Notices
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 362

Thread: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin.

  1. #201  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    We have another explanation of this subject:

    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre; therefore, as long as this central heat of the Earth decrease, as much will the Earth slow down.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...f_the_Gravity_

    Moreover, the Moon getting away from the Earth: 4cm per year as have you said. This is not because of the torque, but also because the central heat of the Earth is gradually decreasing.

    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.

    When such central heat decreases, the effect of the Earth gravity on the Moon will decrease, leading to the loosening of the Moon somewhat from the bond of the Earth gravity, and it will get little by little away from the Earth, but it cannot escape the Earth gravity.

    For the same reason, Earth will go away from the sun, as long as the sun is losing its heat (which is the reason for the gravity of the sun).

    On the other hand, as long as the Earth is losing its central heat (by heat radiation and volcano eruption), the Earth will get nearer to the Sun; because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object; therefore the sun will exert more gravity effect on the Earth and the Earth will approach towards the Sun.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...aches_the_Sun_

    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.

    When the Earth will lose all its central heat it will stop spinning around itself.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_

    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    There are simply too many counter examples for this to be a valid explanation:

    The Sun, by far the hottest body in the Solar system rotates in 24 days, much slower than many of the cooler planets in the Solar System. If heat drove rotation, it would rotate the fastest by far.

    Mars, a cold dead planet rotates at almost the same rate as the warm geologically active Earth.

    Io, a warm geoactive moon of Jupiter, maintains the same face towards Jupiter just as our dead cold Moon maintains one face towards the Earth, yet at least two moons of Jupiter far colder than IO, have rotation periods of 1/2 day or less.

    Io also interacts gravitationally with the colder Europa, each affecting the other's orbit. There is no evidence that Io exerts any more gravitational effect on Europa than Europa exerts on Io. All observations point to the fact that the force acting on each is equal.

    Etc.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre;
    Prove it.
    The Sun is very hot, and it moves around itself very quickly (km/hr.)
    The Earth is less than it in heat, and it moves less quickly.
    The Moon is cold and has a cold core, and it does not move around itself: keeping the same face towards the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.
    Which shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of simple Netonian dynamics. Mass is what causes gravity, not heat. If heat reduces, the moon will still stay fixed in its orbit, as mass is a constant, thanks to the law of conservation of mass.
    That is what they say.
    However, when the heat of the Earth will finish, the Earth will stop its spinning, and the Moon will be fixed in its place: will not circle around the Earth, and will keep to be a full moon for some while before its destruction.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...ation_of_Moon_


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object
    Oh really? Prove it, scientifcally, quoting a scientifically accurate experiment or source (not the Quran!).

    The Glorious Quran is superior to all sciences; because it is the word of your Lord the Creator, and you deny it; how dare you, and what will you say when you will be inquired in the next afterlife: "Why didn't you follow the Quran while it confirmed the Ten Commandments and invited you to God alone without associate"?

    Anyhow, see some experiments and proofs here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...e_of_the_Heat_

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.
    Yet Pluto spins, and its surface is perenially icy. Pluto also has a moon.
    Pluto is very far and cannot be examined precizely. Charon almost is a moon like Pluto. Pluto is not a planet: but a moon of Neptune.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...rs_about_Pluto


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Energy is not the cause of gravity, unless you wish to refer to Einsteinian arguments. Mass is, and will always be, the most important indicator of gravity. Loss of heat does not mean loss of gravity.

    Gravity is also a manifestation of energy. Mass consists of atoms with nucleus and electrons and include high energy.
    Some infromation you have acquired at schools is not necessarily true; and they may give one aspect of the truth, and cannot prevent any new idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I would ask you to look very closely at where you got this information from.
    you may find the answer here
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The Sun is very hot, and it moves around itself very quickly (km/hr.)
    The Earth is less than it in heat, and it moves less quickly.
    Yes, but you cannot conclude that the speed of rotation of heavenly bodies is proportional to its heat. I showed you the example of Venus.


    The Moon is cold and has a cold core, and it does not move around itself: keeping the same face towards the Earth.
    The Moon shows the same face to the Earth because measurements proved that it rotates around itself and our planet at the same time.
    In other words, you told nonsense: the Moon DOES rotate around itself.



    Liongold wrote:
    I would ask you to look very closely at where you got this information from.


    you may find the answer here
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

    No, enassir. You must find answer in Science, in experiments. You cannot create a theory based on nothing but religious scriptures. that's not rigorous at all. That's nothing but pseudoscience. Your website just shows an interpreter doing concordism and sometimes refuting astronomers with pitiful and naive arguments.


    Thus, don't wonder why you seem to be unreliable.
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    The professor today is dancing

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Many objects in the universe spins on their axes and have no heat whatsoever.
    Which object for example?

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Heat has nothing to do with gravity.
    You have learnt it in the school, and you stuck to it.
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Your holy book is completely wrong. Many objects in the universe spins on their axes and have no heat whatsoever.
    You said that twice...

    He only wants to show us his new cartoon
     

  6. #206  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    While you are here eanassir we are STILL WAITING for the names of those SPECIFIC mountains which are not from earth.....

    You are doing a lot of dancing yourself to avoid this question.
     

  7. #207  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    The Glorious Quran is superior to all sciences; because it is the word of your Lord the Creator, and you deny it; how dare you, and what will you say when you will be inquired in the next afterlife: "Why didn't you follow the Quran while it confirmed the Ten Commandments and invited you to God alone without associate"?
    It's clear eanassir is only here to preach Islamic propaganda, brimstone and hellfire, and does not care about anything else.

    But, to answer your question, eanassir, I wouldn't follow the Quran because not only is it a book of myth and superstitions, it condones lying and warring against kafirs, and that is unequivocally detestable.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  8. #208  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The professor today is dancing
    It's actually Muhammad, and he's not dancing.

    Which object for example?
    Any object that has no heat. The Moon and Mars, just to name local objects.

    You have learnt it in the school, and you stuck to it.
    You clearly have learned nothing in school and have stuck to it.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The professor today is dancing
    It's actually Muhammad, and he's not dancing.
    Despite my observation of your clear ability to devastate in a debate and be completely awesome, I have to say that resulting to really low blows like that are usually a clear indicator that you have lost some kind of debate, especially in an online environment. I know you are definately winning...so what did you gain by this?

    It's especially compounded since my understanding is that eanassir is probably muslim.

    Dirty pool, mister, dirty pool.
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre;
    Prove it.
    The Sun is very hot, and it moves around itself very quickly (km/hr.)
    The Earth is less than it in heat, and it moves less quickly.
    The Moon is cold and has a cold core, and it does not move around itself: keeping the same face towards the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.
    Which shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of simple Netonian dynamics. Mass is what causes gravity, not heat. If heat reduces, the moon will still stay fixed in its orbit, as mass is a constant, thanks to the law of conservation of mass.
    That is what they say.
    However, when the heat of the Earth will finish, the Earth will stop its spinning, and the Moon will be fixed in its place: will not circle around the Earth, and will keep to be a full moon for some while before its destruction.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...ation_of_Moon_


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object
    Oh really? Prove it, scientifcally, quoting a scientifically accurate experiment or source (not the Quran!).

    The Glorious Quran is superior to all sciences; because it is the word of your Lord the Creator, and you deny it; how dare you, and what will you say when you will be inquired in the next afterlife: "Why didn't you follow the Quran while it confirmed the Ten Commandments and invited you to God alone without associate"?

    Anyhow, see some experiments and proofs here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...e_of_the_Heat_

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.
    Yet Pluto spins, and its surface is perenially icy. Pluto also has a moon.
    Pluto is very far and cannot be examined precizely. Charon almost is a moon like Pluto. Pluto is not a planet: but a moon of Neptune.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...rs_about_Pluto


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Energy is not the cause of gravity, unless you wish to refer to Einsteinian arguments. Mass is, and will always be, the most important indicator of gravity. Loss of heat does not mean loss of gravity.

    Gravity is also a manifestation of energy. Mass consists of atoms with nucleus and electrons and include high energy.
    Some infromation you have acquired at schools is not necessarily true; and they may give one aspect of the truth, and cannot prevent any new idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I would ask you to look very closely at where you got this information from.
    you may find the answer here
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    The Moon is cold and has a cold core, and it does not move around itself: keeping the same face towards the Earth.
    Wrong. The Moon does spin; the motions of the Earth and the light of the sun together manage to keep the same side of the moon towards the Earth.

    That is what they say.
    However, when the heat of the Earth will finish, the Earth will stop its spinning, and the Moon will be fixed in its place: will not circle around the Earth, and will keep to be a full moon for some while before its destruction.
    I don't think you actually listened to what I said. If you can name just one experiment that argues for the Earth's heat fading (when global warming means it should actually be heating up), and as a consequence, Earth slowing down, I think we may finally be able to understand each other.

    Gravity is also a manifestation of energy. Mass consists of atoms with nucleus and electrons and include high energy.
    Now you talk of Einsteinian arguments, where mass is a manifestation of energy. In that case, I can easily show to you that the Earth's centre is not cooling down. Have you not heard of the law of conservation of energy? All the energy at the core must be conserved, thanks to this simple conservation law.

    you may find the answer here
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    That the website contradicts all known knowledge without any scientific evidence whatsoever alone is grounds for discarding it.
    Quote something a little more realistic, please.

    The Glorious Quran is superior to all sciences; because it is the word of your Lord the Creator, and you deny it; how dare you, and what will you say when you will be inquired in the next afterlife: "Why didn't you follow the Quran while it confirmed the Ten Commandments and invited you to God alone without associate"?
    I would say simply that I have no reason to believe unduly in a religion prescribed, proposed and worshipped by men, but which no god yet has shown evidence of. If God himself cannot appear upon this Earth and proclaim one religion the only acceptable religion, I see no reason to accept any religion as correct or false.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  11. #211  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid

    Despite my observation of your clear ability to devastate in a debate and be completely awesome, I have to say that resulting to really low blows like that are usually a clear indicator that you have lost some kind of debate, especially in an online environment. I know you are definately winning...so what did you gain by this?

    It's especially compounded since my understanding is that eanassir is probably muslim.

    Dirty pool, mister, dirty pool.
    I always lose debates with Muslims, I simply cannot compete with their logic and their sources, the Quran and the Hadith, which by you know, according to eanassir, "is superior to all sciences; because it is the word of your Lord the Creator."

    How can one compete with that?

    I could ask you, though, is it not "dirty pool" what eanassir is attempting?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The professor today is dancing
    It's actually Muhammad, and he's not dancing.
    Here is an excellent example of your lies. Did you (or the one that draw this drawing) see Mohammed and you (or he) draw his picture?

    But only it is out of your rancor, which is shameful on you. Although I know you, in other sites: you are shameless, and this will not cause you to have any shameful behavior. And according to an Arabic parable: "If you are shameless, you may do whatever you like."

    Moreover, you belong to the Arab region, and you belonged to some Muslim sect here then you apostatised; and this will be double shame on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Which object for example?
    Any object that has no heat. The Moon and Mars, just to name local objects.

    The core of Mars is hot, and some volcanoes are still active on it; it is only its surface that may be cold particularly in the two poles.
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    There are simply too many counter examples for this to be a valid explanation:

    The Sun, by far the hottest body in the Solar system rotates in 24 days, much slower than many of the cooler planets in the Solar System. If heat drove rotation, it would rotate the fastest by far.
    The Sun is very tremendous in relation to any other object in the Solar System; its volume is very great; and the 24 days or more is a great speed; i.e. it moves so quickly in km/hr.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...nt_of_Objects_

    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Mars, a cold dead planet rotates at almost the same rate as the warm geologically active Earth.
    Mars is not dead: its core is very hot, like that of the Earth and may be more; there are some active volcanoes on Mars; one of such active volcanoes is considered the biggest volcano in the Solar System.
    The surface of Mars may be cold particularly its polar regions.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  14. #214  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Here is an excellent example of your lies. Did you (or the one that draw this drawing) see Mohammed and you (or he) draw his picture?
    Sorry, but the depiction of Muhammad in the cartoon is no different from any other imaginative depiction. I could offer many other depictions, all different.

    But only it is out of your rancor, which is shameful on you. Although I know you, in other sites: you are shameless, and this will not cause you to have any shameful behavior. And according to an Arabic parable: "If you are shameless, you may do whatever you like."
    I'm only offering you the disrespect your religion deserves.

