Lets Talk Science

[BestCaseScenario]

So your telling me, if you can't figure out the first problem on your own, you will figure other problems? everything starts small. U need to work your creativity and not knowledge. Knowledge = Knowing only thru reading or testing but it's all about knowing. Being creative is a total different kettle of fish, since there is no 'knowing' here and all u have is a 'problem' and 'result' you seek that's what I call creative. If you can't figure out the first problem on your own which has been 'figured' out, PLEASE stop there brother because you won't get some MIRACLE for any other problem as you collapsed the first one which is 'evidence' you will have a huge struggle with other problems.

I prefer to teach people how to do it themselves. Say 4 example, we have solved one problem. We let the student then re-do it himself without giving him the answer as this will require he uses 'creative' approaches, cause if we give him the answer all he will ever have is 'knowledge' not how to solve another problem since it's always will be different problem and which will need different answers. Knowledge will not give the answer to different problems at all, it's only suitable to one problem that u learned, it won't apply to different problems, cuz u will have different factors and variables to consider in different problems.

You save time by starting from/with the known. You are more likely to produce something better that way by building on that knowledge. Do we need to invent wheels now to pull weight we can't lift?


Besides, if you can understand how someone solved a problem, you are good enough.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Harvard Research Paper: Copernicus and His Islamic Predecessors: Some Historical Remarks



http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES




For those interested in science history, this could be a good read.

 

[CangeeroBear]

So your telling me, if you can't figure out the first problem on your own, you will figure other problems? everything starts small. U need to work your creativity and not knowledge. Knowledge = Knowing only thru reading or testing but it's all about knowing. Being creative is a total different kettle of fish, since there is no 'knowing' here and all u have is a 'problem' and 'result' you seek that's what I call creative. If you can't figure out the first problem on your own which has been 'figured' out, PLEASE stop there brother because you won't get some MIRACLE for any other problem as you collapsed the first one which is 'evidence' you will have a huge struggle with other problems.

I prefer to teach people how to do it themselves. Say 4 example, we have solved one problem. We let the student then re-do it himself without giving him the answer as this will require he uses 'creative' approaches, cause if we give him the answer all he will ever have is 'knowledge' not how to solve another problem since it's always will be different problem and which will need different answers. Knowledge will not give the answer to different problems at all, it's only suitable to one problem that u learned, it won't apply to different problems, cuz u will have different factors and variables to consider in different problems.

You are confusing discovering with learning.I can discover how to tie a knot, by myself, but I could also learn it.Learning is basically rediscovering aspects of the world.For instance if someone taught me how to tie a knot than by understanding the processes I can rediscover it.However by not learning how tie a knot I waste a large amount of energy for no reason.

Someone who discovers new systems simply is self learnt, however the teacher here was himself.Once you understand how to learn and understand the basics you than can use that as a launch pad of discovery.Think of a building, a builder builds the first half but then is layed off .The next builder enter and simply adds to the building.It would be foolish to destroy the building and start again , however the builder would still calculate the stress levels etc in the bottom of the building.Hence he understands how the bottom is built and can even model it but the key step is to continue the building.

 

[CangeeroBear]

Harvard Research Paper: Copernicus and His Islamic Predecessors: Some Historical Remarks



http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES




For those interested in science history, this could be a good read.

Many argue the renaissance was because of the contributions of muslim historians and scientists in spain, Quiet interesting but it just reaffirms that science is universal.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Many argue the renaissance was because of the contributions of muslim historians and scientists in spain, Quiet interesting but it just reaffirms that science is universal.

Yea, Knowledge of science and contributions to it was indeed universal effort where civilizations inherited one another. Muslims acquired their knowledge from others they made contact with too. From Greeks to Indians. They translated the books and built on the knowledge contained there in, then added new insights from Optics to Astronomy. Then these advanced-for-their time knowledge got to Europe mainland through Spain. The man who introduced Arabic numerals was a merchant who did business in north Africa. He liked the Algebra used in the markets for calculating money changing hands and found it to be easier and more useful than the roman numerals utilized in Europe at that time. When he went back to Italy, he introduced it and people were not receptive at first. That cold reception of the new math changed slowly for the better and Algebra was introduced. Things took off from there. Newton himself read some material from Ibnu Alhaitham(Al-Hazin) in optics who introduced the concept of light coming from objects instead of light leaving the eye hitting on objects as the Greeks used to believe. When Alhazin came up with that theory, he was in jail serving time for not being able to build a dam as the King asked him to do to deal with floods that plagued the city. Alhazin pretended to be insane to avoid death and opted to be in jail. He realized there was no way he could build that dam.

