It is enough good impression that it actually mentioned the expansion before the advent of telescopes to watch the celestial bodies. Only today's humans enjoy the connection to those verses whilst others who believed in it long ago took the verses as they were because of their faith in their creator. Prior cultures of the ancient also believed earth and heavens to had been one before. Islam confirms that lost knowledge of the ancient. Our technology verifies that part of human culture.
Lets Talk Science
- Thread starter DR OSMAN
- Start date
- Status
It is enough good impression that it actually mentioned the expansion before the advent of telescopes to watch the celestial bodies. Only today's humans enjoy the connection to those verses whilst others who believed in it long ago took the verses as they were because of their faith in their creator. Prior cultures of the ancient also believed earth and heavens to had been one before. Islam confirms that lost knowledge of the ancient. Our technology verifies that part of human culture.
Heaven and earth weren't one though, earth didn't exist anywhere in the big bang, we are talking the laws, space, time because that is needed before any planets or stars can form. Your explanation is that big bang happened this way. Time-Space-Laws-Earth. It's ridiculous!!! it's actually promoting the idea earth was at the center of the universe like older teachings..
You misunderstand what is meant by single point origin of the Universe. Earth is part of the universe and did not exist prior to heavens. As the big bang explains, from a single point explosion, came everything we see including earth(over a period of time). Nowhere in that can one read earth is the center. If two things are joined and fused together, those two things do not exist as separate entities before separation. That is the implication. Hope that explains. Best Regards.
This is a pointless topic and shouldn't derail the interesting side of physical. I don't like to merge the physical with the spiritual, it has no place honestly. As our intelligence and capabilities grow, we will find new answers regarding the physical, the void in humanity is the spiritual and what is the purpose of life and where are we heading which is religion realm!!! I prefer a religion that explains to me why this occurred not necessarily HOW, science can fill that!!!
By proving Islam, you destroy Islam. Anything that has proof doesn't require belief and hence everything about testing and worshipping is pointless!!! It's like given a test and you already have the answers, what's the point of sitting the test if you know the answers!!!
So this scientific islam and haroon yahya types, I don't even entertain them as I know even if they are successful in proving islam, they destroy islam in the same way and its back to zero!!!
It is relevant to the discussion and this kind infusion of philosophy, religion and culture quotes are plenty in science books either to prove a point or disprove a point. Any well read person would know that. If you want the discussion to go certain ways that you only approve with your subjectivity, then it won't produce anything meaningful. People will lose interest. It is better to be flexible since it is give and take always. You take what you want. You leave what you want. You can simply state a rational objection to something if you have any and that will suffice.
I clearly stated the Quran is not a science book though I quoted the parts that align with what we are discussing.. I do not subscribe to any school of thought, so Harun Yahya is just another individual to me. I have my views on things and take from others what they got right. If I restricted myself as you obviously are restricted, I wouldn't read the books I READ written by people who do not believe in a creator.
People are secure in their thoughts when they have nothing to fear that challenges their thinking. I find people who object to religion to be close minded and less educated often.
With this, I am out unless you invite me to discuss something relevant.
I am not against talking about religion, I try to keep it personal to myself. The reason I hate when proof and religion are mixed is you cancel out faith. You don't need faith or belief that the sun will rise or set do you? you don't need faith that water will rise if you add more water? You see these things are proof because you can test it. Can I honestly be tested by Allah that water rises when more water is added? obviously not, I already know this and hence faith is obsolete and null and void!!! The whole purpose of testing people with faith in god goes out the window and god becomes a fact!!! That's why I don't like mixing science and religion, do you see what I mean or do you want me to be more clearer?
Osman, In this topic, I mentioned the verses as complementary since they are in agreement with the observations of Astronomy. As you suggested, we Keep it to Astronomy/Physics. We don't want the topic to be derailed.
On the occasion where someone is God conscious, there should be no objections to that because not everyone believes life is meaningless and aimless existence.
For this reason, I won't respond to your latest questions because it will change topic. Take Care.
So your basically saying 'facts' and 'faith' do not cancel each other out and can work harmonously side by side? That means I can at the same time 'know' the sun is a true fact yet at the same time have faith it is true fact? Those two statements don't logically work, once must give either u believe the sun is true or you know it's true you can't have both in the same sequence!!!
Science in a nutshell to me is like a glass of water, it will explain how it came to be a glass of water, why or who put it there is philosophical and religious as that is not even remotely testable since there is nothing to test!!! That's why I said they shouldn't even mix together as they are two different topics at hand!!!
Last edited:
And the cup of water will inform you about who put it there since it has no abilities to self-move and place itself with water on the table.
How many times have you encountered an object laying somewhere in a room and you assumed the darn thing put itself there? Many times right?
Faith is not without facts. People are encouraged to ask questions and believe in God with conviction. Ignorance is frowned upon and faith requires Knowledge. You can't have blind faith. You have to have something to convince you to have faith in the unseen creator. So on top of the study of nature, Quran is handy to that end and both support the ends. Complementary sources.
If I find out facts about the sun: That it is gigantic nuclear reactor, composed of hydrogen mostly and helium, roughly 109 times the size of the earth in diameter, that a million earth's could fit inside of it, has layers of different temperature, has the biggest mass in our solar system, 99.8% etc, All these facts do not answer the question of who made that possible. And just as no one would believe the cup of water on the table was self-placed, no serious person accepts the chance of the sun functioning with precision as it were to have placed itself exactly where it is without plan and calculation that requires intelligence. To our human experience, things don't happen out of a vacuum. Everything in nature seems to be detailed.
Last edited:
That's certain to an extent. But I honestly don't think somethings can ever be proven to be a fact and a god is one of them. I can spend all day trying to prove to you my instincts but it's pointless, as instinct is a feeling that u believe regardless if it's rational or not. I have instincts not to go the Ghetto at night, it's a feeling, is there any rationality behind it yes some but at the end it will all come down to my feeling regardless if going to the ghetto was good or bad idea or all data was given to support or not support it, i'll always revert back to my feeling or faith.
Dr-Osman, Did you read about Gravity? Like what is Gravity? The book I posted is worth reading. You can scroll through the Content section and choose which topic you find more interesting.
It is better not to discuss God in here since there is no role in Science to deny Almighty's existence. It is the opposite and science confirms the existence of an Intelligent designer behind the design. Human experiences point to that reality. So, it is pointless to force science to take a negative role with regards to God. Trying that venue will lead to nowhere. Science never answers the "Who" but the how. Religion answers the "Who" question. That is why both are important. Each one plays a role in man's quest to understand the Universe in a satisfactory manner during their short life span.
It is better not to discuss God in here since there is no role in Science to deny Almighty's existence. It is the opposite and science confirms the existence of an Intelligent designer behind the design. Human experiences point to that reality. So, it is pointless to force science to take a negative role with regards to God. Trying that venue will lead to nowhere. Science never answers the "Who" but the how. Religion answers the "Who" question. That is why both are important. Each one plays a role in man's quest to understand the Universe in a satisfactory manner during their short life span.
Yes I will be reading more into the book, bit by bit. It is pretty interesting though. I will need to study gravity more because this topic has me confused a bit. Gravity from my understanding so far is a stabilizing effect in space so things don't go slam into each other or go to fast. Now there is no question that that planets and stars are stabilized in their orbit, they are moving but they are moving in a same way constantly. It's like a bunch of cars(planets, stars) on a road continously going the same direction, speed, every day over and over. So their needs to be some sort of explanation for that.
Ok @BestCaseScenario I read a little bit on time and finished that chapter. It is quite interesting how it is viewed. From the book it is saying that time is relative and not absolute. So that mean's it depends on where I am or where anything is in the universe. So you could be on the furthest star in the universe and due to the distance between me and you, if you came to see me, I would be dead and you wouldn't be.
They look at time as linear and backwards from earth perspective, it makes earth appear as if were at the front of time-line and everything else is behind us. Where-as newton looked at it as all the same time, you could be anywhere in the universe and it would be the same time. I agree with both of these ironically, I am not sure if that's logical or not but you could technically be 1 million light years away from me and I could be here. You can live and I can live at the same time. For example, say we are both 50 years old if you live in Somalia and I live in America, if I decided to start walking from america to you, yes I would get older by the time we met due to the distance that needs to be covered. But you would age also at the same rate!!! We could technically meet at 51 years of age. But if I took a plane to Somalia, I would be 1 day older rather then 1 year older by walking because I simply changed how I travelled to you. If this is applicable even in our earth, our earth is not separate from the cosmos.
So I agree time is relative in that respect and can change about depending on how I travel to see you, but it's also static in that me and you will age at the same rate by the time we meet. I won't age any faster or slower then you regardless of what distance and route I take!!! So what I am saying is, if we had a space-ship that travelled half the speed of light and that's pretty damn fast imagine if u covered half the distance of when u turn your car light on, a car light covers a distance of at least 100 meters sxb. Imagine you could cover 50 meters in under a second. Usain bolt takes 10 seconds to cover 100 meters and 5 seconds to cover 50 meters, imagine u covered it under 1 second cause light is even under that speed rate. Not sure of that maths but it's pretty instantenous , quicker then my eye can see that's for sure. Like we turned on a big torch that covers 100 meters and timed usain bolt to cover that distance. By the time I switch the torch on, it's already done it under a second, where as usain bolt will take maybe 10 seconds!!!
Now I understand the sheer distance of a 1 million light years is ridiculously very far. I mean if it takes the sun 8 minutes to cover the earth with light, You can imagine how many years it takes us to cover that same coverage, especially on foot. But notice if we do it with a plane, we can start covering it faster. So time to me is both changeable yet fixed in my understanding so far but it could be wrong and I will read it more. I think you could be 1 million light years away and if we have the technology to travel that distance, we will meet at the same age. Just because there is a huge amount of distance between us doesn't mean we can't live side by side at the same age.
oops, I forgot to add the fact, it just came to now the conditions. Usain bolt might cover 100 meters in 10 seconds but that's not going uphill in the way space is going up. Light regardless if I shine my torch up, down, horizontally, it covers the same distance without any change in it's speed. So we need to take into consideration conditions.
They look at time as linear and backwards from earth perspective, it makes earth appear as if were at the front of time-line and everything else is behind us. Where-as newton looked at it as all the same time, you could be anywhere in the universe and it would be the same time. I agree with both of these ironically, I am not sure if that's logical or not but you could technically be 1 million light years away from me and I could be here. You can live and I can live at the same time. For example, say we are both 50 years old if you live in Somalia and I live in America, if I decided to start walking from america to you, yes I would get older by the time we met due to the distance that needs to be covered. But you would age also at the same rate!!! We could technically meet at 51 years of age. But if I took a plane to Somalia, I would be 1 day older rather then 1 year older by walking because I simply changed how I travelled to you. If this is applicable even in our earth, our earth is not separate from the cosmos.
So I agree time is relative in that respect and can change about depending on how I travel to see you, but it's also static in that me and you will age at the same rate by the time we meet. I won't age any faster or slower then you regardless of what distance and route I take!!! So what I am saying is, if we had a space-ship that travelled half the speed of light and that's pretty damn fast imagine if u covered half the distance of when u turn your car light on, a car light covers a distance of at least 100 meters sxb. Imagine you could cover 50 meters in under a second. Usain bolt takes 10 seconds to cover 100 meters and 5 seconds to cover 50 meters, imagine u covered it under 1 second cause light is even under that speed rate. Not sure of that maths but it's pretty instantenous , quicker then my eye can see that's for sure. Like we turned on a big torch that covers 100 meters and timed usain bolt to cover that distance. By the time I switch the torch on, it's already done it under a second, where as usain bolt will take maybe 10 seconds!!!
Now I understand the sheer distance of a 1 million light years is ridiculously very far. I mean if it takes the sun 8 minutes to cover the earth with light, You can imagine how many years it takes us to cover that same coverage, especially on foot. But notice if we do it with a plane, we can start covering it faster. So time to me is both changeable yet fixed in my understanding so far but it could be wrong and I will read it more. I think you could be 1 million light years away and if we have the technology to travel that distance, we will meet at the same age. Just because there is a huge amount of distance between us doesn't mean we can't live side by side at the same age.
oops, I forgot to add the fact, it just came to now the conditions. Usain bolt might cover 100 meters in 10 seconds but that's not going uphill in the way space is going up. Light regardless if I shine my torch up, down, horizontally, it covers the same distance without any change in it's speed. So we need to take into consideration conditions.
Last edited:
Trying to read on gravity more. I do respect the fact that everything tends to go downwards rather then upwards. It can be the smallest thing in our earth but it's always pinned to the ground in a downward motion. It doesn't matter if it's as newton said an apple or the largest tree itself!!! So I don't disagree with the term 'everything that goes up, must eventually come down'. How quick it comes down is different though. A feather and hammer is clearly going to take different times to hit the ground but if it's a big tree if timed is going to hit the ground slower then say a hammer at the same height. So mass is strange matter. A tree has more mass then a hammer just like a hammer has more mass then a feather, so why is the tree taking longer to hit the ground then a hammer following on from the logic hammer is greater in weight then a feather and hits the ground first. It's indicating the greater the mass an object is the quicker it should hit the ground compared to a lighter object as air resistance is working against it.
So I am still researching on gravity, but from what I understand now I would assume the mass of an object in space even though there is no air resistance will move slower then a lighter object. I don't know but I will need to see more experiments!!!
So I am still researching on gravity, but from what I understand now I would assume the mass of an object in space even though there is no air resistance will move slower then a lighter object. I don't know but I will need to see more experiments!!!
Dr.Osman
I have an Exam tomorrow. Will be chatting with you here and exchange tips After The Exam brother.
I have an Exam tomorrow. Will be chatting with you here and exchange tips After The Exam brother.
DrOsman. Did you find anything interesting yet? Gravity is a mystery. Newton came up with the theory and Eisenstein perfected it. An invisible force that explains the physical laws of the Universe. Among other things, Most people refer to it(gravity) when they talk about their weight but don't realize that is what they are doing. Your weight, how much you weigh on the scale is how much the earth is pulling on you(downwards). It is the force of the attraction between you and the Earth. Your weight will change if you go to a different location/Planet. You weigh less on the moon because of its mass that is less than the earth. If you went to the planet more massive than earth, you would weight heavier because that huge mass pulling onto you. If this made sense.
Mass means how much stuff you are made of. Atoms.
There is formula for this.
Mass means how much stuff you are made of. Atoms.
There is formula for this.
@BestCaseScenario, Thank you for the reply. I know what gravity is according to science, it explains why planets move in the way they do and also why matter are rather stable in space and things are not flying around everywhere or hitting each other constantly. Now where I must of been confused or confused the readers is, I was arguing that space itself has gravity installed as a property, this must of been present long before any matter formed or else matter shouldn't exist because they would fly around hitting each other or wiping other matter out. I say this because logically speaking, how can you get to the stage of planets and stars if things aren't stable from the get-go, they would've of annihilated each other long ago.
I view gravity as a property of space, even if you took every matter out today, I believe gravity would still be there and it's not mass that is responsible for this. I could be wrong though, but logically speaking that's the only way it can work from the big bang theory. A good way to test this is to see an empty area of space and if matter is still stable. The relationship matter might have with gravity is different story though. I will accept the bigger the mass is the greater the effect it will have on space and the lighter it is the less it will. That can only explain why things are lighter on the moon then the earth.
Another interesting thing I wanted to mention was, do you think space itself contains light? I don't mean the light as in the star type but A different type of light where it's shattered up into piece like this
I am not sure you would hear those sounds or you may hear it. But I don't think that dark black space is just got nothing. If it has gravity which I think it does, what's to say what else it contains!!!
Your views would be appreciated. And for goodness sake, isn't there anyone who has studied physics here, so they can explain to us how we can use maths to determine this. I don't mind the equations, that's not really maths at all but more logic. M1 IS MASS 1 X MASS 2..That's not real mathematics?
The real stuff is all those sheer number 0...2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2. x 99292i22929, I can't personally stand that stuff and thank god for the calculator!!!
I view gravity as a property of space, even if you took every matter out today, I believe gravity would still be there and it's not mass that is responsible for this. I could be wrong though, but logically speaking that's the only way it can work from the big bang theory. A good way to test this is to see an empty area of space and if matter is still stable. The relationship matter might have with gravity is different story though. I will accept the bigger the mass is the greater the effect it will have on space and the lighter it is the less it will. That can only explain why things are lighter on the moon then the earth.
Another interesting thing I wanted to mention was, do you think space itself contains light? I don't mean the light as in the star type but A different type of light where it's shattered up into piece like this
I am not sure you would hear those sounds or you may hear it. But I don't think that dark black space is just got nothing. If it has gravity which I think it does, what's to say what else it contains!!!
Your views would be appreciated. And for goodness sake, isn't there anyone who has studied physics here, so they can explain to us how we can use maths to determine this. I don't mind the equations, that's not really maths at all but more logic. M1 IS MASS 1 X MASS 2..That's not real mathematics?
The real stuff is all those sheer number 0...2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2. x 99292i22929, I can't personally stand that stuff and thank god for the calculator!!!
Oh there is an important factor I forgot. Energy. This is a broad term, but from what I read there is many different types of energy. But the rule is it needs to change. U know like a fire generates 'heat' that's energy, the actual heat coming from the fire as a secondary source. So for energy u need something that is 'fixed' and whatever it generates is energy. Like lets say water that is fixed, but when it changes to ice that's energy cause it's changed form.
Many things in our world change form from an initial point!!! Well that's how I understood it anyways, I might be wrong. But in all honesty, I think everything must of started with heat, u can't generate heat from cold, cold is an affect from being away from a heat source. U see the Sun, the closer you are the hotter you get, but the distance u get from it, the colder it gets. So early universe must of been a hot place and cooled down later but you can't get the reverse well I can't see how you can go from a cold point to a hot point because cold needs heat where-as heat doesn't need cold. It appears cold is just a secondary result of heat.
By the way, I am still disputing time issue. That is not clear at all. Speed your travelling against the Distance is just one form of time sxb. I don't need to travel and things are still ticking over. I could stay still in one place that doesn't mean everything around me stops!!! There is clearly must be different forms of time. I understand travelling 80 km an hour for 1 hr will get me a certain distance depending on conditions be it earthly or cosmic. But if I am not moving, time is still moving without me so what is that time!!!
There is a time where nothing moves. Gravity isn't time, it's more a stabilizer to keep things orderly in the cosmos, that's not the real time at all. If you removed gravity things would still be moving possibly chaotically and possibly to nothing but it would still be moving nonetheless!!!
Many things in our world change form from an initial point!!! Well that's how I understood it anyways, I might be wrong. But in all honesty, I think everything must of started with heat, u can't generate heat from cold, cold is an affect from being away from a heat source. U see the Sun, the closer you are the hotter you get, but the distance u get from it, the colder it gets. So early universe must of been a hot place and cooled down later but you can't get the reverse well I can't see how you can go from a cold point to a hot point because cold needs heat where-as heat doesn't need cold. It appears cold is just a secondary result of heat.
By the way, I am still disputing time issue. That is not clear at all. Speed your travelling against the Distance is just one form of time sxb. I don't need to travel and things are still ticking over. I could stay still in one place that doesn't mean everything around me stops!!! There is clearly must be different forms of time. I understand travelling 80 km an hour for 1 hr will get me a certain distance depending on conditions be it earthly or cosmic. But if I am not moving, time is still moving without me so what is that time!!!
There is a time where nothing moves. Gravity isn't time, it's more a stabilizer to keep things orderly in the cosmos, that's not the real time at all. If you removed gravity things would still be moving possibly chaotically and possibly to nothing but it would still be moving nonetheless!!!
Last edited:
How do we think of maths, at least there must be some maths students in here? I can't understand that gibberish stuff on wikipedia. So don't come at me with gibberish.
Now I know certain things though. I know space and I know objects or things, I also know we need to know the measurement of things whether it's fixed or not. Like a certain backyard is fixed in space, there's only a certain amount of things you can put inside it. If you know the object u have and it's measure, you can apply that to the space in ya backyard. I know also things are horizontal and vertical in space so if ya gonna measure something space you gotta measure up and sideways. So technically u could fit alot more coke bottles in a certain space then you could obviously a bigger object like a tree. I get that and I sort of understand how you would measure the object x the actual space and then probably divide it by the object portion. So basically u want to see how many coke sizes can fit in, if u know the coke size measurement you can take the space u putting it in and divide it by that it will let u know how many can fit.
I also know distance and speed fluctuate it's not fixed so there needs to be something to account for that. I also know conditions are also issues that need to be in the calculation like the terrain, hilly, downhill, and so forth and I also know the actual object is a factor also like it's weight, power, etc. So I understand these basic concepts from school but the actual language they present it is just garbage and it put me off from actually learning it. Does anyone actually even like maths? I like the big ideas thing about math like shapes cuz i can see that all around me there is heaps of things with heaps of shapes, I can actually touch it and say OK this is real. I also like distance and time and speed cuz that's real too. I don't even know algebra either.
Is anyone like me where u have to actually see something to be interested? cuz u can look at something hundred different ways when it's actually in front of you!!! They say maths is like the language of science, does anyone agree with that? I don't, i think it's the way to test something only but it doesn't actually generate ideas itself
Now I know certain things though. I know space and I know objects or things, I also know we need to know the measurement of things whether it's fixed or not. Like a certain backyard is fixed in space, there's only a certain amount of things you can put inside it. If you know the object u have and it's measure, you can apply that to the space in ya backyard. I know also things are horizontal and vertical in space so if ya gonna measure something space you gotta measure up and sideways. So technically u could fit alot more coke bottles in a certain space then you could obviously a bigger object like a tree. I get that and I sort of understand how you would measure the object x the actual space and then probably divide it by the object portion. So basically u want to see how many coke sizes can fit in, if u know the coke size measurement you can take the space u putting it in and divide it by that it will let u know how many can fit.
I also know distance and speed fluctuate it's not fixed so there needs to be something to account for that. I also know conditions are also issues that need to be in the calculation like the terrain, hilly, downhill, and so forth and I also know the actual object is a factor also like it's weight, power, etc. So I understand these basic concepts from school but the actual language they present it is just garbage and it put me off from actually learning it. Does anyone actually even like maths? I like the big ideas thing about math like shapes cuz i can see that all around me there is heaps of things with heaps of shapes, I can actually touch it and say OK this is real. I also like distance and time and speed cuz that's real too. I don't even know algebra either.
Is anyone like me where u have to actually see something to be interested? cuz u can look at something hundred different ways when it's actually in front of you!!! They say maths is like the language of science, does anyone agree with that? I don't, i think it's the way to test something only but it doesn't actually generate ideas itself
Can you clarify your last two lines? Did you mean to say that for you to be interested and appreciate the complexity of something, you have to understand them? or that you pay attention to something more when you understand about them?
I think of Math as what makes the conveniences of life possible. Math is also present in nature in a substantial way. There is some cool branch in Mathematics called Fractals. Look that up sometime. The snowflakes, pineapples, Sea shells, Clouds, Trees and leaves owe their shapes to fractals.
To get an idea of Fractals,I recommend few minutes long videos.
- Status
Trending
-
NSFW Breaking 🚨 conservative influencer Charlie Kirk shot in Utah
- Started by Chaseyourdreamzz
- Replies: 606
-
HISTORY look at how bad we got cucked by the italians.- Started by Bass
- Replies: 61
-