    Moreover, you belong to the Arab region, and you belonged to some Muslim sect here then you apostatised; and this will be double shame on you.
    Your track record for being completely wrong is still intact.

    The core of Mars is hot, and some volcanoes are still active on it; it is only its surface that may be cold particularly in the two poles.
    The core of Mars is solid as opposed to earths molten core, yet Mars spins on it's axis and it's solar day is only about 40 minutes longer than Earths solar day. So far, there is no evidence of recent volcanic activity.

    Put down your holy book for awhile and read something else, you might actually learn something.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid


    I could ask you, though, is it not "dirty pool" what eanassir is attempting?
    It really isn't because I don't seem to recall him doing something truely and deeply offensive to your religion. Here's a nice other nugget:

    I'm only offering you the disrespect your religion deserves.
    Though he may be wrong, you don't need to be this offensive about it. While I myself am not offended, I find myself thinking that it only serves to lessen opinions of you when you do things like this. For the record, I am personally vaguely amused at your antics but that doesn't mean in this case I'm going to condone them.

    I hereby confer DOUBLE SHAME upon you...
    lol


    Eanassir, honestly, you should maybe try looking into some of the things you are outright calling lies; if you look into them, find something wrong with them, at least you'll be educated further in why the are wrong, at least in your oh so humble opinion. The ignorance I'm seeing is nothing short of blinding. Being faithful is fine and dandy, but it certainly isn't if you're going to be retarded about it. Having an old book that is not only outdated but poorly, if at all, referenced as your singular source for observation is nothing short of foolish. I suspect, much like the bible, the Quran has many hypocrisys within itself that you are blatantly ignoring.
     

  16. #216  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid

    It really isn't because I don't seem to recall him doing something truely and deeply offensive to your religion.

    I hereby confer DOUBLE SHAME upon you...
    Perhaps, I'll burn TWICE in a lake of fire?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid

    It really isn't because I don't seem to recall him doing something truely and deeply offensive to your religion.

    I hereby confer DOUBLE SHAME upon you...
    Perhaps, I'll burn TWICE in a lake of fire?

    It's like double stuffed oreos but with much less pleasure I think.
     

  18. #218  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid


    It's like double stuffed oreos but with much less pleasure I think.
    Or, as Blackadder would say, "So, it's a fate worse than a fate worse than death..."
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  19. #219  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So far, there is no evidence of recent volcanic activity.
    The detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is evidence for life, or a recent cometary impact, or volcanic activity. So it is not quite correct to say there is no evidence for recent volcanic activity.
     

  20. #220  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So far, there is no evidence of recent volcanic activity.
    The detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is evidence for life, or a recent cometary impact, or volcanic activity. So it is not quite correct to say there is no evidence for recent volcanic activity.
    Good point. Some few parts to a billion were detected a few years ago, imsc. Perhaps I should have further added magma flow, eruptions and the like to clarify.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  21. #221  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Perhaps I should have further added magma flow, eruptions and the like to clarify.
    And, of course, it also depends upon what we mean by recent. In geological terms, for a planet thought to have been 'dead' for a billion years or so, there is interesting material from Global Surveyor of flows within the last 100 million years.
    http://physics.ship.edu/~mrc/astro/N.../ob990203.html

    100 million years may seem quite old, but then there is the work of Vaucher et al, that indicate flows as recently as 10 million years. (That's only twice as old as Lucy, I think!)
    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/RSTGV...GV-A-00583.pdf

    And we can continue with these more recent observations "Here we show that calderas on five major volcanoes on Mars have undergone repeated activation and resurfacing during the last 20 per cent of martian history, with phases of activity as young as two million years, suggesting that the volcanoes are potentially still active today."

    From Neukum et al, "Recent and episodic volcanic and glacial activity on Mars revealed by the High Resolution Stereo Camera" Nature 432, 2004.

    So, all in all, there's quite a lot of evidence for recent volcanic activity. I understand studies of the probable amount of thorium and potassium in the mantle (based upon the observed amount at surface) show sufficient heat could be present to account for a small amount of volcanic activity.
     

  22. #222  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Moreover, you belong to the Arab region, and you belonged to some Muslim sect here...
    All I wanted was to be like Osama.

    http://prophet-muhammad.biz/videomusical.html
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Moreover, you belong to the Arab region, and you belonged to some Muslim sect here...
    All I wanted was to be like Osama.

    http://prophet-muhammad.biz/videomusical.html

    Dude again you went out of your way to be a dick. No matter how much I condone tomfoolery, stuff that is basically only meant to cause harm isn't cool. This is why pseudoscience can't have nice things sir.
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I have to agree with mormoopid here. I appreciate debate, but not when it becomes personal to the point of insults. It would make much more sense to simply reason with him instead of alienating him from your viewpoint by insulting him.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So far, there is no evidence of recent volcanic activity.
    The detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is evidence for life, or a recent cometary impact, or volcanic activity. So it is not quite correct to say there is no evidence for recent volcanic activity.
    Good point. Some few parts to a billion were detected a few years ago, imsc. Perhaps I should have further added magma flow, eruptions and the like to clarify.

    These percentages of the constituents of the atmosphere of Mars are not dependable. Because they used some ways like taking some samples while the capsule is coming down through the atmsophere of Mars.
    Moreover, the constituents of the Earth atmosphere in the high layers of this atmsophere, it is not known exactly; because of the difficulty of checking such constituents high up there: aeroplanes cannot do it, rockets cannot ...etc; therefore they use some balloons and some indirect ways like spectrography ...etc.
    This is on Earth, and the atmosphere is only some tens of kilometers high up; then what about Mars and it is so distant from us !?

    While about what you tell others: Read the Quran.
    The Quran is the word of God in Arabic; it is part of education at least to read the translation of the meaning of the Glorious Quran which cannot be translated but only its meaning may be translated to English and other languages, while the Arabic text should accompany the translation of the meaning.

    So read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry: an English man.

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm

    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://man-after-death.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
     

  26. #226  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Perhaps I should have further added magma flow, eruptions and the like to clarify.
    And, of course, it also depends upon what we mean by recent. In geological terms, for a planet thought to have been 'dead' for a billion years or so, there is interesting material from Global Surveyor of flows within the last 100 million years.
    http://physics.ship.edu/~mrc/astro/N.../ob990203.html

    100 million years may seem quite old, but then there is the work of Vaucher et al, that indicate flows as recently as 10 million years. (That's only twice as old as Lucy, I think!)
    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/RSTGV...GV-A-00583.pdf

    And we can continue with these more recent observations "Here we show that calderas on five major volcanoes on Mars have undergone repeated activation and resurfacing during the last 20 per cent of martian history, with phases of activity as young as two million years, suggesting that the volcanoes are potentially still active today."

    From Neukum et al, "Recent and episodic volcanic and glacial activity on Mars revealed by the High Resolution Stereo Camera" Nature 432, 2004.

    So, all in all, there's quite a lot of evidence for recent volcanic activity. I understand studies of the probable amount of thorium and potassium in the mantle (based upon the observed amount at surface) show sufficient heat could be present to account for a small amount of volcanic activity.

    This is valuable information, particularly:
    "suggesting that the volcanoes are potentially still active today."

    and "the probable amount of thorium and potassium in the mantle (based upon the observed amount at surface) show sufficient heat could be present to account for a small amount of volcanic activity."

    Moreover, this clearly indicates that Astronomers till now have not examined Mars precizely; all what they do is deduction from some observations; and all the matter is still ambiguous, and none can give such absolute facts like: there is no life on Mars, and Mars is dead and cold while its core is hot and may be very hot like that of the Earth as there are polar and equatorial regions on Mars like those of the Earth.

    certainly, the surface of Mars is cold and freezing in some regions, as is it expected because it is farther from the Earth in relation to the Sun, but the more vertical axis and the longer duration of its day may counteract for its distance from the Sun.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  27. #227  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    These percentages of the constituents of the atmosphere of Mars are not dependable. Because they used some ways like taking some samples while the capsule is coming down through the atmsophere of Mars.
    You are mistaken. The readings are extremely dependable. The accuracy and precision of the measuring devices and the measuring process are thoroughly understood, so that the amount of methane present is reliably and dependably determined.

    The measurements can carried out by ground based observations from Earth - using the NASA IRT(Infra Red Telescope) for example, or from Mars orbit, as was the case with the Mars Express PFS(Planetary Fourier Spectrometer).

