Explaining physics of motion with ancient science

As I have explained in “Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality“, we need to change scientific study to include thought and change. We have failed to account for the working of the observer and observation in all of our scientific studies. In this blog I want to bring out how the science changes when this is introduced into the scientific study. I will take the basic physics of motion. Physics of motion studies varying distance and direction with speed, velocity, momentum and acceleration and is a basic study that is known inherently by everyone. Even just born babies, animals and any moving object know motion, though they do not describe it or study it.

In physics of motion, we describe motion and related concepts to arrive at other analysed conclusions based on these definitions (definitions can be mathematical or descriptive). But, we describe it without taking into consideration the working of the underlying environment in which the observer and observed exist or the working of the observer and the observed in this environment. Hence, we only have given a voice to an already inherently known concept, which may or may not be what it really is. We describe speed as the rate of change of distance over time. The implicit assumptions here are that:

  • Distance is the difference in location of the observed w.r.t observer in space.
  • Both the observer and the observed are in the same frame of reference or plane.

In other words, the “speed” that we define and use is relative to the rate of change of location of the observed w.r.t the observer. So, if both the observer and the observed are on the same plane, the speed is the difference in speeds of the observed and the observer w.r.t that plane. The core question to ask here is, “If space was a result of knowing distance rather than distance being a result of knowing space, will the definition of motion remain the same“? “If distance and direction are deduced properties due to detection of some change, then what will speed be?

Looking at what is described in ancient science as the underlying working of the environment, we can try to understand what motion is a translation of. If, what is described in the scriptures is an explanation to reality, then using it, we should be able to match observed behaviour to a translation of an event in the underlying environment. So, what in the underlying environment, will appear as motion i.e., speed, velocity, distance or direction in this reality. We start with mapping distance and direction. So, what is distance and direction really?

When we read the Surya Siddanta, we find that the concept of distance and direction is an foundational concept which is the trigger for everything else that is formed, as opposed to being a top-level concept that is understood by just individual observers in the environment. It says this:

sasandhayaste manavaH kalpe jneyAshrcaturdasha

kRtapramANAH kalpAdau sandhiH paNcadashaH smRtaH ||19||

Translates to

Along with that transition into thought it appears to know four dimensions, by appearing as if 5th dimension of storage of transition, forming distance

When looking at the working of the underlying environment, we need to first clear our pre-conceived thoughts related to appearance. The difference can be understood by looking at how we handle data in a computer application. For example, if when coding a game, to render motion of a sprite, we start with an initial x, y co-ordinate to draw the initial sprite, then compute subsequent positions to re-draw the sprite as it moves to a final co-ordinate of x1, y1. The underlying data stored is purely, the co-ordinates and the rate of redraw or refresh of the sprite in various locations with an equation to compute the next location. The screen on which the sprite is drawn is a clean slate with nothing in it. Without the context of the rendered game, these co-ordinates have no meaning and are just numbers. Similarly, we need to look at the un-manifested environment as purely un-manifested with nothing no meaning attached to it. In this then we need to understand what “distance” should be.

In such an environment of un-manifested, the Surya Siddanta talks about the formation of a pattern with a series of distinguishable changes label’s this “a thought” (Read more in the book). When such a thought is formed, the above verse claims that the thought is able to know dimensions. Then due to storage, a fifth dimension is formed, where distance is known. It should be noted, that at this point, space has not yet formed. So, distance, is just a derivative in the fifth dimension caused because of the ability to have a stored start point against which an amount of change can be compared.

In the above diagram, the start red point needs to be stored. Then as the subsequent red points are added to this, distance is deduced. If the start point was not present and stored, then there is no distance. Thus, the “storage” or “smRtaH”, which is the reason for the fifth dimension, is also important for knowing distance. While the “frame of reference” of the observer is important, it should be remembered that if that observer did not have a persistence capability, then “distance” has no meaning.

