Horizon Reborn

The Message of the Sphinx was a book written by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval which argued that the creation of the Sphinx and Pyramids can be pushed back as far as 10,500 BC using astronomical data.
Working from the premise that the Giza complex encodes a message, they begin with recently discovered geological evidence indicating that the deep erosion patterns on the flanks of the Sphinx were caused by 1000 years of heavy rain. Such conditions last existed in Egypt at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000-9,000 B.C., meaning that the Sphinx may be more than 12,000 years old (not the generally accepted 4500 years). The authors go on to suggest, using computer simulations of the sky, that the pyramids, representing the three stars of Orion's Belt, along with associated causeways and alignments, constitute a record in stone of the celestial array at the vernal equinox in 10,500 B.C. This moment, they contend, represents Zep Tepi, the "First Time," often referred to in the hieroglyphic record. They claim that the initiation rituals of the Egyptian pharaohs replicate on Earth the sun's journey through the stars in this remote era, and they suggest that the "Hall of Records" of a lost civilization may be located by treating the Giza Plateau as a template of these same ancient skies.

*

Ardra's Fate

It is possible that Betelgeuse will become a supernova, which will be the brightest ever recorded, outshining the Moon in the night sky. Considering its size and age of 8.5 million years, old for its size class, it may explode within the next thousand years. Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, Betelgeuse's supernova will not cause a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage its ecosystems.
Nobel Laureate Charles Townes announced evidence that 15 consecutive years of stellar contraction has been observed by UC Berkeley's Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) atop Mt. Wilson Observatory in Southern California. Reported on June 9, 2009, the star has shrunk 15% since 1993 with an increasing rate. The average speed at which the radius of the star is shrinking over the last 15 years is approximately 210–219 m/s (470–490 miles per hour)
According to the university, Betelgeuse's radius is about 5.5 Astronomical Units, and the star's radius has shrunk by a distance equal to half an astronomical unit, or about the orbit of Venus. Some theorists have speculated that this behavior is expected for a star at the beginning of the gravitational collapse at the end of its life. The mass of Betelgeuse puts it in range to become a neutron star or possibly a black hole.

Incommensurable

Feyerabend traced the origins of his notion of incommensurability back to his ‘thesis I’ in “An attempt at a realistic interpretation of experience” (1958a), a condensed version of his 1951 doctoral thesis Zur Theorie der Basissätze (On the Theory of Protocol Sentences). In his (1958a), Feyerabend criticized two conceptions of meaning. He argued against the logical positivist idea that the meaning of an observational term is determined by immediate experiences, as well as against the Wittgensteinian idea that the meaning of an observational term is determined by its use. Instead, Feyerabend argued for the idea that the meaning of a term, even an observation term, is determined by its theoretical context, or more precisely, by the theoretical principles that govern its correct use according to our best theories. For example, according to Feyerabend, the correct meaning of the term ‘temperature’ is not determined by its everyday use, but by the principles of statistical thermodynamics. From this perspective, Feyerabend developed ‘thesis I’, according to which the interpretation of an observation language is determined by the theories that we use to explain what we observe, and it changes as soon as those theories change (1958a, 163). Feyerabend proceeded to argue that when older theories are replaced, the meanings of the observational terms used to test the theories change. Just as in (1962), the result is incommensurability: The idea that successive scientific theories are conceptually incompatible and consequently logically disjoint. Feyerabend's ‘thesis I’ is thus an early version of his incommensurability thesis. In his (1958a), with this notion of incommensurability, Feyerabend challenged an implicit conceptual conservativism in logical positivism: The assumption that theoretical terms derive their meaning solely through their connection with experience, and that experience itself is a stable (or unchanging) foundation on which theoretical meaning can be based. Instead of such a bottom-up version of the relation of experience and theoretical knowledge, according to which experience determines the meanings of our theoretical terms, Feyerabend argued for a top-down version, according to which our theories determine the meaning we attach to our experiences. According to Feyerabend, experience cannot be taken for granted as some kind of fixed, neutral basis for comparing theories. Rather, it takes on its particular character in light of the theories we bring to it. An investigation of the source of these ideas reveals the founding father of the notion of incommensurability in the contemporary history and philosophy of science.
Oberheim and Hoyningen-Huene. "The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
In resume:

1. The interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.
2. Paradigms often have different assumptions about which intellectual and operational scientific methods result in valid scientific knowledge.
3. Paradigms can be based on different assumptions regarding the structure of their domain, which makes it impossible to compare them in a meaningful way. The adoption of a new theory includes and is dependent upon the adoption of new terms. Thus, scientists are using different terms when talking about different theories. Those who hold different, competing theories to be true will be talking over one another, in the sense that they cannot a priori arrive at agreement given two different discourses with two different theoretical language and dictates.

Nakshatra

Ardra means the goddess of fortune. The presiding deity the Rudra, the wielder of the trident. Symbol- a teardrop. The ruling planet is Rahu. When Surya enters Ardra the earth is said to be starting its menstrual course that is Ambobachi. Ardra means wet or surcharged with water, that is fat. From Rudra comes all suffering, persecutions and oppressions, anger, ferocity of countenance or hideousness of noise.
Rudra is another name of Shiva. In knowledge, asceticism, renunciation, as also in enjoyment, he is the supreme consummation of all desires. He is the wielder of the most tremendous powers, what could not be attempted far less achieved by other gods. (During the churning of the ocean of milk, poison was produced -which threatened to engulf the universe. Siva came to the rescue and swallowed the poison, holding it in his throat.) On one side he is the symbol of the most perfect placidity and serenity, on the other hand he is the symbol of all that is terrible. He holds the great serpent on his head and on his forehead crescent Chandra with his sweet-soft light. He is at the same time the most peaceful and also the most terrible. And in all these are to be traced the intrinsic characteristics of Ardra.
Those born in the Ardra star are sharp, stable minded, strong, earning by sacrifice, afflicted by sickness, fear and anger. In Tamil and Malayalam Ardra is referred to as Thiruvathirai and Thiruvathira respectively.

आत्मन् ज्ञान

The philosophical schools associated with what we now call Hinduism all had in common respect for the authority of the Veda (‘Knowledge’), scriptures accepted as a revealed body of wisdom, cosmological information and codes of societal obligations. The textual schools that systematized disciplines derived from the Veda were the Mīmāṃsā, the Nyāya, the Vaiśeṣika, the Sāṅkhya and the various Vedānta schools . Concerned as all these schools were with correct interpretation of the Veda, it is natural that questions of language were of paramount importance in Indian philosophy. These involved detailed investigation into how subjects are to be defined and how texts are to be interpreted.
Closely related to questions of language were questions of knowledge in general and its sources. The two most important sources of knowledge that Indian philosophers discussed were sensation and inference, the theory of inference being important to the development of logic in India. Another topic about which Indian thinkers had much to say was the problem of how absences are known. Because of the importance of scriptures and religious teachers, epistemologists in India discussed the issue of the authority of texts and the question of the reliability of information conveyed through human language. The questions associated with epistemology are in Indian philosophy often closely connected with questions of human psychology.
Most schools of Indian philosophy offered not only an epistemology but also an ontology. Many posited a personal creator god or an impersonal godhead. Just how particular things come into being through creative agency or through impersonal natural laws was a matter of considerable debate. Indian thinkers also debated the precise nature of matter, the ontological status of universals, and how potentials become actualities.
In addition to epistemology and metaphysics, a third area that Indian systematic philosophers nearly always commented upon were issues concerning the nature of the human being. This included thoughts on a variety of ethical questions and the rewards for living an ethical life. While most thinkers dealt with individual ethics, some also gave attention to the question of collective behaviour and policy.

Richard Hayes: Indian and Tibetan philosophie in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophie