I am ready to debate Mr. Oak anytime: Topic 1: Mahabharata war took place in 5561 BCE: True or False; Topic 2: Ramayana took place in 12209 BCE: True or False; must be judged by a panel of subject matter experts. If you have watched my 2-part presentation on Ramayana here at Sangam Talks, you will figure out that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Ramayana. If you watch rest of the 2-parts presentation on Mahabharata (forthcoming) here at Sangam Talks, you would know that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Mahabharata either.
@@ankitruparel1895 Second part premiered today. Hope you have watched it. No matter where the astronomical bodies are shown in the sky maps of Voyager 4.5 software, Mr. Oak plays with words and claims corroboration.
Dr. @@rajarammohanroy1384 Don't count on your refutation of Ramayana. Consider the following: "I have an observation about Dr. Oak's dating of Valmiki Ramayana (VR) to circa 12000 BCE In VR there appears an observation by Hanuman of presence of three and four tusk-elephants in Ravana Lanka when he visits that palace in search of Sita. Could these be Gomphotheres who went extinct around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago?"
keep creating confusion among the public and contribute to delay actions which otherwise that would logically follow like adopting MB as the basis for modern Indic calendar system etc.
I agree. The manner way he is using words which are borderline condescending. This doesn’t feel like debate to find truth but more off agenda to put someone down. I wish it was more civil debate.
It is unfortunate that Sangam Talks is not providing debate Or rebuttal opportunity to Mr. Nilesh Oak. Also other observations (300 events)are proved by Mr.Oak with Same software. If software is having error, then it is unlikely that it can match with 5561bce.
There are no 300 observations that have been corroborated. That is a totally bogus and intellectually dishonest claim. Details are given in Parts 2 and 3.
If Mahabharata is really took place around 5561BC, why sage Vyasa wrote it down in classical sanskrit and not in vedic sanskrit (the type that is found in Rigveda). Linguistics studies shown classical sanskrit appeared later during late Iron age period around 700BC. Also, Iron age in Indian subcontinent began around 1200BC and last to 600BC. There's no archaeological evidence of presence of Iron metallurgy before this period. In Mahabharata, Iron usage is mentioned many times. One notable reference is in the Shanti Parva (Book of Peace), where iron is mentioned in the context of weapons and warfare. So, how can you say Mahabharata is as old as 5561BC when both linguistics evidence ( written in classical sanskrit) and metallurgical evidence (mentioned of Iron tools and weapons) is dating it much later?
@@marimuthu14 horrible rebuttal, did god tell u iron age started in india in 1200 BC, marxist infidels r hilarious grow up and learn how to research antiquity instead of wikipedia.
Nilesh is running away from a rebuttal.. but it really doesn’t matter. All we need to agree is if these are historical or not, irrespective of accuracy of date of occurrence
Allow Mr. Nilesh Oak fair chance for rebuttal argument. His study cannot be just easily dismissed like this. Hope Sangam Talks will take note of this and invite Mr. Oak for a debate. 🙏🏿
I am ready to debate Mr. Oak anytime: Topic 1: Mahabharata war took place in 5561 BCE: True or False; Topic 2: Ramayana took place in 12209 BCE: True or False; must be judged by a panel of subject matter experts. If you have watched my 2-part presentation on Ramayana here at Sangam Talks, you will figure out that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Ramayana. If you watch rest of the 2-parts presentation on Mahabharata (forthcoming) here at Sangam Talks, you would know that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Mahabharata either.
Nothing should be absolutized. We need to make Hinduism fact-based. Whenever new evidence emerge, old should be rejected. But for this, scientific rigor is a must.
For true fact you need guru. The right date of mahabharata war is 8936 yrs before from today see the video of vedvik channel named antim avtar. You will get an idea and research can be done on this date to prove more.
Dr. Roy's data looks good on paper. However, Mr. Oak should be invited here in this show for a rebuttal. He has done extensive research on this and a 50 min explanation on SW error cannot be considered as an yardstick to refute Mr. Oak's claim.
Respected sir, There are other evidences also that is referred by Nilesh Oak sir apart from AV observation and from multiple dimensions of science . I think a healthy debate would be great
For such a civilizationally important topic, we need to have more open discussion and debate. As others here have suggested, it is crucial to invite both Dr Roy and Nilesh Oak for a debate. Without this, everyone's credibility suffers and our heritage takes a hit.
Nice presentation Dr. Roy. I have a few comments 1. The period of interest is when RA difference is negative. The need to make Fig 7, for effective RA difference, is not understood. The pronounced effect in the effective RA difference for positive RA difference section of the curve does not help your argument. 2. Dr. Oak has revised the estimate to (10,248 BCE - 4,636 BCE) in 2019, due to Siddharth Chhabra. 3. In one of his videos, he mentioned that during the MB times observer must have been using some kind of aid to watch the AV movement. 4. Stellarium might have won prize for the best educational astronomy simulator but its use as a professional simulator hasn't yet been established.
Thank you @@linguistme6870 We are discussing dating of Mahabharat exclusively based on Astronomy references. As I understand Kaliyuga calendar was fixed to start on 3101 BCE due to calculations by Aryabhata in his Aryabhatiya. It is obvious that later events and dates would always stay referenced to this beginning of Kaliyuga calendar. Same applies to Aihole Inscriptions. What you posted is termed as cyclic evidence and therefore, not tenable. There is another set of scholars who believe that the beginning of Kaliyuga calendar coincides with the demise of Krushna. These scholars date the MB war to the year 3136 BCE. Hope this helps.
Sangam talks can not escape with disclaimer only. rather it is binding to have common discussion of with Dr. Toy and Nilesh Oakji to arrive at common position assuming software error etc.
Just wanted to write a critic of your presentation, misleading title: Go to slide 42 (22:30), your slide summarises two attempts of finding the interval where Arundhati was ahead of Vashistha. I see that the interval Oak uses (11090 BC - 4508 BC) is tighter, lies inside the interval you compute 11386(>11090) BC - (4508
Another thought: Your interpretation of the statements in slide 62 does not match my understanding. Having error does not mean the model cannot capture events and numbers. If that was true, then we would not be able to discover Uranus. The error in our model's prediction, is due to chaos. A nonlinear dynamical system (with however many unknowns, doesn't matter) can predict a state, with precision commensurate with the error in the initial state. The error in our knowledge of the current state, together with the Lyapunov exponent, and how far back we want to predict, determines the error in our prediction. The error, of our knowledge of the current state of the celestial objects, reduces with more observations, i.e. more time spent observing stuff using telescopes. Look at it this way. The intervals of the events the software predict have an error of the order of centuries (in the time range we are interested in). The events we want to capture have an interval of the order of thousands of years. If our sofware predict their occurence, they did happen, just their intervals are off by centuries. I can just say, the best lectures on mechanics of materials and plasticity are by metallurgists, but the best online lectures on the numerics of dynamical systems I found are by chemical engineers.
Dr Roy, the following are a few observations 1) The title says refuting 5561, but the talk is totally focussed on AV epoch. 5561 was not ientified just on this epoch, while Mr Oak said it helped in narrowing options 2) The talk did say about errors in the astronomical tools.. could u please enlighten us what aspect introduces this error? 3) Your talk just takes two astronomical tools that do not agree with each other..would this be sufficient number for you to refute one? 4) The various number of times "Arundhati" is mentioned is greater than 30 times in Mahabharatha, however Vyasa Maharshi has cited this just once. We consider Vyasa as Maharshi but not others.. I feel this must be enough to state that the "overtaking" phenomenon was visible to him because of other advanced scientific tools.. which we have no clue of. As commoners Kunti may have used the popular perception of the importance of Arundhati Vasistha.. which as devout hindus we still follow. As a student of this Mahabharatha dating studies.. I welcome your effort, but i honestly admit there is no strength to refute 5561.
AV observation is used to discard all but 4 dating claims. This talk shows that there is no basis for that. Next talk will show that there is nothing in Mahabharata that can pinpoint the date to 5561 BCE. Some sources of error in the software are shown in slide 62.
@@fourlitre3213 Further proof that fraud @NileshOak fanboys are totally clueless. What to expect from a clown's fanboy. The circus is getting bigger. Dr. Raja Ram's 3rd video recording is done. When it will be released is up to Sangam Talks. In case you cant wait for his 3rd video, please visit @Sattology channel hosted by the clown's puppet and watch Dr. ML Raja's latest video on debunking the salesman @NileshOak dating.
This may not be correct. the error in the software will remain same for the positions before and after the epoch. If one is trying to measure for one star the error matters. If the calculation is made for two stars and the difference is evaluated, the software error cancels out and value will be correct. eg. if software predicts 10 for Vasishta and 8 for Arundhati difference is 2. If error is -1, it will be same for both the calculations. Hence actuall value for Vasishta will be 9 and actual value that for Arundhati will be 7 and the difference will be 2 which is same as the predicted by software.
