# is/was Ancient Indian science/math superior to Modern Western Science **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 9, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271 "2014-03-09T15:46:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/21 "2014-03-10T18:14:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Even if the Vedic Indians had things like nuclear weapons,\* it’s ridiculous to say Einstein “stole” it from them. The Vedas may describe nuclear weapons\*\*, but they don’t give you the math to build one. If there was an earlier atomic age on Earth\*\*\* the knowledge of how to split the atom was thoroughly lost by the time Einstein was born, and he discovered the knowledge independently of any such earlier society. I’m quite certain that if any ancient society had nuclear weapons, the Earth would be a lot more radioactive than it is currently. ---
**Author:** ![thanatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@thanatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thanatic)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/22 "2014-03-10T18:40:29Z")
but i heard the great western scientisits einstein and newton were frauds that stole from indian physicists like Bose and the ancient Vedics ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/23 "2014-03-10T18:43:11Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > but i heard the great western scientisits einstein and newton were frauds that stole from indian physicists like Bose and the ancient Vedics Where did you hear this? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/24 "2014-03-10T19:32:35Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > but i heard the great western scientisits einstein and newton were frauds that stole from indian physicists like Bose and the ancient Vedics You heard wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/25 "2014-03-10T19:46:53Z")
Guys, we’re going about this all wrong! The Nazis used Swastikas! It wasn’t cultural appropriation or a really stupid use of an old symbol. No, it was a coded sign that our physicists were plagiarising from Indian texts! ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/26 "2014-03-10T19:48:58Z")
Next you’re going to tell me sanskrit isn’t the most nearly perfect language for programming. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/27 "2014-03-10T21:53:03Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > but i heard the great western scientisits einstein and newton were frauds that stole from indian physicists like Bose and the ancient Vedics I do like his speakers. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/28 "2014-03-11T02:42:10Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > but i heard the great western scientisits einstein and newton were frauds that stole from indian physicists like Bose and the ancient Vedics Where? From whom? Newton is famously quoted as saying _“If I have seen farther it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants”_. He fully realized his achievements built upon those who came before him. OTOH that’s a long way from “stole from physicists like the ancient Vedics”… Like Miller said, even if any such knowledge of higher theoretical physics existed it was never known to the West, they had to figure it out from what of chemistry, optics and algebra they got from the East via the Muslims. It is perfectly plausible that Indian and Chinese thinkers could have come up with advanced scientific ideas for any given time – until the Western Renaissance, India and China \*were \*often superior in technology and scientific scholarship in any given period, and scientists in both have always been top rank (if allowed academic freedom). But that any ancient science/math was \*superior \*to modern? To conclude that we’d need to see and compare the books, the formulations of laws/theories, the _equations_, and put them to scientific test. ---
**Author:** ![thanatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@thanatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thanatic)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/29 "2014-03-11T21:28:36Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Where? From whom? > > Newton is famously quoted as saying _“If I have seen farther it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants”_. He fully realized his achievements built upon those who came before him. > > OTOH that’s a long way from “stole from physicists like the ancient Vedics”… Like Miller said, even if any such knowledge of higher theoretical physics existed it was never known to the West, they had to figure it out from what of chemistry, optics and algebra they got from the East via the Muslims. > > It is perfectly plausible that Indian and Chinese thinkers could have come up with advanced scientific ideas for any given time – until the Western Renaissance, India and China \*were \*often superior in technology and scientific scholarship in any given period, and scientists in both have always been top rank (if allowed academic freedom). But that any ancient science/math was \*superior \*to modern? To conclude that we’d need to see and compare the books, the formulations of laws/theories, the _equations_, and put them to scientific test. I understand that…but why does Newton get credit for gravity if Ancient Indians did it before him… unless he used a more succesful/better method in achieving it ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/30 "2014-03-11T21:35:19Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > I understand that…but why does Newton get credit for gravity if Ancient Indians did it before him… unless he used a more succesful/better method in achieving it Because they didn’t. Everyone knew things fell down, Newton came up with reasons why and the laws of motion. Others would have done so if he hadn’t, but the Ancient Indians hadn’t. Why don’t you provide the source of your ideas? Because otherwise we’re trying to debate empty air. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/31 "2014-03-11T21:39:00Z")
Assuming that is true (the “Ancient Indians” part), the reason why Newton gets credit while the unnamed physicists don’t is simple: From Newton, much of the rest of the modern world followed. From the Ancient Indian Physicists, nothing followed from their discoveries. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/32 "2014-03-11T22:22:18Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Where did you hear this? Can’t speak for the OP, but this is the first place I heard it: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17177030&postcount=1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17177030&postcount=1) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/33 "2014-03-11T23:46:30Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > I understand that…but why does Newton get credit for gravity if Ancient Indians did it before him… unless he used a more succesful/better method in achieving it Because AFAIK, nowhere is there recorded evidence of a source of ancient Indian _equations_ for gravity, featuring the inverse-square effect of distance and the direct proportion of the product of masses, tied by a gravitational constant. Or even a treatise on how gravitational acceleration at the surface of Earth is uniform and equal for all objects. Plus like someone else said, the observation that things fall does not constitute by itself a scientific discovery. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/34 "2014-03-12T00:20:25Z")
I’m just reading Dan Brown’s sequel to “The Da Vinci Code,” “The Lost Symbol.” The poor deluded son of a badger actually tries to claim that the ten circles of mystical kabbalism pre-figure the ten-dimensions of modern String Theory. One of the stupidest damn claims anyone has ever made. Brown can write a page-turning thriller, but his knowledge of science is obviously faulty. (Like Pol Pot’s moral sense or Mother Theresa’s prowess at pro-wrestling.) ---
**Author:** ![thanatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@thanatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thanatic)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/35 "2014-03-12T00:23:15Z")
> **[Bhāskara II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81skara_II)** > > Bhāskara II (c. 1114–1185), also known as Bhāskarāchārya ("Bhāskara, the teacher"), and as Bhāskara II to avoid confusion with Bhāskara I, was an Indian mathematician and astronomer. From verses, in his main work, Siddhānta Shiromani (सिद्धांतशिरोमणी), it can be inferred that he was born in 1114 in Vijjadavida (Vijjalavida) and living in the Sahyadri mountain ranges of Western Ghats, believed to be the town of Patan in Chalisgaon, located in present-day Khandesh region of Maharashtra by schola... Bhaskara II Bhāskara’s work on calculus predates Newton and Leibniz by over half a millennium.[5][6] He is particularly known in the discovery of the principles of differential calculus and its application to astronomical problems and computations. While Newton and Leibniz have been credited with differential and integral calculus, there is strong evidence to suggest that Bhāskara was a pioneer in some of the principles of differential calculus. He was perhaps the first to conceive the differential coefficient and differential calculus.[7] ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/36 "2014-03-12T01:25:25Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > [Bhāskara II - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81skara_II) > **[History of calculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus)** > > Calculus, originally called infinitesimal calculus, is a mathematical discipline focused on limits, continuity, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. Many elements of calculus appeared in ancient Greece, then in China and the Middle East, and still later again in medieval Europe and in India. Infinitesimal calculus was developed in the late 17th century by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz independently of each other. An argument over priority led to the Leibniz–Newton calculus c... The history of calculus is long and had many contributors. The work in India built off the work out of Greece and later in the Middle East. There were many important contributions out of India but they never brought all the pieces togehter. Lots of people developed the concepts that were brought together by Newton and Leibniz. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s the nature of science that many of the contributors get downplayed while the synthesizer becomes well known. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/37 "2014-03-12T01:31:56Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > I understand that…but why does Newton get credit for gravity if Ancient Indians did it before him… unless he used a more succesful/better method in achieving it They didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/38 "2014-03-12T01:39:37Z")
> [@thanatic](#): > > [Bhāskara II - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81skara_II) Read a little farther down your own reference: > [@](#): > > Evidence suggests Bhaskara was acquainted with some ideas of differential calculus. It seems, however, that he did not understand the utility of his researches, and thus historians of mathematics generally neglect this achievement. Hardly a claim of outdoing Newton. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/39 "2014-03-12T11:43:48Z")
Indeed. Evidence of pioneering but not of “superiority”. Shoulders of giants again. It is just not uncommon for the figures who took the first or second key steps to get forgotten because someone further down the road took the step that the masses noticed. People remember Edison or or Ford or Columbus even though they were not the “real first one” or the original theoretician, because they were the ones who impacted the mainstream’s lives more visibly. Same happens in higher physics and maths. Only that Newton and Einstein WERE great theoreticians themselves, who drew major conclusions and came up with extraordinary next steps from those. ---
**Author:** ![Indian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@Indian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indian)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271/40 "2014-03-12T13:11:59Z")
There are lot of [Rightie Nuts](http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/01/isaac-newton-calculus-thief-capt-ajit.html)in India, spewing BS like this. Some of these articles challenge even NASA. Here is a maths professor [debunking](http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmtimeart.pdf)so called Vedic maths. (PDF file) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-was-ancient-indian-science-math-superior-to-modern-western-science/683271.md?page=3)