This has to be the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a long time.Just a clarification here, as I seem to be sleep walking while typing that post! I meant to say that even today we sort of have a 5 elements theory or our modern day physical entities could be put in the Indian 5 elements scheme:

Earth: Atomic elements in periodic table

Water: Electrons, fermions, bosons and other subatomic particles

Light: Photons, energy, radiation

Wind: Electomagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravity forces

Ether: Quantum, wavefunction

a. Water and and the fermion s/bosons have nothing to do with each other. The key characteristic of water is it being fluid, the fermions, bosons, and like are distinguished by their discrete nature.

b. Ether and Quantum physics have no relation ship with each other. A key characteristics of quantum physics is that the universe is discrete, that energy comes in discrete packages and levels, and is not continuous. Ether is the exact opposite of the this idea.

c. The electromagnetism and the weak force has more to do with light than it does with gravity, yet you lump the weak force and electromagnetism in with gravity.

d. Many of the elements on the periodic table are gasses in normal conditions, so "earth" poorly represents the periodic table. Also the concepts of the periodic table is that is shows there are systematic relationships between the elements, something the concept of "earth" doesn't capture at all.

The concept of 5 elements have nothing to do with modern physics, and all the saying. The ancient and medieval Indians did not invent modern science, so get over it.

- The Indians did not discover the law of gravity

- Nor did the Indians come with the wave-particle nature of matter and light, and develop specific mathematical formulation that describes that relationship.

- The Indians did not create the idea of a rigorous proof mathematical proof. The mathematical proof created by the Greeks is the foundation of modern mathematics.

Using the same techniques pioneered by the Greeks, but using a different set of axioms (fundamental assumptions), Western mathematicians were able to create non Euclidean geometry. What is key, that separates the Greeks from the Indians and Chinese, is the idea of a "proof" - the methodology they developed is as important, or even more so, than any specific discovery. As Fermat Last Theorem shows, mathematically proving something is true is often much harder than creating the theorem or equation in the first place.The development of mathematical proof is primarily the product of ancient Greek mathematics, and one of its greatest achievements. Mathematical proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it is a bad approximately of reality, and poor science. The 5 elements did not lead to other discoveries. The European created atomic theory eventually led to the periodic table, and led to successful predictions of the properties of elements that hadn't been discovered yet.Come to think of it I like how elegant the 5 element theory is

All of our theories are at best an approximation of reality, but some are a better approximately than others, and are better at leading to further approximations than others. Newton's laws are just an approximation of the real world, but they are better than anything the Indians came up with.

Anyways, the claim that Greek philosophy is based on Indian philosophy is wrong. For one thing, at the time that Greek philosophers like Plato were creating their philosophy, Greece simply did not have a lot of direct contact with India. It wasn't until Alexander's time that the Greeks really began a lot of direct contact with India. By the time Alexander led his armies into India, and created direct contacts between Greeks and Indians, Greek philosophy was well established.

And given the uncertain state of India chronology, any similarity might be do to Indians borrowing from the Greeks and not the other way around. We know that Greek artistic traditions had a major impact on Indian sculpture, and the dating of even as an important ruler as Kanishka's is a matter of debate. Noe, it was the West that came repeatedly to India, first with the Persians, then with the Greeks, followed by the Muslims, and finally the British, and not the other way around.