1. The speaker seems to have made an assumption that the sky observations and the math to calculate planetary orbits are available only in the last few hundred years. How could one ignore the fact that humans have been observing skies for thousands of years, all over the world. Wrong assumption. 2. What makes the speaker believe that all the Mahabharata astronomy observations are based on only naked eye? 3. Can the speaker show his analysis / evidence of how the "traditional date" can be arrived at, whatever that date might be ? 4. The speaker says, the claim of "5561BCE for Mahabharata war made by Nilesh Oak" cannot be true because, as per the speaker, the time range estimate between 4508 and 11091 BCE based on Arundhati-Vashishta observation is within the margin of error of the software used. And hence cannot be true. How about many other evidences ? Can Mr Roy use those to narrow the range and enhance his understanding ? Making big statements and rebuttal videos, will surely give him some clicks, at the very least. I wish Mr Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the speaker came up with his own claim, if he does not agree with 5561BCE for Mahabharata war. Honestly, the question from some Mr Ashish at the end, looks like an agenda driven echo chamber :-)
There are two more parts of this refutation. Second part is on Saturday. I will start talks on my own work on Indian astronomy once this series is done and will take up your questions then.
Two main arguments (refuting the discovery) in this part can be summarized as follows: 1) RA (Right Ascension) difference between Arundhati and Vashishtha (with Arundhati having higher RA than Vashistha), when projected to the visual plane (AZ-ALT Coordinate System) for an observer at Kurukshetra, is less than that discernible by a naked human eye. 2) The difference between the RA of Arundhati and Vashistha during the epoch (ie when Arundhati leads Vashistha in the Simulator) is of the same order as the simulation error and uncertainty in the position of the stars. #1 abv means that nobody could have seen Arundhati leading Vashistha with naked human eye during Mahabharat times even if it happened in reality as shown by the sky simulator. #2 abv means that the Epoch of Arundhati (as observed in the sky simulator) could be happening due to inaccuracy and error in the position of the stars as estimated and predicted by the sky simulator. Mr Oak should come out with a video addressing abv issues.
Similarly, there was also an astronomical dating of the visibility of the star Agastya in Northern and southern India and 14000 BC or something along those lines. It was good to have an independent presentation but at some point obviously it is important to hear Mr Oak’s reply to this.
Mr. Oak is free to do refutation of my presentation here on Sangam Talks last year on Surya Siddhanta. He has not done it yet because he cannot refute the points I had raised.
@@kkelkar1265 What agenda? Mr. Oak has presented on Sangam Talks multiple times. He can present his refutation here whenever he feels like it. I wanted to present this refutation and I am grateful to Sangam Talks for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Oak has been criticizing Prof. Iyengar, Shrikant Talageri and others in his talks. Were they present to refute him in those talks?
@@kkelkar1265 The salesman's video with his junior puppet is coming soon on Sangan Talks on 15/1/23. He can do a refutation video if he wants to in Sangam Talks, but he won't. He will do it in Sattology channel where he has another senior puppet under his control to do whatever blabbering he want to.
@@adityaraj2447 we all are on the same side my friend, the human side. Indian or non-Indian does not make any difference. Fact remains fact and will come out, to reveal the thousands of years old history, busting all the myths.
Nilesh Ji has stated many times that there's a margin of error. Even with the margin of error you can arrive at the right conclusion. With all due respect. Why are people so desperate to return to the British colonization myths is beyond me. Stockholm syndrome. I propose a live debate with a time limit of 30 minutes where we will judge, not only the data, but the way the data points were arrived at. I've spent years studying Dr Oak's work and I'm not about to let a debunker with a phd destroy all that work with silly talking points.
@HareKrsna8 Nakshatra astronomy system cannot exist without it. Only thing it takes, is two neurons firing and talking to each other to see this. Absence of a 8,000 year old telescope today is not absence of evidence then. I bet there's an ancient Bharat telescope deep in the British Museum or in the hands of a collector, misdated and probably called Greek while it sports a Shiva Trident on it. Sound familiar?
Nilesh was already debunked many times by many others including Dr Jayasree, Dr Manish Pundit but he's too delusional and narcissistic to accept the error. Watch this comprehensive set of videos by Jayasree Saranathan. th-cam.com/play/PLDThIv-a11RQShIWAdkVQ3Vlxf3CmIIxY.html
Muddled, out of context, desperate to debunk 5561. Focuses on one thing rather than debunking every branch of science that Nilesh Ji has used and explained so abundantly.
I hope Sangam talks will focus on refuting evidences from other branches of science provided by Nileshji in upcoming parts of this series. It will be interesting to see the upcoming persons take on oceanography, archeogenetic and other evidences provided by Nileshji that strengthens his claim of 5561 BCE. This might go south and risky for Sangam if the person is not able to put forth his points properly in upcoming parts of the series.
@@fourlitre3213 As Nileshji has said many times "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". There must have been telescope like devices during that time based on which Arundhati-Vashishth observation was made. And people are not devolving but we Indians have made a habit of putting more faith on western and west backed narratives of our texts rather than Indian narratives.
@@fourlitre3213 He's right about that too. Just like my compatriots in Mexico, Indians have Stockholm syndrome to this day. In Mexico, they call it "Malinchismo". Malinche, an Aztec woman was raped and taken by Hernan Cortes and she ended up being a collaborator and a traitor having fallen in love with her captor. It's a real thing, I'm afraid.
Arundathi has been many times in the MB, what’s the interpretation w. r. t. A walking ahead of V in that particular context ? Should it always be taken as A walking ahead of V in all those instances?
Please HAVE A OPEN DEBATE WITH SHRI NILESH NILKANTH OAK & JEEVAN RAO on Sangam talks . Do not just refute one sided . Nileshji has more than dozen faculties streams of evidence. Your are just under half dozen faculties streams. Please keep OPEN MIND 🙏 & debate , no ego for more higher civilizational purposes . Lots of positive will come out , for sure .
@@linguistme6870 completely understand and agree but open debate allows one to discover & rediscover further n further . This is how research happens & truth is immerged. Our gurus also advocated discussions & debates .
Major assumption here - eyesight can differentiate only 5.5 arc mins. That is eyesight of current humans. Are you going to extend the physical attributes of current human kind to those who existed a few thousand years ago?
Where is the question of belief in this? Can we scientifically establish that the physical attributes of the current human kind are the same for humans who existed thousands of years ago?
@@mvaidjhaoyo Onus of proof lies on the person making extraordinary claim. What you have to understand is that we are dealing with extremely small values that fall within the margin of error, and it cannot be used to deny other claims. Evidence needs to be clear cut and beyond a shadow of doubt to do that. AV observation is useless for dating Mahabharata, that's what I have shown.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 and I'm asking you to prove or establish that the physical attributes are same. Onus of proof per you lies on one who makes the claim.
I don't know whether Dr. Roy has been able to debunk the timeline theory of Mr. Nilesh Oak or no. But Mr Nilesh Oak looks more convincing & thorough whatever he has come up with. At the same time being a Sanatani I would rather that the debunker needs to be as fluent in Sanskrit as Nilesh ji (and it should come out spontaneously from time to time in your presentation) since you are dealing with something which has a lot to do with Sanskrit literature. This learned gentleman throughout this video never looked like he has anything to do with Sanskrit. It looks like a Degree holder in Arts has taken up the task of teaching Physics in a college.
A walking ahead of V has be corroborated by many software’s - the speaker says if so where is the debunking of Oak observations ? Whatever be the differences in the different software date ranges it’s still a valid celestial observation isn’t ?
Measurements considered in the software or measurements on ‘what is being measured’ ? Not clear what you mean Anyway if it’s in software have you taken up with the software manufacturer? So many people would be using the software for many different purposes, the error should be impacting all isn’t?
Roy vs Oak let’s get him on! One question- there are many other astronomical indications given, why are we fixating on epoch of arundhati when we can look at others (Rohini Saturn) etc
@@rajarammohanroy1384 according to SS chap 1.57 vedveer Arya claim is that 22feb 6778 I don't believe anybody because this creates cloud 🌨️ of ignorance!!! . I will just accept this some thousand year old . What about ck Raju reasearch! Raju is saying that Greek and Roman don't had knowledge of arithmetic , calculus, trigonometry Also he challenged to prove Euclid is real And 1 +1= 2 in real no in formal math way And this questions their ability of astronomy and navigation? Is this true , I don't believe it but it's disturbing! But I found an article against him by Subramanian durbha and the award he got for the claim of Einstein's mistake in which the award is fraud I think I searched about it -telesio galilei award by this it may be a superstition of ck Raju !
@@rajarammohanroy1384 indian logic system frame works vs western binary logic system? Which is better? One is a multivalued logic system( indian) other 2 or 1 valued system And our civilization is how many are year old according to chronological order?
Refuting anything is easy... Let me ask you what is your theory and how can it be use to date Ramayana Mahabharata with scientific evidences from many fields scientific research
This was by no means an "easy" refutation. It took time and effort to prepare an hour-long counter-argument here. Also, Dr. Roy has never claimed that Ramayana Mahabharata happened historically. So it seems unfair to ask him to provide a theory.