When Muslims studied the natural sciences as a means to advance their faith in God's power of creation, Europeans were being persecuted by their churches for contradicting their church teachings. Galileo was persecuted and died in isolation after he supported heliocentric version of the Universe. Many suffered the same fate. It is great to have religion that sees science as reaffirming the power of God rather than contradicting it.


I plan to sign up for a history of science class they offer at the university. Looking forward to present a challenge to the professor if the material does not honor the ISLAMIC CONTRIBUTION to science or the book downplays it.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Here is what quick google produced of the European guy who introduced Arabic/Indian numerals to Europe to help fuel science. I didn't read the link to see how honest they write about the history, but the brief mention shown in the screen grab is good enough for now.

 

[CangeeroBear]

Yea, Knowledge of science and contributions to it was indeed universal effort where civilizations inherited one another. Muslims acquired their knowledge from others they made contact with too. From Greeks to Indians. They translated the books and built on the knowledge contained there in, then added new insights from Optics to Astronomy. Then these advanced-for-their time knowledge got to Europe mainland through Spain. The man who introduced Arabic numerals was a merchant who did business in north Africa. He liked the Algebra used in the markets for calculating money changing hands and found it to be easier and more useful than the roman numerals utilized in Europe at that time. When he went back to Italy, he introduced it and people were not receptive at first. That cold reception of the new math changed slowly for the better and Algebra was introduced. Things took off from there. Newton himself read some material from Ibnu Alhaitham(Al-Hazin) in optics who introduced the concept of light coming from objects instead of light leaving the eye hitting on objects as the Greeks used to believe. When Alhazin came up with that theory, he was in jail serving time for not being able to build a dam as the King asked him to do to deal with floods that plagued the city. Alhazin pretended to be insane to avoid death and opted to be in jail. He realized there was no way he could build that dam.

When Muslims studied the natural sciences as a means to advance their faith in God's power of creation, Europeans were being persecuted by their churches for contradicting their church teachings. Galileo was persecuted and died in isolation after he supported heliocentric version of the Universe. Many suffered the same fate. It is great to have religion that sees science as reaffirming the power of God rather than contradicting it.




I plan to sign up for a history of science class they offer at the university. Looking forward to present a challenge to the professor if the material does not honor the ISLAMIC CONTRIBUTION to science or the book downplays it.

Love this

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Love this

At some point in life, one has to decide reading is your best means of passing time. That and watching Anime is my favorite





And with the occasional need of a warm female body if you know what I mean LOL. Helps to detox the body camal lol.

 

[CangeeroBear]

At some point in life, one has to decide reading is your best means of passing time. That and watching Anime is my favorite





And with the occasional need of a warm female body if you know what I mean LOL. Helps to detox the body camal lol.

This is the essence of enjoyment within life.Knowledge ,Anime and sex.The three real loves of life

 

[DR OSMAN]

When Christians Today studied the natural sciences as a means to advance their faith in God's power of creation, Muslims today are being persecuted by their mosques for contradicting their islamic teachings. Secular Muslims are persecuted and die in isolation after they supported secular version of the Universe. Many suffered the same fate. It is great to have a christian religion that sees science as reaffirming the power of God rather than contradicting it.

@BestCaseScenario is gonna throw a shit at me now for bastardizing his words !!!

 

[BestCaseScenario]

When Christians Today studied the natural sciences as a means to advance their faith in God's power of creation, Muslims today are being persecuted by their mosques for contradicting their islamic teachings. Secular Muslims are persecuted and die in isolation after they supported secular version of the Universe. Many suffered the same fate. It is great to have a christian religion that sees science as reaffirming the power of God rather than contradicting it.

@BestCaseScenario is gonna throw a shit at me now for bastardizing his words !!!

Galileo wasn't secular. Newton set out to prove the day of judgment mathematically in a futile effort(if he stuck to what the bible taught on the issue where Jesus tells someone who asked the time of judgment day "that the questioner knows no more than the person being asked(him)", newton wouldn't have wasted time on that project but it must have been fun for him since he loved numbers). They found his notes recently and went bananas because in today's so called scientific world which is driven by the fake science of evolutionary theorists, a man can not be a man of faith and love science at the same time.

Most scientists who departed with useful science in the old days believed in God, or were Believers in God without religion because they weren't satisfied with Christianity. Voltaire who ridiculed religion was a believer in God but disagreed with Church dogma. You can go through a list of many greats and most of them believed in God. Greeks were more obsessed with God and set up a god for every damn thing in life. God of love anyone? The idea of secularism was born out of necessity in Europe to get a break from church ignorance and because of church abuse to people of Knowledge. Islam as a religion does have that problem but Muslims do. Big difference.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Galileo wasn't secular. Newton set out to prove the day of judgment mathematically in a futile effort(if he stuck to what the bible taught on the issue where Jesus tells someone who asked the time of judgment day "that the questioner knows no more than the person being asked(him)", newton wouldn't have wasted time on that project but it must have been fun for him since he loved numbers). They found his notes recently and went bananas because in today's so called scientific world which is driven by the fake science of evolutionary theorists, a man can not be a man of faith and love science at the same time.

Most scientists who departed with useful science in the old days believed in God, or were Believers in God without religion because they weren't satisfied with Christianity. Voltaire who ridiculed religion was a believer in God but disagreed with Church dogma. You can go through a list of many greats and most of them believed in God. Greeks were more obsessed with God and set up a god for every damn thing in life. God of love anyone? The idea of secularism was born out of necessity in Europe to get a break from church ignorance and because of church abuse to people of Knowledge. Islam as a religion does have that problem but Muslims do. Big difference.

So A christian can believer in god and hate church dogma, but a muslim cant be believer and hate mosque dogma. U have some brilliant logic. I hate islamic dogma and I feel it's totally wrong, doesn't mean I hate god. Just cause I disagree with u, doesn't mean I disagree with god. Infact it's you who is rising himself to god's level and saying if u disagree with my views you disagreed with god and therefore an equal partner with him as u linked your views to god!!!!

I don't link my views to god. All I say is I will accept god on his terms, I won't set those terms. There no way u can criticize that view point cause the ball is in god's court. I don't go around describing infinity when I am limited, I dont even describe others who are limited like me, so it wud be silly for me to enter that territory with god.

U think anyone who disagrees with ur version of god disagrees with god. Its like saying someone disagrees with your view of the earth, that mean that earth has all of a sudden changed into some miraclous shape just based on your opinion. The earth stays the same, its our views that change and stop linking ur views to the earth as if it will MAKE IT CHANGE u do the same with GOD.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

So A christian can believer in god and hate church dogma, but a muslim cant be believer and hate mosque dogma. U have some brilliant logic. I hate islamic dogma and I feel it's totally wrong, doesn't mean I hate god. Just cause I disagree with u, doesn't mean I disagree with god. Infact it's you who is rising himself to god's level and saying if u disagree with my views you disagreed with god and therefore an equal partner with him as u linked your views to god!!!!

I don't link my views to god. All I say is I will accept god on his terms, I won't set those terms. There no way u can criticize that view point cause the ball is in god's court. I don't go around describing infinity when I am limited, I dont even describe others who are limited like me, so it wud be silly for me to enter that territory with god.

U think anyone who disagrees with ur version of god disagrees with god. Its like saying someone disagrees with your view of the earth, that mean that earth has all of a sudden changed into some miraclous shape just based on your opinion. The earth stays the same, its our views that change and stop linking ur views to the earth as if it will MAKE IT CHANGE u do the same with GOD.

There is no such thing as Mosque dogma when it comes to Knowledge. If there is one, it is because of the person who runs that mosque and the group that dominates there. Nothing to do with Islam itself. There was no concerted effort by Islam and Muslims to oppose Knowledge in nature. Mosques were in fact places of Learning. And Christians today adjusted to the new realities. Value of science is universal now. Saxib, don't waste my time on this because it is a subject discussed at length throughout history. If you have proof that Islam doesn't advocate for learning, bring your case, I don't a\want to waste my time with the false premise that Islam is against Science.

Proof your case or just get on with other subjects you are interested in.


PS: there IS only One God for all. And Islam is the continued story of mankind's religions. To a muslim, the religion of Jesus Is the same as that of Mohamed. Islam corrects what went wrong with it. If you paid attention to what Islam teaches before you ignorantly talk about it, you would have known that. Don't waste my time dude on this.

 

[DR OSMAN]

There is no such thing as Mosque dogma when it comes to Knowledge. If there is one, it is because of the person who runs that mosque and the group that dominates there. Nothing to do with Islam itself. There was no concerted effort by Islam and Muslims to oppose Knowledge in nature. Mosques were in fact places of Learning. And Christians today adjusted to the new realities. Value of science is universal now. Saxib, don't waste my time on this because it is a subject discussed at length throughout history. If you have proof that Islam doesn't advocate for learning, bring your case, I don't a\want to waste my time with the false premise that Islam is against Science.

Proof your case or just get on with other subjects you are interested in.


PS: there IS only One God for all. And Islam is the continued story of mankind's religions. To a muslim, the religion of Jesus Is the same as that of Mohamed. Islam corrects what went wrong with it. If you paid attention to what Islam teaches before you ignorantly talk about it, you would have known that. Don't waste my time dude on this.

Yes this isn't a religious thread, but I would grill you and cook you well done wallahi. You are totally wrong and my fingers are itching to reply!!!

 

[DR OSMAN]

OK everyone, I am thinking about the big bang. The singular point when all space and time were wrapped up into an atom, where did that atom exist? it's like a grain of sand, the grain of sand is among other grains of sand and basically wouldn't our universe similar to how unlimited the amount of beach grains on the sand is. I view the universe like having a moment when it was like beach grain but that beach grain can't exist on it's own, it needs be within another dimension of space and time that is actively moving to cause this singular point then explode. I think we possibly have many big bangs happening and this is only one big bang we see!!! I just can't accept this singular point came from nothing. The universe the real universe could be eternal where-as our part of the universe is 14 billion years old or the observable universe, we could be in a universe among basically an infinite amount of universes.

It's like the beach grain, we can say one beach grain is this diameter and measure like we do with our big bang and the singularity but that doesn't mean it's not among a number of beach grains(other universes). Cause an Effect simply doesn't have an end cause it would be nothingness if ends and I can't believe something comes from nothing. Something else always precedes it and kick-starts another process and that process continues into something else.

 

[DR OSMAN]

As know with maths, if we can apply it to properties within the earth and see different results in it, it's obviously going to apply in the universe. Now with the universe we need to know about this singularity of all space-time-energy combined into one. Apparently it had some pressure applied to it like you know a coke bottle when u shake it, the fizz all comes out from the bottle and escapes. But when something fizzes all out, the result isn't even-ness, u will have some fizz in other areas more then some areas, it won't all be equal in it's distribution. So where is the maths to see if the cosmic elements like gas, smoke, hydrogen, gravity, shouldn't they be dispersed across the space un-evenly and not evenly and if it is, can we measure one part of the universe and it's cosmic elements as compared to another part to see the difference? Cause if we had a singularity we should see a damn mess like a coke bottle just becomes all frizzy, time isn't a factor also cause it doesn't matter if u slow or fast time up the fizz of the coke will either slowly go into uneven-ness or go into 'fastly' time just balances how quick or slow it gets there but it won't effect what the end result is.

That's why we see big stars and small stars and weird shapes in stars, you see there is a fluctation in the design process which means the cosmic elements must of been different in different parts of space to account for the different sizes and shapes of planets and stars.

 

[DR OSMAN]

What factors and variables would be useful to guide us to a sound conclusion regarding the universe? Do we need to know the measurements of the universe space how wide it is and long it is? Do we need to know how many directions space runs in is it 4 directions east, west, north, south, or is it like a compass where east can have varying degrees of east and north can have varying degrees of north and so forth? Do we need to the rate space travels and if it is covering a certain distance and time repeatedly each day or does it fluctuate in different areas and the causes for each?

When we identify the factors and variables are we going to use reason and logic to explain it or are we going to use maths and measurements to explain it or a bit of both? For example how do we measure the amount of energy is in the sun, do we measure it's shape and work our the area against one light source and multiply it across the area of the space - gravity and other variables?

I was watching an interesting video on what happens when the sun dies, apparently we have evidence of dying suns or super novas. This is interesting cause our sun will die one day and when it does, it's pretty much game over, no life can exist as everything needs sun light to some degree, nothing grows and prospers in the dark unless of course we find life in a planet where the sun isn't needed.

Supernovas are interesting, what happens is the energy or the light just collapses. For example a fire, the second the wood or whatever the source is collapses, the light that emits from the fire also goes and what happens is basically gravity swallows it up cause it's the source of the fire 'hydrogen' that is keeping it balanced the way it is now against gravity, when there is no more hydrogen, it's over gravity takes over and basically sucks it into it's claws and results in the star just imploding from the inside. Kinda like the vaccum cleaner, notice how if u press it against your cloth it sucks it and holds into it's jaw cause there is nothing your clothes has in terms of energy to fend of that strong pressure force.

 

[NICCA]

. I have been wondering why doesn't every nation have oil, because technically oil is just marine life deposits from millions of years ago and stored into the earth different layers of crusts. I mean every continent is just like a piece of board sitting on top of bath water, if you drill deep enough you are bound to hit the ocean water sooner or later. So the questions remains, if all the continents are sitting on the same body of water, shouldn't we all have the same marine life deposits?

Oil is primarly found in deserts and in seas or oceans. Scientists concluded that areas like the sahara and arabian deserts and many other desert to be before like forests, lakes and greenary because of the ice age. When the period past many animal corspes remain in the desert baking and forming into fossil fuel thats why we find many fossil fuels in deserts. Marine life stays usually in areas that have water. Like the sahara humid period alot of water was in the former deserts

 

[DR OSMAN]

. I have been wondering why doesn't every nation have oil, because technically oil is just marine life deposits from millions of years ago and stored into the earth different layers of crusts. I mean every continent is just like a piece of board sitting on top of bath water, if you drill deep enough you are bound to hit the ocean water sooner or later. So the questions remains, if all the continents are sitting on the same body of water, shouldn't we all have the same marine life deposits?

Oil is primarly found in deserts and in seas or oceans. Scientists concluded that areas like the sahara and arabian deserts and many other desert to be before like forests, lakes and greenary because of the ice age. When the period past many animal corspes remain in the desert baking and forming into fossil fuel thats why we find many fossil fuels in deserts. Marine life stays usually in areas that have water. Like the sahara humid period alot of water was in the former deserts

Yes the but the sahara regardless if it has sand on top or you have grass on top of your land, the bottom layers of the earth are just crust and rocky, they will obviously different rocks and crusts in the layers depending on age and what we know of time usually at the bottom of the layer is always the oldest and the newer it is it goes up in layer cause time travels down not up well not in this earth anyways.

That's why when u see a cliff or something when u look at the bottom of the cliff layers u will see it's texture and age look a-lot different to other parts of the cliff.

So we have the same layers of earth underneath each continent and time applies equally the same no matter if your in africa forest or sahara desert or arabian pennisula. I will highly doubt we have different layers of crust at the bottom across different continents unless of course each continent formed at different times which it will make sense then there is time difference in their layers below. But marine life deposit comes from fossils of animals right and you need a place to store those fossils or else it will just splat out and disappear into the earth. So I don't disagree with that u need something to contain those fossils be it a inside a rock or between two rocks and it's inside but yes containment is critical. Our oven would be useless if we didn't contain it, imagine u opened up your oven while cooking, it will spoil everything cause it's no longer being contained.

Thanks for responding anyways.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Love this

Btw, I was planning on taking a class that meets certain criteria for credit, so I won't be taking it for the sake of argument with a professor. This class will be offered next semester. My coworker recommended it for me since we both take classes from the U. I sometimes ask around to see if there is a way to meet required credit without wasting my time on classes that aren't interesting but have to be taken.