Some research pieces, some opinions

  Using rope to square a circle What is squaring a circle? It is drawing a square equal to the area of a given circle. Area of a circle = Pi*r^2 where r is the radius of the circle Area of square = s^2 where s is the side of the square Therefore Pi*r^2=s^2 implies s= r*sqrt(Pi) But Pi is a transcadental number. Therefore its square root cannot be computed exactly This squaring of a circle using a compass and straight edge is considered impossible. Hence squaring a circle is used by many as a metaphor for doing the impossible. However it can be easily done via a rope as explained the Sulbasutras. The Sulbasutras are appendices to the Vedas which give rules for constructing altars. (Sanskrit śulba: "string, cord, rope") are sutra texts belonging to the Śrauta ritual. Śrauta is a Sanskrit word that means "belonging to śruti", that is, anything based on the Vedas of Hinduism. It is an adjective and prefix for texts, ceremonies or person associated with śruti. In Bharat

Pythagoras Theorem was known centuries before - Baudhayana theorem. Expressed in  Baudhayana   Śulbasûtra. Also Pythagorean triplets were used by Babylonians well before Pythagoras Pythagoras lived in the time period of about 570-490 BCE.   Baudhayana is dated to be around 800 BCE. The actual shloka (verse) in Baudhāyana Śulbasûtra that describes Pythagoras theorem is given below : दीर्घचतुरश्रस्याक्ष्णया रज्जु: पार्श्र्वमानी तिर्यग् मानी च यत् पृथग् भूते कुरूतस्तदुभयं करोति ॥ dīrghachatursrasyākṣaṇayā rajjuḥ pārśvamānī, tiryagmānī, cha yatpṛthagbhūte kurutastadubhayāṅ karoti. A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_sutras Baudhāyana also presented geometrical proof using isosceles triangles so, to be more accurate, we attribute the geometrical proof to Baudhāyana and numerical (using number theory and area computation) proof to Āpastamba. Also, another ancient

The theory of the Aryan invasion (or migration) was first put forward by Western scholars during the colonial age. It maintained that a race of European or Central Asian “Aryans” swept into the subcontinent displacing the indigenous Indus Valley Civilisation. This invasion was dated to be at around 1500 BC. Theory states it was the "Aryans" who brought in Vedas and many other aspects into Indian culture. This is what we have learnt in our schools.Its a complete myth and distortion of facts. The AIT or AMT invasion theory has been completely debunked. I will refer to it as AIT theory unless required to specify otherwise. It was used/still being used to: 1. Further colonial superiority of the people from Europe/central Asia 2. Divide Indian people into northern "Aryans" and southern "Dravidians" The AIT has been debunked on multiple fronts: 1. Archeological findings: From esteemed archeologist B B Lal: Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever of an invasion a

 1. Using rope to square a circle  2.  Aryan invasion theory is a complete myth 3. Ashoka was a Buddhist when he invaded Kalinga 4.  Pythagoras Theorem was known centuries before - Baudhayana Śulbasûtra.    5.  Using rope to divide circle into any number of parts (including prime #s) 6.  Hitler's cross is hooked cross, Hakencruz, not Swastika 7.  Fibonacci sequence from poetry and meter 1.  Using rope to square a circle What is squaring a circle? It is drawing a square equal to the area of a given circle. Area of a circle = Pi*r^2 where r is the radius of the circle Area of square = s^2 where s is the side of the square Therefore Pi*r^2=s^2 implies s= r*sqrt(Pi) But Pi is a transcadental number. Therefore its square root cannot be computed exactly This squaring of a circle using a compass and straight edge is considered impossible. Hence squaring a circle is used by many as a metaphor for doing the impossible. However it can be easily done via a rope as explained the Sulbasutras. T

 1. AOC defers to caucus leadership on Venezuela regime change in 2019  : Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is apparently refraining from weighing in on the uprising in Venezuela, saying she'll 'defer to caucus leadership.' A report from National Review outlines the split within the Democratic Party regarding foreign policy on whether the U.S. should intervene militarily and whether to recognize Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate president. https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1360333519866/aoc-defers-to-caucus-when-asked-if-maduro-regime-is-legitimate-report This one is from May 2019. Maduro is the legitimate President of Venezuela. Guaido does not have any standing in this regard. Why would you have to refer to caucus leadership for this if you are principled? In Jan end 2019 : Max Blumenthal : "Any comment on the situation in Venezuela?" AOC: "Yeah, we are working on a response, but thank you" At 2:48 :   https://www.youtube.co