@ Its not cancel culture. Cancel culture is calling upon everyone to reject a person entirely because you don’t agree with them. Roy is happy to debate Oak. He is only refuting the theory, not Oak himself. If someone came to you claiming the earth is flat, would your rebuttal that the earth is not flat be cancel culture?
I do not understand the purpose of this research. It appears that the purpose is negative and only done to debunk what is done earlier. The researcher has not given any approximate date for the war.
Remember Speaker is asking why Dr. No is not doing research on finding celestial observation like ‘it’s full moon but not able to find it’ and only taking on AV observation. Instead why not speaker himself research this aspect instead of asking others to do what he (speaker) wants
Because the speaker is not claiming any date as Mahabharata date. He is asking why the fraud salesman is cherry picking verses that suits his fraud agenda.
@@rubabu Because that someone is corrupting the whole Sanatana Dharma ecosystem with hidden personal agenda. It is our dharma to protect our scriptures from misinterpretation and misinformation.
@@EkaSanatani Very well said. More than two years of my time has been spent doing this instead to continuing with my own research. If I did not consider it extremely important, I won't be doing this. In the process I am being abused by the very same people I deeply care about.
2:25 Traditional dating of Mahabharata at approximately 3100 BCE is also not likely as (1) at that time Saraswati was still flowing past Vinashana (2) Magh month was completely in Dakshinayana making Bhishma Nirvana in Magh incorrect (3) main cities mentioned in Mahabharata were not settled as per archeological record. Explanation: This date of start of Kaliyuga is back-calculated based on jyotish siddhantas. Most planets came together around that time based on calculations. So Mahayuga start was assigned that date after the fact sometime in first millennium.
It's disappointing to see Sangam talks doing a disservice by having such a talk. Instead of having a talk that denigrates another researcher, Sangam should provide platform to present primary research and ideas. Or should have invited both parties for a debate and discussion. Will Sangam talks now invite Mr Oak to counter Dr. Roy? Does Sangam talks want to be in between this to and fro? I feel it's a misuse of Sangam talks platform.
Spot on! Sangam talks is doing the Hindu civilization a huge disservice by organising such sessions. It should instead champion arriving at the most precise dating by way of healthy debate.
You are refuting using software, but you should not forget the software has been coded by humans. If humans can get wrong so does software. Also, different people use different software to prove their claims. So I can't say your research is the complete truth
The kind of words used for a fellow researcher especially in the staged QnA is shameful. Such mischiefs should not be entertained in a platform like SangamTalks. This will make the Indic research toxic. First these people should learn to shore respect and then talk out show whatever. Research is not about dividing, disrespecting and hating others, it needs mature people with a good heart. Stupid people showing their IIT titles etc. I’m trying to convince people that their targeted hatred is valid. Btw I’m not talking about who is correct, I’m commenting on the more fundamental issue.
You call people from IIT stupid. You are showing the same traits of the person you are so fond of and it is precisely that which has brought me to this talk. Oak insulted Prof. Achar and this is the consequence.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 I appreciate your response. I’m calling those people stupid who show off their IIT brand to gain an upper hand in the argument. You might not be that but you have to accept that there are such people. Secondly, I’m neither a fan of Nilesh Ji nor accept hood dating as final word. Indeed, I personally sometimes find his way of arguing and using his fan base too desperate. The only point I’m making is having a healthy debate. Here you accept that you were rattled by his way and then you did tit for tat. In your personal egos and accepted beliefs you guys are harming Indic research. There is a recent video on Shatrubodh and Swambodh on Sangam talks please try to understand that we have to be respectful to our researchers. New people should feel welcomed and feel like it’s a fun & loving community to research in. If the other person is not showing respect for others, we can show the right way rather than tit for tat. I respect your research. I listen to you often on Sattology and I have learnt a lot from you. Same goes for Nilesh Ji. Let’s look at positives. I’m pretty sure you must have learnt something from his research or while refitting his research. Let’s make it a fun place. Who wins shouldn’t be that important. Anyway I don’t think we will have a final well accepted word on this anytime soon so let’s keep debating in lighter manner and not get desperate. 🙏🏽
@@bhardwajutkarsh No. It is not tit for tat. It is about exposing research fraud. Details are in Part 2 and Part 3. Details were also in my talks on Surya Siddhanta and Ramayana (two parts) here on Sangam Talks. I have nothing to learn from Mr. Oak. I have work ethics and I do research with intellectual honesty. Mr. Oak is fooling gullible people like you and all his claims are bogus.
Sangam talks must conduct a debate. If this person have issues. Dabate is the only method for solving it once it for all. Or else. There will be n number of people with absurd ideas. If this person doesn't believe in what's written. Then there is no point of discussion. Cos assumptions can only come from source. Not the source ofcourse doesn't make sense in some point. It must be understood that dilution must been happened. Rejection is very easy.
Seems like Nilesh Oak is their employer...they have no job other than refuting him 😃. Never heard any of them come up with any original theory based on any multi disciplinary science like Nikesh Oak does. This is just more of the same 'rebuttal' over and over again...Im not totally convinced of Nilesh Oak's dates( need to study more)but ...this constant concentration on him just makes them seem jealous at this point.
Sangam talks has to show courtesy to respond to the comments objecting to this talk or the manner in which this issue was handled. Many here feel this is a disservice to Hindu society and who are proud of the rich antiquity of Hindu civilization. This talk goes totally against the good work Sangam talks does.
I have done a detailed scientific refutation of a bogus claim. What is your issue with that? Specially when Oak uses bogus arguments to refute our traditional dates, insults our Indic researchers and brags that other Indic researchers are shivering in their dhotis before him. Should we keep quiet and let a smart operator take gullible people for a ride? Is that serving Dharma?
Who are the 'many here' you're talking about, the only ones who's feeling the heat are the fraud's fanboys, they're not happy that their holier-than-thou idol is being exposed. Grow up, don't be a crybaby.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 My concern is with the platform used. Sangam talks should not promote name calling and personal references for an academic discussion.
@Eka Sanatani Your comment precisely shows where I expected this discussion to go. A platform like Sangam Talks will end up being a platform for personal attacks and name calling.
@@mandarbhome What personal attack? I have not made any comments on Mr. Oak as a person unlike what he does often to other Indic researchers. My presentation is strictly academic, detailed and to the point.
Facts: Dr. Raja Ram Mohan has not done well research on Mr. Oak before debunking him. Nor did he challenge him in any debate like other scholars. He calls Mr. Oak research as pseudoscience Dr. Raja Ram Mohan is not Astronomer, in first place Dr. Raja Ram Mohan has no credential of a Sanskrit Scholar or Vedic Scholar. He has interest, even I have interest. I don't become scholar because of that. is ne another Devdutt Pattanaik? Dr. Raja Ram Mohan debunks himself.
Sorry Dr Roy if I come across a bit rough. I feel that humanity has been deprived of it's great antiquity through the brutal colonization the British inflicted on Bharat. It affects everybody, not just Indians. Anything that threatens to return us to the cave man stage 6,000 ago will be met head on. By me at least. Nothing personal. Namaskaram.
There have been many ancient civilizations, India, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Chinese, Native American , greek and much more.. we have Gobekli Tepe ( turkey) which dates back to 10,000BC! What are u talking about?
@Aditya Raj if you don't have answers then it's fine bro no issues as lots of people engage in hearsay and don't actually have anything factual to substantiate their claim .
Congrats Sir. A very well researched presentation. Hope the enormous time spend doing the research bears its fruit. This presentation shows how an actual scientific research data should be presented. Precise, clear and easy to understand, even for a layman. All the data are clearly provided so that anyone can refute it if they want, instead of blatantly claiming that I have 500++ proof for my dating, but keep on hiding behind TH-cam video presentations and tweets. Congrats again Sir and waiting for the next video.
Thank you very much for your kind words. It is unfortunate that I had to spend over two years debunking Mr. Oak's fantasies because the Hindu intelligentsia did not do their job properly.
Oak's response on anyone who critique him "Please study nyaya shastra and scientific reasoning". And the funny thing is he learned nyaya darshana by some anarya samaji youtube channel.
@@fourlitre3213 ji , There can be many reasons why part 3 didn't came. He invited Nilesh Oak to debate more than a year ago. He published a series of 10 articles as a critique of Oak's theory. Oak Blocked him. The date 5000+BCE for Mahabharat or 10000+ BCEs for Ramayana is not accepted among the traditional sects which are preserving these texts since thousands of years. This reason is enough to not consider Oak's theory valid.. Existence of Rama or Ravana can be known only by scriptures not by any other means. It is foolishness to reject scriptural dating but believing scriptural characters and incidents are real .
@@fourlitre3213 Doesn't matter what drives the debate between these two. If the critique is valid than it must be answered. Running away and blocking people like oak does is not a proper response. My denial of Oak's theory is not based on Raja Ram . I saw Oak's article about Mahabharata years back. He has gone to the foolishness where he interprets the meaning of Chaitra as Vasanta and sun setting in Hemanta just to prove his theory right. Not just by RAJA ram ji he was asked questions by the scholars of "Bharat vidwat PARISHAD" HE didn't responded to it and started blabbering. That's why bharat vidwat PARISHAD removed him You need something to fight with Xtians and historians Oak's Theory is good but it is not the truth and it is not accepted in any traditional sect.