The next even more important necessity is “change”. Even if there was persistence, if there is no change, the observer cannot perceive or form a thought and hence will not be able to reference against the persisted starting point. If there is no “movement” then again there is no change and no distance. For example, say we are taken into the middle of a room that is uniformly white and extends in all directions without us being able to observe the edges. Even if we do move in any direction in such a room, we have no clue what the distance is, because there is no change against any reference and we would have lost the start point which observes to be the same as any other point in the local location of the room which we can observe. Hence, change is very important for distance to be deduced.

In the reality we exist in, we can perceive distance by many means: sight, sound, smell, touch, heat and so on. Based on, which input, is perceived to conclude distance, knowledge of distance varies. It can be one or all of these perceptions that are causing us to conclude a distance. But, this distance perceived is the distance based on external inputs. If we take away these external sensory inputs, what will distance be? It has to be understood that even then, there has to be a certain perception for distance to be computed by us! Thus, if we were to perceive a change in a different parameter other than “location in space” and we are able to associate a value to that change, it is still distance!

Another important point to note here is that distance is “deduced” or is a transformation of information. So, for example, in the game that we render a moving sprite, co-ordinates x, y and x1, y1 does not fully dictate the distance between the co-ordinates, the function that joins the two co-ordinates also play and important role. If the function is a straight-line, then distance computed is something, if it is a logarithmic function, then the distance computed is different. Similarly, the transformation that we apply to the various changes that we detect, increases or decreases distance between two changes that we have traversed. For example, in the diagram below:

If the information was the angle and sine(angle), then based on the graph in which the two pieces of information is plotted, the distance varies. In the first, the graph is circular, in the second, the graph is linear with a sine wave. The distance between two points for 210deg and 215deg will vary in both the graphs. The transformation controls the various other parameters associated with this distance such as speed, velocity etc that we observe.

If, we look at what is proposed in these ancient literature, space is actually a network of a specific recognised pattern of thoughts connected via some bond (Read more in book). So, we, the observer, at a certain location are just a thought pattern forming a node in the network and that we are observing, is also a thought pattern forming a node in this network. Both these nodes, belong to the same network and are continuously penetrating the network in some direction, which becomes the forward direction for that node. It should also be remembered that the network itself is a network of thoughts connected by bonds and is in-turn penetrating the un-manifested at different speeds at various points of the network.

So, a rate of change or speed that we perceive is the difference in rate of penetration of the thought pattern of the observed and the rate of penetration of the thought pattern of us as observers, through the network on which we as individuals exist. Velocity is the penetration in a certain direction w.r.t to our direction of penetration. But, if we considered the actuals, all that we are doing is, being contained within a network that is already moving at a certain speed in the un-manifested, moving locally in that network. Then, our motion, speed and distance becomes equivalent to that of a passenger of an airplane moving within the airplane. It is the distance, direction, speed and velocity of the airplane that determines the time to the destination rather than our movement in the airplane. Also, to be noted is that our speed cannot become greater than that of the airplane w.r.t the destination or the surrounding environment around us.

If we observe the penetration of the network, then to us, the speed remains constant, because we cannot move beyond the apex of penetration of that network. If we are able to observe another network penetrating the un-manifested, then again the speed of that second network remains constant to us, because it is the difference in speed of penetration of the current network we are on and the second network, similar to observing a second train from the first moving train.

We, as individuals, are able to observe the different properties of waves (electromagnetic waves, radio waves, heat waves and so on). Hence, distance, speed and other concepts, for us are the change in these properties, mapped to a certain rendering by our thoughts. If, individuals exist that observe different properties of any other XYZ, then the rendering that they would see, would match all the concepts that we have such as distance, speed, velocity etc., but only variable is the property detected that drives the definition of the concept.

Thus we see that when the underlying working of the environment is taken into consideration, the physics of motion changes and becomes more abstract and en-compasses other factors that play a role in motion.

One Comment on “Explaining physics of motion with ancient science

  1. Pingback: Exploring science in ancient scriptures | Research of Ancient Philosophy

%d bloggers like this: