[anthk]

Your comment it's a list of fallacies, starting with the one ad authoritam.

You wouldn't even pass a basic high school test here.

Sorry.

All of your statements won't validate the scriptures. They are just myths. Grow up.

Newton did 'alchemy'. Well, he tried. Obviously, it didn't work. So what? Tell that to Lavoisier. Bam. 5000 years of bullshit, debunked from a French Chemist with basic Chemistry.

[shri_krishna]

> All of your statements won't validate the scriptures. They are just myths. Grow up.

Tell that to S Ramanujan[1] who credited his findings to Goddess of Namagiri. Let us see you justify it as "pseudo-science".

"An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Personalit...

[shri_krishna]

Also it is absolutely ridiculous to compare alchemy with Vedanta. Vedanta is Philosophy that deals with metaphysics. It has nothing to do with Chemistry, let alone Alchemy. So try harder.

[shri_krishna]

Firstly, wtf is ad authoritam? There is no such word in the dictionary. If you mean ad hominem then no it isn't. It is an appeal to your higher sensibilities. But looking at your ridiculous response I can only conclude the opposite.

> Your comment it's a list of fallacies

List them.

> All of your statements won't validate the scriptures. They are just myths. Grow up.

I don't need to validate scriptures to some random nut on the internet. Whether you like it or not these scriptures are and will be studied for centuries and inspire many great scientists who are yet to come. Even after you will cease to exist on this planet. So don't regard yourself higher than what you are truly worth. Less than a dust in this cosmic existence.

> Newton did 'alchemy'. Well, he tried. Obviously, it didn't work. So what? Tell that to Lavoisier. Bam. 5000 years of bullshit, debunked from a French Chemist with basic Chemistry.

Well he became Newton because he did venture into and studied various paths (including occult practices). That is what a true scientist is and what a true scientist does. He was open minded, explored everything and did not take anything for granted. Even if it means setting up for failure. You would never get it because you are as close minded as it gets. It is not your cup of tea. You are probably only good at what is taught to you in academia and regurgitating that. That is where you will reside rest of your life. You are incapable of expanding your knowledge, producing new proofs/theorems or even coming up with novel concepts. So no matter how much you harp about science vs pseudoscience your contributions are next to nothing compared to a Newton, Galileo or Copernicus or any of the greats of that Era. Yes they got many things wrong. But the things they got right changed the World for the better. Now you will sit here in judgement of these great people who walked the Earth? Who tf are you?

And yes Lavoisier wouldn't have gotten to where he did if not for seeing all the failures of alchemy. There is nothing like "basic Chemistry" when the foundations of it was laid through various failures of the people from previous generations. As someone truly said, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. And all giants before us have had their fair share of success and failures. And they never got to where they did without first venturing into as many things as they could and giving it an honest shot and not dismissing everything as pseudo-science.

> You wouldn't even pass a basic high school test here.

Still waiting on the scientific explanation for the Kailasa Temple.

[anthk]

>Still waiting..

Not magic, for sure.

[shri_krishna]

No one said anything about "magic" you nut. I am talking about lost science. That knowledge is gone forever due to catastrophes and libraries being burnt. And most scientific discoveries we are having today is just rediscovering many of the same things the Ancients had discovered too.

You still have time to explain how anyone could carve a Temple out 400,000 tonnes of rock from a mountain face. You will just not be able to explain it with Knowledge of Science that we have today. Even the most advanced machinery that we have today will not be sufficient to build the Kailasa Temple in mere 18 years. Heck we take multiple months to just drill a tunnel through a mountain. Here we are talking about not just carving out an entire mountain but also transporting 400,000 tonnes of rock.

The invaders tried to demolish the Temple. Spent 3 years chipping away at the carvings and could only do minimal damage. That's how spectacular this Temple is.

Good luck coming up with a modern scientific answer for this one. No technology exists today which can recreate this.

[anthk]

Australians used similar traits on these Moai sculptures. Physics, ropes and levers.

So did the Egyptians, but with water and slopes. With a few mms of water on it, big rocks slide up like magic.

Seriously, stop defending lost causes because of my $LOST_COUNTRY. I'm Basque, so I've read lots of similar bullshit from Basque and/or Spanish nationalists, or Rome/Greece supporters stating that only the Graeco-Roman empire was able to build big buildings or sculpture with ease.

Phoenicians did amazing wonders. So did the Cretan culture, which was almost considered a god-like empire from the Greeks and the surrounding Mediterranean tribes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_culture

Once you get Geometry, Math and basic Physics right and written down, architecture almost develops itself in any empire.

Geometry for sure was born as a method to split terrains to avoid clashes. So did Math, as a method to store goods efficiently. And for trade between tribes, for sure. So any developed empire could get construction things right with very few efforts.

[shri_krishna]

You just spewed a lot of bullshit but couldn't give 1 scientific reason for how 400,000 tonnes of rock were removed from a mountain. Nothing of what you said has literally anything to do with Kailasa Temple. Just a bunch of rubbish.

We have plenty of comparable architectures across civilizations but nothing compares to the Kailasa Temple in terms of how difficult it was to have constructed something like this. Carving a mountain is almost impossible considering even today's technological advancements. Just boring a tunnel through a mountain takes months. This is a megalith structure carved from top to bottom. According to local legend it took a week to finish. But scientists insist it took 18 years based on carbon dating. Even if we consider 18 years as the value it is almost impossible to have done it.

To give you some perspective of how mammoth the task was:

18 years to build the temple. Required to remove 400,000 tonnes of rock (this is not even considering time taken for creating layouts and carving sculptures). 22,222 tonnes of rock per year had to be excavated out. 60 tonnes of rock per day. Even if the workers worked 24 hours non-stop, without any breaks for refreshment or sleep, it would be 2.53 tonnes of rock per hour. That is 2530 kgs of rock. Per hour! With just chisels and hammer we are told.

To give you more perspective on how difficult it was to just cut the rock, the Temple was attacked by invading Mughal King Aurangzeb in 1682. He employed more than a 1000 workers to destroy it. They tried for 3 years to break it and could only chip off few sculptures here and there before giving up.

> Physics, ropes and levers.

All this comes later. I am only talking about just cutting the mountain rock. Not even excavation and transport.

We don't even know where the excavated rock went. And mind you the Kailasa Temple is just 1 complex situated in the middle of 34 rock cut caves/temples. The only reason Kailasa Temple gets more prominence over the remaining 33 rock cut temples and caves is because an entire mountain was carved out from top to bottom instead of from front to back.