@@MahaVidhyaa There is a horde of people like this fourlitre who will accept any idiocy to push back the date as much as possible so that it becomes more 'ancient'. Nilesh by being delusional and a coward has been extending this matter needlessly. But if he accepts his mistake his whole work will fold in like a pack of cards as it's all interlinked. Academics know the truth. It's the lay people with their kleshas causing trouble. Last I heard that Prachyam was making a documentary based on Nilesh's work. I had told them to research and make sure which is the right one (Nilesh's date is not), but I don't think they listened.
Dear Raja Ramji, title is refutation of 5561bce & u hv taken AV only. In this also ur ref is changing by 500 ys. Still 5561bce is well within. Other 300 obs are also matching for 5561. In fact, major 25 obs can be proved by mere calculations. These were proved by Dr. Vartak in1970 w/o software for 5561bce.
Mr. Roy, if you have not included in the upcoming series lectures please consider examining an important data point of Bhishma Nirvan. Bhisma Nirvan happened in Magh Shukla Paksha (either on Ashtami or Dashami/Ekadashi - based on interpretation and tradition). Even with adding an Adhika Masa you cannot have any day in Magha Masa in Uttarayana in 5561 BCE. Bhisma Nirvana in Dakshinayana is a big failure of any dates in 5561 BCE. BTW earliest time when Magh Ekadashi in Uttarayana is approximately around 2500 BCE and latest around 900 BCE. These dates are approximate as I don’t have my calculations handy. But Stellarium can be used to confirm.
Thanks for your comments. Part 3 is entirely on debunking Mr. Oak's dating of Bhishma Nirvana. It was already presented on 25th December and will be available here later.
Anyone doing any scientific research knows that first thing to do after getting any data is to check the margin of error. Mr. Oak has failed to do that while determining the epoch of Arundhati.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 His bread and butter depends on this faulty software data. Even if he realize this, the Bozo will go on with his circus show with the support of clowns such as Rupa and Jeevan.
Mr Roy, another point to add to your presentations (if already not included) is archeological data on the ground. Mahabharata was a Bronze Age event (if not Iron Age event) Bronze Age started around 3100 BCE and Iron Age started - at the earliest 1800 BCE (with a generous date) - in India. There are no archeological findings with bronze (or even gold) in 5561 BCE. Mahabharata mentions cities of Mathura and Indraprastha (thought to be New Delhi) going back to 5000 BCE you will not see human activity under these cities. It could be checked by I believe these cities did not exist as early as 2000 BCE as evidenced by undisturbed virgin soil and they probably were settled as people started abandoning towns on the banks of Saraswati. Mahabharata mentions Vinashana where Saraswati vanishes, and Balarama’s visit is used by many for calculations probably also including Mr Oak. Hydrological data in French papers (also mentioned by Mr. Oak in his lectures) shows that Saraswati was NOT vanishing in 5561 BCE and was a continuous river all the way to the ocean. Saraswati drying happened with Sahara drying after 4.2k event (or after around 2200 BCE). Mahabharata mentions various types of cereals (wheat, rice, etc). Papers dealing with Archeo-botany do not show sufficient evidence of such crops in Sindhu Saraswati Yamuna area in 5561 BCE. Going back that far you will see predominately Barley and perhaps very small quantity of Elmer)
@@adityaraj2447 Bro... We all are. This involves everyone, I call India Bharat, because that's it's real name. You appear to have Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps you should move to Oxford and be with your Sahibs.
@@adityaraj2447 I have not lied. You should learn Yoga. People know me, where I come from and what I do. I'm just an old man who found truth in Bharat Itihasa and practice Yoga. No more, no less. You are just trolling for troll sake. Dr Roy is wrong, and so are you.
@@adolforosado sir, i do respect u.. because in our indian culture, we respect our elders..but I checked your website and Facebook, u do Arts as well right? It said that ur from Mexico 🇲🇽, u speak Spanish, so how can u say that ur Indian? Im not able to understand.. I know u follow Sadhguru ( save soil) and Practice Yoga.. and Love And Respect our Country Bharat, but how does that make u Indian?..
Mr. Oak was influenced by Dr, Vartak's dating of the Mahabharata war in 5561 BCE. It is just like late Prof B.N Achar getting influenced by the 3067 BCE date for the Mahabharata war, claimed by Prof. K. Srinivasa Raghavan. It is high time Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy tries to find the date of the Mahabharata war and that of the Ramayana war by himself.
Why we have to make Hinduism fact based we were never fact based...we are always essence and philosophy based...the day we start finding facts we start behaving like abhramic religions...where fact rules over essence...Our Dhram rules our heart whereas other religions rules the head...We have survived only because of our essence..
You are a nice person my friend. But the world outside is not so kind. 🙏🏻 Many knowledge-rich civilizations have been wiped out in history, just for being there and being nice to "friendly visitors" who turn out to be invaders in disguise, with a secret agenda of cultural appropriation and cultural digestion. Please read more about it. 🙏🏻
“Why we have to make Hindu… fact based we were never fact based …” How come ? Everything in Sanatana Dharma is fact based and focused towards devotion and towards salvation. In this process fact is just one aspect or science is just one aspect. So why should we aspire to do away with facts or science ?
Mr Roy: another suggestion for refuting Mr Oak’s dating of Mahabharata. Mr. Oak claims Surya Siddhanta is from 14500 BCE. th-cam.com/video/bQNhQ7wxOvA/w-d-xo.html Mr Oak depends heavily on an invented definition of what is “vakra motion” of a planet (strange to Indian astronomy) when he justifies his hypothesis. It is not a standard definition used today and is also in Surya Siddhanta. (Mr.Oak had developed this strange definition of vakra motion before he presented Surya Siddhanta hypothesis thus creating contradictory hypotheses) If Surya Siddhanta was composed in 14500 BCE then Mahabharata should use the same definition of vakra motion as explained in Surya Siddhanta about 9000 years before and in use o today about 7500 years after. If this definition of vakra from Surya Siddhanta is used, Mr Oak’s claims about vakra fall apart completely.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Please invite oak for a debate with dr Roy. Thank you for bringing him on. Please allow mr oak a fair chance to respond too
I am ready to debate Mr. Oak anytime: Topic 1: Mahabharata war took place in 5561 BCE: True or False; Topic 2: Ramayana took place in 12209 BCE: True or False; must be judged by a panel of subject matter experts. If you have watched my 2-part presentation on Ramayana here at Sangam Talks, you will figure out that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Ramayana. If you watch rest of the 2-parts presentation on Mahabharata (forthcoming) here at Sangam Talks, you would know that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Mahabharata either.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 Thank you for your passion and interest in pursuing this! Will definitely watch the rest of the videos too.
@@ankitruparel1895 Second part premiered today. Hope you have watched it. No matter where the astronomical bodies are shown in the sky maps of Voyager 4.5 software, Mr. Oak plays with words and claims corroboration.
Dr. @@rajarammohanroy1384 Don't count on your refutation of Ramayana. Consider the following:
"I have an observation about Dr. Oak's dating of Valmiki Ramayana (VR) to circa 12000 BCE
In VR there appears an observation by Hanuman of presence of three and four tusk-elephants in Ravana Lanka when he visits that palace in search of Sita.
Could these be Gomphotheres who went extinct around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago?"
Ghanta oak is dhokhebaaz jo right wing ki ankho ka tara bana hua he us jokar ko sunne ka koi mtlb nhi he
I would like Raja Ram Mohan Roy to have debate with Nilesh Oak. It will be very interesting.
keep creating confusion among the public and contribute to delay actions which otherwise that would logically follow like adopting MB as the basis for modern Indic calendar system etc.
I agree. The manner way he is using words which are borderline condescending. This doesn’t feel like debate to find truth but more off agenda to put someone down. I wish it was more civil debate.
@@energizer1982 So oak used he is also say stupid to those who criticize him
People just need to quit listening to the zionist agenda. The university professors keep being proven by exhausting work that they should not speek
It is unfortunate that Sangam Talks is not providing debate Or rebuttal opportunity to Mr. Nilesh Oak. Also other observations (300 events)are proved by Mr.Oak with Same software. If software is having error, then it is unlikely that it can match with 5561bce.
There are no 300 observations that have been corroborated. That is a totally bogus and intellectually dishonest claim. Details are given in Parts 2 and 3.
If Mahabharata is really took place around 5561BC, why sage Vyasa wrote it down in classical sanskrit and not in vedic sanskrit (the type that is found in Rigveda).
Linguistics studies shown classical sanskrit appeared later during late Iron age period around 700BC.
Also, Iron age in Indian subcontinent began around 1200BC and last to 600BC. There's no archaeological evidence of presence of Iron metallurgy before this period.
In Mahabharata, Iron usage is mentioned many times. One notable reference is in the Shanti Parva (Book of Peace), where iron is mentioned in the context of weapons and warfare.
So, how can you say Mahabharata is as old as 5561BC when both linguistics evidence ( written in classical sanskrit) and metallurgical evidence (mentioned of Iron tools and weapons) is dating it much later?
@@marimuthu14 horrible rebuttal, did god tell u iron age started in india in 1200 BC, marxist infidels r hilarious grow up and learn how to research antiquity instead of wikipedia.
Nilesh is running away from a rebuttal.. but it really doesn’t matter. All we need to agree is if these are historical or not, irrespective of accuracy of date of occurrence
Allow Mr. Nilesh Oak fair chance for rebuttal argument. His study cannot be just easily dismissed like this. Hope Sangam Talks will take note of this and invite Mr. Oak for a debate. 🙏🏿
I am ready to debate Mr. Oak anytime: Topic 1: Mahabharata war took place in 5561 BCE: True or False; Topic 2: Ramayana took place in 12209 BCE: True or False; must be judged by a panel of subject matter experts. If you have watched my 2-part presentation on Ramayana here at Sangam Talks, you will figure out that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Ramayana. If you watch rest of the 2-parts presentation on Mahabharata (forthcoming) here at Sangam Talks, you would know that Mr. Oak will not have a debate with me to defend his dating of Mahabharata either.
Nilesh oak ji rocks...... No one's data and logic is up to level of Nilesh oak ji 🕉️
Agree. He knows Sanskrit in depth. That is difference between him and other scholars.
Thank you for your intense research. Hoping to see you debating with Nelish JI.
You are welcome. Wait for Part 3 and you will know that Mr. Oak will never agree to a debate with me.
Nothing should be absolutized. We need to make Hinduism fact-based. Whenever new evidence emerge, old should be rejected. But for this, scientific rigor is a must.
For true fact you need guru. The right date of mahabharata war is 8936 yrs before from today see the video of vedvik channel named antim avtar. You will get an idea and research can be done on this date to prove more.
@@AJAYSINGH-ns1vv well, a guru is for spiritual teachings and realizations. The role of guru has nothing to do with research and evidence based truth.
Mahabharath has not happened
Dr. Roy's data looks good on paper. However, Mr. Oak should be invited here in this show for a rebuttal. He has done extensive research on this and a 50 min explanation on SW error cannot be considered as an yardstick to refute Mr. Oak's claim.
This is a 3-part presentation. Wait for the other two parts and you would not even ask for a rebuttal.
Not very many give credit to the source of information or give credit to the software used in calculations. Hats off to Dr. Roy for doing that.
Respected sir, There are other evidences also that is referred by Nilesh Oak sir apart from AV observation and from multiple dimensions of science . I think a healthy debate would be great
For such a civilizationally important topic, we need to have more open discussion and debate. As others here have suggested, it is crucial to invite both Dr Roy and Nilesh Oak for a debate. Without this, everyone's credibility suffers and our heritage takes a hit.
Nice presentation Dr. Roy. I have a few comments
1. The period of interest is when RA difference is negative. The need to make Fig 7, for effective RA difference, is not understood. The pronounced effect in the effective RA difference for positive RA difference section of the curve does not help your argument.
2. Dr. Oak has revised the estimate to (10,248 BCE - 4,636 BCE) in 2019, due to Siddharth Chhabra.
3. In one of his videos, he mentioned that during the MB times observer must have been using some kind of aid to watch the AV movement.
4. Stellarium might have won prize for the best educational astronomy simulator but its use as a professional simulator hasn't yet been established.
Thank you @@linguistme6870
We are discussing dating of Mahabharat exclusively based on Astronomy references.
As I understand Kaliyuga calendar was fixed to start on 3101 BCE due to calculations by Aryabhata in his Aryabhatiya. It is obvious that later events and dates would always stay referenced to this beginning of Kaliyuga calendar. Same applies to Aihole Inscriptions. What you posted is termed as cyclic evidence and therefore, not tenable.
There is another set of scholars who believe that the beginning of Kaliyuga calendar coincides with the demise of Krushna. These scholars date the MB war to the year 3136 BCE.
Hope this helps.
Sangam talks can not escape with disclaimer only. rather it is binding to have common discussion of with Dr. Toy and Nilesh Oakji to arrive at common position assuming software error etc.
Just wanted to write a critic of your presentation, misleading title:
Go to slide 42 (22:30), your slide summarises two attempts of finding the interval where Arundhati was ahead of Vashistha. I see that the interval Oak uses (11090 BC - 4508 BC) is tighter, lies inside the interval you compute 11386(>11090) BC - (4508
Another thought:
Your interpretation of the statements in slide 62 does not match my understanding. Having error does not mean the model cannot capture events and numbers. If that was true, then we would not be able to discover Uranus.
The error in our model's prediction, is due to chaos. A nonlinear dynamical system (with however many unknowns, doesn't matter) can predict a state, with precision commensurate with the error in the initial state. The error in our knowledge of the current state, together with the Lyapunov exponent, and how far back we want to predict, determines the error in our prediction. The error, of our knowledge of the current state of the celestial objects, reduces with more observations, i.e. more time spent observing stuff using telescopes.
Look at it this way. The intervals of the events the software predict have an error of the order of centuries (in the time range we are interested in). The events we want to capture have an interval of the order of thousands of years. If our sofware predict their occurence, they did happen, just their intervals are off by centuries.
I can just say, the best lectures on mechanics of materials and plasticity are by metallurgists, but the best online lectures on the numerics of dynamical systems I found are by chemical engineers.
Good point. If any, the softwares and astronomical observation precisions have only become better, day by day with technology.
Dr Roy, the following are a few observations
1) The title says refuting 5561, but the talk is totally focussed on AV epoch. 5561 was not ientified just on this epoch, while Mr Oak said it helped in narrowing options
2) The talk did say about errors in the astronomical tools.. could u please enlighten us what aspect introduces this error?
3) Your talk just takes two astronomical tools that do not agree with each other..would this be sufficient number for you to refute one?
4) The various number of times "Arundhati" is mentioned is greater than 30 times in Mahabharatha, however Vyasa Maharshi has cited this just once. We consider Vyasa as Maharshi but not others.. I feel this must be enough to state that the "overtaking" phenomenon was visible to him because of other advanced scientific tools.. which we have no clue of. As commoners Kunti may have used the popular perception of the importance of Arundhati Vasistha.. which as devout hindus we still follow.
As a student of this Mahabharatha dating studies.. I welcome your effort, but i honestly admit there is no strength to refute 5561.
Couldn’t agree more w r t point # 4
Speaker looks like to push his style narrative on public on this
AV observation is used to discard all but 4 dating claims. This talk shows that there is no basis for that. Next talk will show that there is nothing in Mahabharata that can pinpoint the date to 5561 BCE. Some sources of error in the software are shown in slide 62.
Using your logic, Maharishi should have observed Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Did he? Is it mentioned in Mahabharata?
@@fourlitre3213 Further proof that fraud @NileshOak fanboys are totally clueless. What to expect from a clown's fanboy. The circus is getting bigger.
Dr. Raja Ram's 3rd video recording is done. When it will be released is up to Sangam Talks.
In case you cant wait for his 3rd video, please visit @Sattology channel hosted by the clown's puppet and watch Dr. ML Raja's latest video on debunking the salesman @NileshOak dating.
This may not be correct. the error in the software will remain same for the positions before and after the epoch. If one is trying to measure for one star the error matters. If the calculation is made for two stars and the difference is evaluated, the software error cancels out and value will be correct. eg. if software predicts 10 for Vasishta and 8 for Arundhati difference is 2. If error is -1, it will be same for both the calculations. Hence actuall value for Vasishta will be 9 and actual value that for Arundhati will be 7 and the difference will be 2 which is same as the predicted by software.
1. The speaker seems to have made an assumption that the sky observations and the math to calculate planetary orbits are available only in the last few hundred years. How could one ignore the fact that humans have been observing skies for thousands of years, all over the world. Wrong assumption.
2. What makes the speaker believe that all the Mahabharata astronomy observations are based on only naked eye?
3. Can the speaker show his analysis / evidence of how the "traditional date" can be arrived at, whatever that date might be ?
4. The speaker says, the claim of "5561BCE for Mahabharata war made by Nilesh Oak" cannot be true because, as per the speaker, the time range estimate between 4508 and 11091 BCE based on Arundhati-Vashishta observation is within the margin of error of the software used. And hence cannot be true.
How about many other evidences ? Can Mr Roy use those to narrow the range and enhance his understanding ?
Making big statements and rebuttal videos, will surely give him some clicks, at the very least.
I wish Mr Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the speaker came up with his own claim, if he does not agree with 5561BCE for Mahabharata war.
Honestly, the question from some Mr Ashish at the end, looks like an agenda driven echo chamber :-)
There are two more parts of this refutation. Second part is on Saturday. I will start talks on my own work on Indian astronomy once this series is done and will take up your questions then.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 Thank you 🙏🏻
Two main arguments (refuting the discovery) in this part can be summarized as follows:
1) RA (Right Ascension) difference between Arundhati and Vashishtha (with Arundhati having higher RA than Vashistha), when projected to the visual plane (AZ-ALT Coordinate System) for an observer at Kurukshetra, is less than that discernible by a naked human eye.
2) The difference between the RA of Arundhati and Vashistha during the epoch (ie when Arundhati leads Vashistha in the Simulator) is of the same order as the simulation error and uncertainty in the position of the stars.
#1 abv means that nobody could have seen Arundhati leading Vashistha with naked human eye during Mahabharat times even if it happened in reality as shown by the sky simulator.
#2 abv means that the Epoch of Arundhati (as observed in the sky simulator) could be happening due to inaccuracy and error in the position of the stars as estimated and predicted by the sky simulator.
Mr Oak should come out with a video addressing abv issues.
Very nicely summarized, easier to understand. Thanks
Similarly, there was also an astronomical dating of the visibility of the star Agastya in Northern and southern India and 14000 BC or something along those lines. It was good to have an independent presentation but at some point obviously it is important to hear Mr Oak’s reply to this.
Mr. Oak is free to do refutation of my presentation here on Sangam Talks last year on Surya Siddhanta. He has not done it yet because he cannot refute the points I had raised.
It seem that Sangam Talk is also having agenda. Otherwise they would hv arranged joint debate
@@kkelkar1265 What agenda? Mr. Oak has presented on Sangam Talks multiple times. He can present his refutation here whenever he feels like it. I wanted to present this refutation and I am grateful to Sangam Talks for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Oak has been criticizing Prof. Iyengar, Shrikant Talageri and others in his talks. Were they present to refute him in those talks?
@@kkelkar1265 The salesman's video with his junior puppet is coming soon on Sangan Talks on 15/1/23. He can do a refutation video if he wants to in Sangam Talks, but he won't. He will do it in Sattology channel where he has another senior puppet under his control to do whatever blabbering he want to.
Arrogant PHD's are my specialty. I hope he knows what he's walking into. Can't wait.
True...rather Arrogant PHD in a totally unrelated field.... 🤣🤣🤣
Are you Indian?
@@adityaraj2447 Adolfo Rosado is a human. You have a problem with that ?
@@kishore.ak47 what's ur problem dude? 😂
This is our history.. this is our heritage as Indians. That's why I was asking him.
@@adityaraj2447 we all are on the same side my friend, the human side. Indian or non-Indian does not make any difference. Fact remains fact and will come out, to reveal the thousands of years old history, busting all the myths.
Nilesh Ji has stated many times that there's a margin of error. Even with the margin of error you can arrive at the right conclusion. With all due respect. Why are people so desperate to return to the British colonization myths is beyond me. Stockholm syndrome. I propose a live debate with a time limit of 30 minutes where we will judge, not only the data, but the way the data points were arrived at. I've spent years studying Dr Oak's work and I'm not about to let a debunker with a phd destroy all that work with silly talking points.
@@fourlitre3213 Yes! Bharat had telescopes back then, it's quite obvious to me too. 6K year old cave man myth is dead.
Thank you!
@HareKrsna8 Nakshatra astronomy system cannot exist without it. Only thing it takes, is two neurons firing and talking to each other to see this. Absence of a 8,000 year old telescope today is not absence of evidence then. I bet there's an ancient Bharat telescope deep in the British Museum or in the hands of a collector, misdated and probably called Greek while it sports a Shiva Trident on it. Sound familiar?
@@adolforosado bro, are you Indian?
No live debates is required I guess, speakers observation is already falling by its own weight seeing from TH-cam comments
Nilesh was already debunked many times by many others including Dr Jayasree, Dr Manish Pundit but he's too delusional and narcissistic to accept the error.
Watch this comprehensive set of videos by Jayasree Saranathan. th-cam.com/play/PLDThIv-a11RQShIWAdkVQ3Vlxf3CmIIxY.html
Muddled, out of context, desperate to debunk 5561. Focuses on one thing rather than debunking every branch of science that Nilesh Ji has used and explained so abundantly.
I hope Sangam talks will focus on refuting evidences from other branches of science provided by Nileshji in upcoming parts of this series. It will be interesting to see the upcoming persons take on oceanography, archeogenetic and other evidences provided by Nileshji that strengthens his claim of 5561 BCE. This might go south and risky for Sangam if the person is not able to put forth his points properly in upcoming parts of the series.
Bro, are you Indian?
@@fourlitre3213 As Nileshji has said many times "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". There must have been telescope like devices during that time based on which Arundhati-Vashishth observation was made. And people are not devolving but we Indians have made a habit of putting more faith on western and west backed narratives of our texts rather than Indian narratives.
@@fourlitre3213 He's right about that too. Just like my compatriots in Mexico, Indians have Stockholm syndrome to this day. In Mexico, they call it "Malinchismo". Malinche, an Aztec woman was raped and taken by Hernan Cortes and she ended up being a collaborator and a traitor having fallen in love with her captor.
It's a real thing, I'm afraid.
@@adolforosado so if ur Mexican.. then why and how did u get interested in our history? And why are u calling india as Bharat?
Arundathi has been many times in the MB, what’s the interpretation w. r. t. A walking ahead of V in that particular context ?
Should it always be taken as A walking ahead of V in all those instances?
Please HAVE A OPEN DEBATE WITH SHRI NILESH NILKANTH OAK & JEEVAN RAO on Sangam talks . Do not just refute one sided . Nileshji has more than dozen faculties streams of evidence.
Your are just under half dozen faculties streams.
Please keep OPEN MIND 🙏 & debate , no ego for more higher civilizational purposes . Lots of positive will come out , for sure .
@@linguistme6870 completely understand and agree but open debate allows one to discover & rediscover further n further . This is how research happens & truth is immerged. Our gurus also advocated discussions & debates .
Bring jayashree sarnathan to the channel please she is too good on this
Great suggestion.
There was no war. We’re a peace loving people
Major assumption here - eyesight can differentiate only 5.5 arc mins. That is eyesight of current humans. Are you going to extend the physical attributes of current human kind to those who existed a few thousand years ago?
You can believe in what you may want to believe. However, if you talk of scientific dating then this is a valid assumption.
Where is the question of belief in this? Can we scientifically establish that the physical attributes of the current human kind are the same for humans who existed thousands of years ago?
@@mvaidjhaoyo Onus of proof lies on the person making extraordinary claim. What you have to understand is that we are dealing with extremely small values that fall within the margin of error, and it cannot be used to deny other claims. Evidence needs to be clear cut and beyond a shadow of doubt to do that. AV observation is useless for dating Mahabharata, that's what I have shown.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 and I'm asking you to prove or establish that the physical attributes are same. Onus of proof per you lies on one who makes the claim.
Mr Ashish's comments seemed very much posed/staged/rehearsed:)
You’re right he was making a laugh at mr oak
Mr Ashish did not make a lot of sense, you are right.
I don't know whether Dr. Roy has been able to debunk the timeline theory of Mr. Nilesh Oak or no. But Mr Nilesh Oak looks more convincing & thorough whatever he has come up with. At the same time being a Sanatani I would rather that the debunker needs to be as fluent in Sanskrit as Nilesh ji (and it should come out spontaneously from time to time in your presentation) since you are dealing with something which has a lot to do with Sanskrit literature. This learned gentleman throughout this video never looked like he has anything to do with Sanskrit. It looks like a Degree holder in Arts has taken up the task of teaching Physics in a college.
A walking ahead of V has be corroborated by many software’s - the speaker says if so where is the debunking of Oak observations ? Whatever be the differences in the different software date ranges it’s still a valid celestial observation isn’t ?
What I have shown is that the error in software is larger than what is being measured, so the measurement has no scientific validity.
Measurements considered in the software or measurements on ‘what is being measured’ ? Not clear what you mean
Anyway if it’s in software have you taken up with the software manufacturer?
So many people would be using the software for many different purposes, the error should be impacting all isn’t?
Roy vs Oak let’s get him on!
One question- there are many other astronomical indications given, why are we fixating on epoch of arundhati when we can look at others (Rohini Saturn) etc
Those will be taken up in Part 2 premiering on Saturday.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 sir what about vedveer Arya's chronological order?
He says Surya siddhanta -6778BCE
@@rajarammohanroy1384 according to SS chap 1.57 vedveer Arya claim is that 22feb 6778 I don't believe anybody because this creates cloud 🌨️ of ignorance!!! .
I will just accept this some thousand year old .
What about ck Raju reasearch!
Raju is saying that Greek and Roman don't had knowledge of arithmetic , calculus, trigonometry
Also he challenged to prove Euclid is real
And 1 +1= 2 in real no in formal math way
And this questions their ability of astronomy and navigation?
Is this true , I don't believe it but it's disturbing! But I found an article against him by Subramanian durbha and the award he got for the claim of Einstein's mistake in which the award is fraud I think I searched about it -telesio galilei award by this it may be a superstition of ck Raju !
@@rajarammohanroy1384 indian logic system frame works vs western binary logic system? Which is better?
One is a multivalued logic system( indian) other 2 or 1 valued system
And our civilization is how many are year old according to chronological order?
