The labeling system
Every comparison declares what kind of claim it is.
Most confusion in this space comes from blurring four very different statements. We never blur them.
Type A
Direct equivalence
A claim that two things are literally the same. The highest bar — invoked rarely, only with strong evidence.
Type B
Structural resonance
Two frameworks share a shape or logic without being identical. Interesting, publishable, clearly bounded.
Type C
Historical influence
A documented line of transmission or development. A claim about history, settled with historical evidence.
Type D
Speculative hypothesis
A proposal worth exploring, flagged plainly as speculation — never smuggled in as fact.
Operating principles
Six commitments we don't bend on.
Primary sources, always
We read Vedic texts in Sanskrit and in context before drawing any comparison — never through the distortions of secondhand summary.
Falsifiability where possible
When a claim can be framed as testable, we test it — with pre-registration, adequate samples, and honest statistics.
Null results are results
A careful "no" is as valuable as a "yes." We commit to publishing what we find, not only what we hoped to find.
Collaboration across fields
Our work is co-authored across physics, Sanskrit, history of science, and philosophy. No discipline marks its own homework.
Peer review as the goal
We aim for established peer-reviewed venues, and hold our own journal to the same external-review standard.
Open by default
Open access, open data, open method. Anyone should be able to check our reasoning and reproduce our work.
A line we hold
What Antriksa is not.
Clarity about what we reject is part of our credibility. We are not here to flatter any tradition, nor to score points against science. We are not in the business of claiming that the ancients secretly possessed modern physics, that scripture must be read as a science textbook, or that wonder excuses weak evidence.
Where the honest answer is "these are not the same, and here's why," that is the answer we'll publish.
Not apologetics
We don't start from a conclusion and reason backward to defend it.
Not pseudoscience
No untestable claims dressed in scientific vocabulary.
Not dismissive
We don't wave away a 3,000-year tradition without genuinely engaging it.