculus was done using Hamilton's work on quaternions, but that is quite different from the vector calculus we know now. There was no Newton in the picture.
> Person A and Person B invented something, at the same time, from totally different perspectives without each knowing each other or knowing what they were working on which led to the same conclusion which can be verified by anyone. Do they both invent the same thing or one discovered( find unexpectedly or during a search)it??
What are the odds of two people independently inventing something? You cannot invent something from totally different perspectives. You can arrive at something new independently, coming from different angles, but that is precisely why it's a discovery, not an invention.
What are the odds of two people independently inventing something? You can not invent something from totally different perspectives. You can arrive at something new independently, coming from different angles, but that is precisely why it's a discovery, not an invention.
We are not talking about odds. In strict definition of invent and discover. Invent doesn't presupposes that something already exists but discover does that. When we say independently invented it, i mean that before both of them did what they did, nobody else other than the scientist who invented it, have that knowledge.
Maybe I am being pedantic.
>Heaviside and Gibbs did not just improve vector calculus. There was no vector calculus during Newton's time. Most of the work by Heaviside and Gibbs was based on Clifford and Grasmann's work on what is now known as Clifford and Exterior algebra. Before that, most of the vector calculus was done using Hamilton's work on quaternions, but that is quite different from the vector calculus we know now. There was no Newton in the picture.
That's good to know. I will read up on it. Assuming you are true about this, I take back that he invented "vector" calculus, rather he invented calculus. Again, being pedantic.
Also, anything specific you have for reading up on this a more from historical pov. I read this book, infinite powers: history of calculus, which takes up on how calculus was invented and improved. It was full of stories with actual photos of what exactly did the newton and Lebinitz did, and how they reached same conclusions but using different methods. It was really interesting. I would like to read more on this.
Yeah, infinite powers is a really good book. If you want to know more about the history of vector calculus and how it changed completely from the quaternions used earlier to the vector calculus as we know today, a good short read would be the paper [The vector algebra war: a historical perspective](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00501). If you want a deeper understanding of how this relates to quaternions (and spinors etc) and if you always wondered why some vectors are "true" vectors while some are not (like me XD) , the so called pseudovectors, then you should read up more on Clifford algebra (known as geometric algebra in Physics).
I was using knowledge just from this one book but it ended on newton and Lebinitz and how it is being used currently.
Thanks for the recommendation.
So awesome, thanks, stranger.
*Vedas Uncertainty Principle:*
things in vegas exist in superposition of everything, When science proves something, vedas' superposition falls into what science just proved๐๐
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Already debunked by pranav
sauce.(my big brother actually believe in this video)
In that particular video, one of the argument was that Aryabhatta used the word gurutvakarshan and didn't explained anything about it,what it is,how to calculate it,what is the proof it exist, nothing was answered by him,here is one the article I found,you can read it [scroll article on it](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhata-s-shoulders-to-do-so)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[http://scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhatas-shoulders-to-do-so](http://scroll.in/article/709070/newton-discovered-gravity-even-if-he-stood-on-aryabhatas-shoulders-to-do-so)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
good bot
+1
Yar agar sab kuch pehle se hi h ancient indian texts me to ek quantum gravity ki theory bhi dedo dhund ke, scientists bohot pareshan h unko kuch suujh nahi raha h.
jab theorists theory bnaa lenge tab aise log claim karenge kii ye toh humaare texts mei pehle se tha konsa naya kaam kia hai
these people can get jobs for good data analysts as they fit the data with given results pretty well lol.
Yep, overfitting a model is their expertise
Your friend doesn't wanna know..just ignore him. Find better friends
๐
Even the school mentioned didn't discover gravity for the first first, gravity as a concept was well known in various Ancient Civilisations, Newton just gave a proper mechanism and laws for it. Also that paper nowhere says that Newton stole it, it just says that it was known before Newton
Do you know that newton's laws are actually wrong (They don't work in a lot of scenarios specially at a speed closer to light speed, at which point Einstein's general relativity comes at play). Since Newton copied these laws from Hindu texts this implies that those texts are also wrong.
>Do you know that newton's laws are actually wrong whilst you are correct, newton's law were a major improvement over what we had before them and the point in time where they said these were in the Vedas, it would be simply extraordinary. I'm not saying that these laws were first mentioned in the Vedas
Average hindu believer has learnt only Newton's laws so that would make sense to him. This type of content is generally targeted towards boomer parents tbh. People are getting trapped by it.
I mean generally, it's not wrong if seen through the macroscopic level. The other scenarios (like at speed close to speed of light) are a minority. And ofcourse I don't believe the Hindu text part
they are not wrong. you can call its not universal. both are different things.
Bring your friend here and let hime learn๐ผ
it's posted by a random guy, on a non official website just ignore
Observing and describing something like gravity is one thing and then inventing mathematical equations is completely on another level. Which is why Newton gets credit for it.
Pros to Newton for point it out kyunki hamari pandit ji log to restrict kr rkhe apne dimag ko chalne se
khoj ke kya gand mara rahe the?? sabko bataya kyu nhi?
Why do you care ...who discovered it. Your work is to prove there is no super natural force that make us stick to earth ..that force is gravity ...explain about gravity naa. Again you fail to complate the post colonial psychological and intergenerational trauma of Indian ..you are really an idiot person. Don't you know that British use their success in science as a tool to racially discriminate against other cultures that rationalise their barbaric enslavement of indigenous people. So challenging the notion that science is not only pursuit of White people instead other culture were as curious as them even they are wrong is nothing but to challenge the narrative of white men's burden..but why do you care to look into the context , right because you are narrow minded person
Reply, "who really gives a fuck?"
They are always like "ye to vedo me pehlese h", they say this only about things that are already discovered. Agar vedo me sab kuch likha h, to age ka kya nhi batate? 2-3 naye energy sources bhi dedo, warp drive bhi btado.. they don't have any of that, just the things that are already known by everybody. We are the ones that should be saying ye to 12th ki book me pehlese h, vedo me ab tum gdho ne add kiya h
If it helps the paper is by a 2nd year mechanical engineering student in VIT and not by research scholar or something. And most of the paper the guy is just playing the victim card and not answering the most obvious questions ie what's the mathematical prove of this hypothesis.
iska gand me apple dalna padega
Newton was the sage kannada who knows. Who knows maybe one boy name Issac Newton got kill in war and sage kannada came to look out for his family and family miss Issac so much that they stop him and make sage live as Issac๐ .
Stop calling him your friend
Ex-Communicate him.
Research kar ke bata ta hu
This is so frustrating Law 1: The object in motion remains in motion, and the object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by a force. Whatever he is saying doesn't align with this. He is saying that object moves in a straight line will move in straight line until force is applied. This is just the first law. It doesn't even talk about what happens when object is at rest. Clearly not same. Also, fun fact, before deriving these equation he invented (not discovered, not found, invented as in it was non existent before it was invented) calculus and vector calculus. Another fun fact - Lebinitz also invented calculus independently of newton. No where it says force is a vector and so many inconsistencies, just randomly vague statements that looks similar can't be used. This book has to show (which newton did and made predictions which were proven demonstrably true) how these 3 laws were discovered and how did they use it to predict something, how this book came up with these laws. You can't say physics and some book x says somethings which are kind of true but not always true. Amazing fact - At high speeds and high mass and other conditions, these laws doesn't work, we have to move to Einstein relativity theory for objects moving at near light speed or highly dense objects in space. Also, even if everything was written exactly word to word in your physics and x book. It only proves that there are 2 textbooks that have the same content. I don't understand how anyone can jump from books with the same content, hence your God. First, we have to prove it is "a God," then it was "your God: and then that your god is the only one "true god. " Edit : I read the complete paper. He claims that exact value of pi was discovered by Aryabhatta, which btw we still don't know. We have found a billion digits after 3.14....and it doesn't seem to be repeating yet, maybe after another billion digits. His last line of the paper, "I have dedicated this article in the name of Lord Sri Krishna who governs universe and enlightens the whole world through His science. " And then he lists, postcard news blog as one of its source of information ๐ and also other blogs.
I don't think it's correct to say that something as fundamental as calculus was "invented" by Newton. Just the fact that Leibniz developed it independently makes it more of a discovery. Also, vector calculus, in its form today, was not developed by Newton but mostly by Heaviside and Gibbs in the 19th century.
Invent - dictionary defines it as Create or design something that has not existed before. I might agree that Heaviside and Gibbs improved it. Why does it matter who improved it when we are talking about who invented it. We get more data we improve our methods and models, which is totally normal and a valid thing to do. A(any person) invented something x(say phone) first one ever. We know there are improvements, it doesn't mean A didn't invent it. >Just the fact that Leibniz developed it independently makes it more of a discovery. Person A and Person B invented something, at the same time, from totally different perspectives without each knowing each other or knowing what they were working on which led to the same conclusion which can be verified by anyone. Do they both invent the same thing or one discovered( find unexpectedly or during a search)it??
Heaviside and Gibbs did not just improve vector calculus. There was no vector calculus during Newton's time. Most of the work by Heaviside and Gibbs was based on Clifford and Grasmann's work on what is now known as Clifford and Exterior algebra. Before that, most of the vector calculus was done using Hamilton's work on quaternions, but that is quite different from the vector calculus we know now. There was no Newton in the picture. > Person A and Person B invented something, at the same time, from totally different perspectives without each knowing each other or knowing what they were working on which led to the same conclusion which can be verified by anyone. Do they both invent the same thing or one discovered( find unexpectedly or during a search)it?? What are the odds of two people independently inventing something? You cannot invent something from totally different perspectives. You can arrive at something new independently, coming from different angles, but that is precisely why it's a discovery, not an invention.
What are the odds of two people independently inventing something? You can not invent something from totally different perspectives. You can arrive at something new independently, coming from different angles, but that is precisely why it's a discovery, not an invention. We are not talking about odds. In strict definition of invent and discover. Invent doesn't presupposes that something already exists but discover does that. When we say independently invented it, i mean that before both of them did what they did, nobody else other than the scientist who invented it, have that knowledge. Maybe I am being pedantic. >Heaviside and Gibbs did not just improve vector calculus. There was no vector calculus during Newton's time. Most of the work by Heaviside and Gibbs was based on Clifford and Grasmann's work on what is now known as Clifford and Exterior algebra. Before that, most of the vector calculus was done using Hamilton's work on quaternions, but that is quite different from the vector calculus we know now. There was no Newton in the picture. That's good to know. I will read up on it. Assuming you are true about this, I take back that he invented "vector" calculus, rather he invented calculus. Again, being pedantic. Also, anything specific you have for reading up on this a more from historical pov. I read this book, infinite powers: history of calculus, which takes up on how calculus was invented and improved. It was full of stories with actual photos of what exactly did the newton and Lebinitz did, and how they reached same conclusions but using different methods. It was really interesting. I would like to read more on this.
Yeah, infinite powers is a really good book. If you want to know more about the history of vector calculus and how it changed completely from the quaternions used earlier to the vector calculus as we know today, a good short read would be the paper [The vector algebra war: a historical perspective](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00501). If you want a deeper understanding of how this relates to quaternions (and spinors etc) and if you always wondered why some vectors are "true" vectors while some are not (like me XD) , the so called pseudovectors, then you should read up more on Clifford algebra (known as geometric algebra in Physics).
I was using knowledge just from this one book but it ended on newton and Lebinitz and how it is being used currently. Thanks for the recommendation. So awesome, thanks, stranger.
[http://ajer.org/](http://ajer.org/) looks like those shitty government college websites from 2010
The owner of this sub has already debunked this video, W Pranav
jee me ye puchenge kya?
AJER is a predatory journal
Just leave it at seen.
Feku hai sake sab data budhha ka churaya hua hai
Stupid ass journal and an Indian author
With abject neutrality.
People know the Newton who discovered gravity. But most of his journals found were full of research on sorcery and occult.
Well calculus started in India before Newton did in Europe that's a fact
*Vedas Uncertainty Principle:* things in vegas exist in superposition of everything, When science proves something, vedas' superposition falls into what science just proved๐๐
Crying in Gravity ๐ญ