Refuting anything is easy... Let me ask you what is your theory and how can it be use to date Ramayana Mahabharata with scientific evidences from many fields scientific research
This was by no means an "easy" refutation. It took time and effort to prepare an hour-long counter-argument here. Also, Dr. Roy has never claimed that Ramayana Mahabharata happened historically. So it seems unfair to ask him to provide a theory.
@ basically this becomes cancel culture then .. we have nothing but we oppose whatever you say
@ Its not cancel culture. Cancel culture is calling upon everyone to reject a person entirely because you don’t agree with them. Roy is happy to debate Oak. He is only refuting the theory, not Oak himself.
If someone came to you claiming the earth is flat, would your rebuttal that the earth is not flat be cancel culture?
I do not understand the purpose of this research. It appears that the purpose is negative and only done to debunk what is done earlier. The researcher has not given any approximate date for the war.
Remember Speaker is asking why Dr. No is not doing research on finding celestial observation like ‘it’s full moon but not able to find it’ and only taking on AV observation.
Instead why not speaker himself research this aspect instead of asking others to do what he (speaker) wants
Because the speaker is not claiming any date as Mahabharata date. He is asking why the fraud salesman is cherry picking verses that suits his fraud agenda.
If the speaker is not proposing any MB date then why bother about someone’s date selectively to analyse among others ?
@@rubabu Because that someone is corrupting the whole Sanatana Dharma ecosystem with hidden personal agenda. It is our dharma to protect our scriptures from misinterpretation and misinformation.
Hm hm
@@EkaSanatani Very well said. More than two years of my time has been spent doing this instead to continuing with my own research. If I did not consider it extremely important, I won't be doing this. In the process I am being abused by the very same people I deeply care about.
2:25 Traditional dating of Mahabharata at approximately 3100 BCE is also not likely as (1) at that time Saraswati was still flowing past Vinashana (2) Magh month was completely in Dakshinayana making Bhishma Nirvana in Magh incorrect (3) main cities mentioned in Mahabharata were not settled as per archeological record.
Explanation: This date of start of Kaliyuga is back-calculated based on jyotish siddhantas. Most planets came together around that time based on calculations. So Mahayuga start was assigned that date after the fact sometime in first millennium.
You misguide viewers with the title in your first part and you expect they will watch the other two parts? 😅
It's disappointing to see Sangam talks doing a disservice by having such a talk. Instead of having a talk that denigrates another researcher, Sangam should provide platform to present primary research and ideas. Or should have invited both parties for a debate and discussion. Will Sangam talks now invite Mr Oak to counter Dr. Roy? Does Sangam talks want to be in between this to and fro? I feel it's a misuse of Sangam talks platform.
Spot on! Sangam talks is doing the Hindu civilization a huge disservice by organising such sessions. It should instead champion arriving at the most precise dating by way of healthy debate.
Highly anticipated series 🙏
keeping aside the dates theories , at least one thing is confirmed is these ithihas are our history
You are refuting using software, but you should not forget the software has been coded by humans. If humans can get wrong so does software. Also, different people use different software to prove their claims. So I can't say your research is the complete truth
The kind of words used for a fellow researcher especially in the staged QnA is shameful. Such mischiefs should not be entertained in a platform like SangamTalks. This will make the Indic research toxic. First these people should learn to shore respect and then talk out show whatever. Research is not about dividing, disrespecting and hating others, it needs mature people with a good heart. Stupid people showing their IIT titles etc. I’m trying to convince people that their targeted hatred is valid. Btw I’m not talking about who is correct, I’m commenting on the more fundamental issue.
You call people from IIT stupid. You are showing the same traits of the person you are so fond of and it is precisely that which has brought me to this talk. Oak insulted Prof. Achar and this is the consequence.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 The struggle to prove a fraud is real. Stay strong.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 I appreciate your response. I’m calling those people stupid who show off their IIT brand to gain an upper hand in the argument. You might not be that but you have to accept that there are such people.
Secondly, I’m neither a fan of Nilesh Ji nor accept hood dating as final word. Indeed, I personally sometimes find his way of arguing and using his fan base too desperate.
The only point I’m making is having a healthy debate. Here you accept that you were rattled by his way and then you did tit for tat. In your personal egos and accepted beliefs you guys are harming Indic research. There is a recent video on Shatrubodh and Swambodh on Sangam talks please try to understand that we have to be respectful to our researchers. New people should feel welcomed and feel like it’s a fun & loving community to research in. If the other person is not showing respect for others, we can show the right way rather than tit for tat.
I respect your research. I listen to you often on Sattology and I have learnt a lot from you. Same goes for Nilesh Ji. Let’s look at positives. I’m pretty sure you must have learnt something from his research or while refitting his research. Let’s make it a fun place. Who wins shouldn’t be that important. Anyway I don’t think we will have a final well accepted word on this anytime soon so let’s keep debating in lighter manner and not get desperate. 🙏🏽
@@bhardwajutkarsh No. It is not tit for tat. It is about exposing research fraud. Details are in Part 2 and Part 3. Details were also in my talks on Surya Siddhanta and Ramayana (two parts) here on Sangam Talks. I have nothing to learn from Mr. Oak. I have work ethics and I do research with intellectual honesty. Mr. Oak is fooling gullible people like you and all his claims are bogus.
Eagerly waiting 🙏
does it mean surya siddhanta & siddhanta shiromani are all nonsense?
Sangam talks must conduct a debate. If this person have issues. Dabate is the only method for solving it once it for all. Or else. There will be n number of people with absurd ideas. If this person doesn't believe in what's written. Then there is no point of discussion. Cos assumptions can only come from source. Not the source ofcourse doesn't make sense in some point. It must be understood that dilution must been happened. Rejection is very easy.
Dosent hold sensible logic. postulating a doubt without offering a coherent solution has no merit really. good try. but dosent hold ground.
Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Not Sitaram Yechury. I am tempted to prove Reincarnation theory.
Not quite there Mr. Roy
Thank you for your analysis. Look forward to the future discussion and a debate .
Seems like Nilesh Oak is their employer...they have no job other than refuting him 😃. Never heard any of them come up with any original theory based on any multi disciplinary science like Nikesh Oak does. This is just more of the same 'rebuttal' over and over again...Im not totally convinced of Nilesh Oak's dates( need to study more)but ...this constant concentration on him just makes them seem jealous at this point.
Sangam talks has to show courtesy to respond to the comments objecting to this talk or the manner in which this issue was handled. Many here feel this is a disservice to Hindu society and who are proud of the rich antiquity of Hindu civilization. This talk goes totally against the good work Sangam talks does.
I have done a detailed scientific refutation of a bogus claim. What is your issue with that? Specially when Oak uses bogus arguments to refute our traditional dates, insults our Indic researchers and brags that other Indic researchers are shivering in their dhotis before him. Should we keep quiet and let a smart operator take gullible people for a ride? Is that serving Dharma?
Who are the 'many here' you're talking about, the only ones who's feeling the heat are the fraud's fanboys, they're not happy that their holier-than-thou idol is being exposed. Grow up, don't be a crybaby.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 My concern is with the platform used. Sangam talks should not promote name calling and personal references for an academic discussion.
@Eka Sanatani Your comment precisely shows where I expected this discussion to go. A platform like Sangam Talks will end up being a platform for personal attacks and name calling.
@@mandarbhome What personal attack? I have not made any comments on Mr. Oak as a person unlike what he does often to other Indic researchers. My presentation is strictly academic, detailed and to the point.
The name itself causes a lack of trust and credibility
@@fourlitre3213 Well, now you know that part 3 will premiere on Feb 12. Watch it to see who is a liar.
Facts:
Dr. Raja Ram Mohan has not done well research on Mr. Oak before debunking him. Nor did he challenge him in any debate like other scholars. He calls Mr. Oak research as pseudoscience
Dr. Raja Ram Mohan is not Astronomer, in first place
Dr. Raja Ram Mohan has no credential of a Sanskrit Scholar or Vedic Scholar. He has interest, even I have interest. I don't become scholar because of that. is ne another Devdutt Pattanaik?
Dr. Raja Ram Mohan debunks himself.
Sorry Dr Roy if I come across a bit rough. I feel that humanity has been deprived of it's great antiquity through the brutal colonization the British inflicted on Bharat. It affects everybody, not just Indians. Anything that threatens to return us to the cave man stage 6,000 ago will be met head on. By me at least. Nothing personal. Namaskaram.
How does british colonization of our country affect Everybody? Can u explain
There have been many ancient civilizations, India, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Chinese, Native American , greek and much more.. we have Gobekli Tepe ( turkey) which dates back to 10,000BC!
What are u talking about?
@Aditya Raj any proof of 10000 year old turk civilization except that she wolf and her human breast feeding partner
@@sanjaydeopa6248 haha 😂
Here we have Hindu ultra Nationalists
Great
@Aditya Raj if you don't have answers then it's fine bro no issues as lots of people engage in hearsay and don't actually have anything factual to substantiate their claim .
f’OAK’lore dismantled scientifically. 😂😂😂
Congrats Sir. A very well researched presentation. Hope the enormous time spend doing the research bears its fruit. This presentation shows how an actual scientific research data should be presented. Precise, clear and easy to understand, even for a layman. All the data are clearly provided so that anyone can refute it if they want, instead of blatantly claiming that I have 500++ proof for my dating, but keep on hiding behind TH-cam video presentations and tweets. Congrats again Sir and waiting for the next video.
Thank you very much for your kind words. It is unfortunate that I had to spend over two years debunking Mr. Oak's fantasies because the Hindu intelligentsia did not do their job properly.
Even AV obs is with Mr.Nilesh. other 300 obs also he able to prove. Dr. Roy pl ask Sangam to arrange debate
It’s looks dr Roy hates hindus
Oak's response on anyone who critique him "Please study nyaya shastra and scientific reasoning". And the funny thing is he learned nyaya darshana by some anarya samaji youtube channel.
@@fourlitre3213 ji , There can be many reasons why part 3 didn't came. He invited Nilesh Oak to debate more than a year ago. He published a series of 10 articles as a critique of Oak's theory. Oak Blocked him.
The date 5000+BCE for Mahabharat or 10000+ BCEs for Ramayana is not accepted among the traditional sects which are preserving these texts since thousands of years. This reason is enough to not consider Oak's theory valid.. Existence of Rama or Ravana can be known only by scriptures not by any other means. It is foolishness to reject scriptural dating but believing scriptural characters and incidents are real .
@@fourlitre3213 Doesn't matter what drives the debate between these two. If the critique is valid than it must be answered. Running away and blocking people like oak does is not a proper response. My denial of Oak's theory is not based on Raja Ram . I saw Oak's article about Mahabharata years back. He has gone to the foolishness where he interprets the meaning of Chaitra as Vasanta and sun setting in Hemanta just to prove his theory right. Not just by RAJA ram ji he was asked questions by the scholars of "Bharat vidwat PARISHAD" HE didn't responded to it and started blabbering. That's why bharat vidwat PARISHAD removed him
You need something to fight with Xtians and historians Oak's Theory is good but it is not the truth and it is not accepted in any traditional sect.
@@MahaVidhyaa There is a horde of people like this fourlitre who will accept any idiocy to push back the date as much as possible so that it becomes more 'ancient'.
Nilesh by being delusional and a coward has been extending this matter needlessly. But if he accepts his mistake his whole work will fold in like a pack of cards as it's all interlinked.
Academics know the truth. It's the lay people with their kleshas causing trouble. Last I heard that Prachyam was making a documentary based on Nilesh's work. I had told them to research and make sure which is the right one (Nilesh's date is not), but I don't think they listened.
Dr Raja Ram Mohan Roy do you know Sanskrit . If you don't know Sanskrit then your debate is meaningless.
Superb and evidence based presentation 🙏
Thank you very much.
Why u are not debating with Oak on Sangam. Are u afried?
@@kkelkar1265 LOL. Wait for Part 3 and you will know who is afraid.
Dear Raja Ramji, title is refutation of 5561bce & u hv taken AV only. In this also ur ref is changing by 500 ys. Still 5561bce is well within. Other 300 obs are also matching for 5561. In fact, major 25 obs can be proved by mere calculations. These were proved by Dr. Vartak in1970 w/o software for 5561bce.
@@kkelkar1265 You have been taken for a ride and I will prove it in Parts 2 and 3.
Mr. Roy, if you have not included in the upcoming series lectures please consider examining an important data point of Bhishma Nirvan. Bhisma Nirvan happened in Magh Shukla Paksha (either on Ashtami or Dashami/Ekadashi - based on interpretation and tradition). Even with adding an Adhika Masa you cannot have any day in Magha Masa in Uttarayana in 5561 BCE.
Bhisma Nirvana in Dakshinayana is a big failure of any dates in 5561 BCE.
BTW earliest time when Magh Ekadashi in Uttarayana is approximately around 2500 BCE and latest around 900 BCE. These dates are approximate as I don’t have my calculations handy. But Stellarium can be used to confirm.
Thanks for your comments. Part 3 is entirely on debunking Mr. Oak's dating of Bhishma Nirvana. It was already presented on 25th December and will be available here later.
Bro, are you even Indian?
@@rajarammohanroy1384that’s great!
@@adityaraj2447on’t go by names on social media. They are not real. Yes I’m of Indian (Marathi) origin
@@williamliamsmith4923 oh.. okay bhai
Can pls do Indic logic system and scientific framework and explain pramanas and compare with present framework of science community
Oak k blind followers ko mirchi lg gyi😂😂😂
Imagine spending 20 years of your life doing research on a faulty software. 🤦♂
Anyone doing any scientific research knows that first thing to do after getting any data is to check the margin of error. Mr. Oak has failed to do that while determining the epoch of Arundhati.
@@rajarammohanroy1384 His bread and butter depends on this faulty software data. Even if he realize this, the Bozo will go on with his circus show with the support of clowns such as Rupa and Jeevan.
Mr Roy, another point to add to your presentations (if already not included) is archeological data on the ground.
Mahabharata was a Bronze Age event (if not Iron Age event) Bronze Age started around 3100 BCE and Iron Age started - at the earliest 1800 BCE (with a generous date) - in India. There are no archeological findings with bronze (or even gold) in 5561 BCE.
Mahabharata mentions cities of Mathura and Indraprastha (thought to be New Delhi) going back to 5000 BCE you will not see human activity under these cities. It could be checked by I believe these cities did not exist as early as 2000 BCE as evidenced by undisturbed virgin soil and they probably were settled as people started abandoning towns on the banks of Saraswati.
Mahabharata mentions Vinashana where Saraswati vanishes, and Balarama’s visit is used by many for calculations probably also including Mr Oak. Hydrological data in French papers (also mentioned by Mr. Oak in his lectures) shows that Saraswati was NOT vanishing in 5561 BCE and was a continuous river all the way to the ocean. Saraswati drying happened with Sahara drying after 4.2k event (or after around 2200 BCE).
Mahabharata mentions various types of cereals (wheat, rice, etc). Papers dealing with Archeo-botany do not show sufficient evidence of such crops in Sindhu Saraswati Yamuna area in 5561 BCE. Going back that far you will see predominately Barley and perhaps very small quantity of Elmer)
And you should show more respect for #VEDAS
Bro.. are u even Indian 😂?
@@adityaraj2447 Bro... We all are. This involves everyone, I call India Bharat, because that's it's real name. You appear to have Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps you should move to Oxford and be with your Sahibs.
@@adolforosado I looked at ur website and Twitter.. ur Mexican 😂
Why would u even lie??.
@@adityaraj2447 I have not lied. You should learn Yoga. People know me, where I come from and what I do. I'm just an old man who found truth in Bharat Itihasa and practice Yoga. No more, no less. You are just trolling for troll sake. Dr Roy is wrong, and so are you.
@@adolforosado sir, i do respect u.. because in our indian culture, we respect our elders..but I checked your website and Facebook, u do Arts as well right?
It said that ur from Mexico 🇲🇽, u speak Spanish, so how can u say that ur Indian? Im not able to understand.. I know u follow Sadhguru ( save soil) and Practice Yoga.. and Love And Respect our Country Bharat, but how does that make u Indian?..
Mr. Oak was influenced by Dr, Vartak's dating of the Mahabharata war in 5561 BCE. It is just like late Prof B.N Achar getting influenced by the 3067 BCE date for the Mahabharata war, claimed by Prof. K. Srinivasa Raghavan. It is high time Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy tries to find the date of the Mahabharata war and that of the Ramayana war by himself.
Why we have to make Hinduism fact based we were never fact based...we are always essence and philosophy based...the day we start finding facts we start behaving like abhramic religions...where fact rules over essence...Our Dhram rules our heart whereas other religions rules the head...We have survived only because of our essence..
You are a nice person my friend. But the world outside is not so kind. 🙏🏻
Many knowledge-rich civilizations have been wiped out in history, just for being there and being nice to "friendly visitors" who turn out to be invaders in disguise, with a secret agenda of cultural appropriation and cultural digestion. Please read more about it. 🙏🏻
Who told you that Abrahmic is fact-based?
“Why we have to make Hindu… fact based we were never fact based …”
How come ? Everything in Sanatana Dharma is fact based and focused towards devotion and towards salvation. In this process fact is just one aspect or science is just one aspect. So why should we aspire to do away with facts or science ?
Mr Roy: another suggestion for refuting Mr Oak’s dating of Mahabharata.
Mr. Oak claims Surya Siddhanta is from 14500 BCE. th-cam.com/video/bQNhQ7wxOvA/w-d-xo.html
Mr Oak depends heavily on an invented definition of what is “vakra motion” of a planet (strange to Indian astronomy) when he justifies his hypothesis. It is not a standard definition used today and is also in Surya Siddhanta. (Mr.Oak had developed this strange definition of vakra motion before he presented Surya Siddhanta hypothesis thus creating contradictory hypotheses)
If Surya Siddhanta was composed in 14500 BCE then Mahabharata should use the same definition of vakra motion as explained in Surya Siddhanta about 9000 years before and in use o today about 7500 years after. If this definition of vakra from Surya Siddhanta is used, Mr Oak’s claims about vakra fall apart completely.