    Moreover, this clearly indicates that Astronomers till now have not examined Mars precizely;
    It depends upon what you mean by precisely. We have mapped the solid surface of Mars in much greater detail than we have mapped the solid surface of the Earth. Is there more to be discovered? Of course there is. That is the nature of science.

    all what they do is deduction from some observations;
    Science is a method of making deductions and inductions from observations.

    and all the matter is still ambiguous, and none can give such absolute facts like
    Of course there is ambiguity. If there were no ambiguity there would be no grounds for scientific investigation. Science is concerned with removing ambiguity through research. Science does not investigate issues in which ambiguity is absent. What would be the point?

    And in science there are no absolute facts. The findings of science are always provisional.

    and none can give such absolute facts like: there is no life on Mars, and Mars is dead and cold while its core is hot and may be very hot like that of the Earth as there are polar and equatorial regions on Mars like those of the Earth.
    Scientists have not declared there is no life on Mars. They have not declared that Mars is completely dead. Why do you say they have?

    We can say, with a very high certainty indeed, that the interior of Mars is not as hot as that of the Earth. There is absolutely no reason why the presence of 'polar' and 'equatorial' regions on Mars is a reason for the interior of Mars being hot. You have suggested the presence of these regions is a reason to believe the interiior may be hot. That is a mistake on your part.

    certainly, the surface of Mars is cold and freezing in some regions, as is it expected because it is farther from the Earth in relation to the Sun, but the more vertical axis and the longer duration of its day may counteract for its distance from the Sun.
    I am sorry eanassir, I find this difficult. I do not wish to offend, but in so many of your posts you reveal a very deep ignorance of quite simple concepts. In pointing these out I am trying to help you reach an understanding and I am not trying to put you down.

    1. The surface of Mars is cold and freezing in all regions. Temperatures may briefly rise above freezing near the equator.
    2. The axis is not more vertical than that of the Earth. The current Martian axial tilt is 25.19 degrees. The Earth is 23.44 degrees.
    3. The day is longer by less than thirty minutes. That may allow slightly more warming in daylight hours, but it also allows more cooling at night. The effects should balance out.
    4. You seem to think that the surface temperature could dictate the internal temperature of the planet. While the two are related, the primary factor governing the internal temperature is the amount and type of radioactive material in the mantle.
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I suggest you refer to the Wikipediaarticle for more information on Mars:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  29. #229  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid

    Dude again you went out of your way to be a dick. No matter how much I condone tomfoolery, stuff that is basically only meant to cause harm isn't cool. This is why pseudoscience can't have nice things sir.
    What? you don't like musicals? I thought the tune was brilliant.

    Islam is a cancer and a bad joke, and deserves to be treated as such. You might think differently if Muslims had their way and you lived under an Islamic state. I spent (2) years traveling through the Europe and Africa and was aghast at what I saw. If anything is meant to cause serious harm, it is Islam. One merely has to look at HAMAS or Saudi or any other Islamic country to see that.

    And, what eannasir is preaching here is not even pseudoscience, it's Islam. And, you can already see the damage it's done to him, as it's done to most humans under the indoctrinated spell of Islam.

    However, I will cease and desist if you insist, and allow eannasir to continue preaching his brand of insanity. Sorry for offending you guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I have to agree with mormoopid here. I appreciate debate, but not when it becomes personal to the point of insults. It would make much more sense to simply reason with him instead of alienating him from your viewpoint by insulting him.
    Sorry, but you will never, ever be able to reason with an indoctrinated Muslim like eannasir.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  30. #230  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    While about what you tell others: Read the Quran.
    The Quran is the word of God in Arabic; it is part of education...
    See what I mean, guys?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  31. #231  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I have to agree with mormoopid here. I appreciate debate, but not when it becomes personal to the point of insults. It would make much more sense to simply reason with him instead of alienating him from your viewpoint by insulting him.
    Sorry John, but you will never, ever be able to reason with an indoctrinated Muslim like eannasir.
    Those are not my words, but the words of Liongold. Please edit your post accordingly.
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Lol, Q, John didn't say that, I did.

    Sorry John, but you will never, ever be able to reason with an indoctrinated Muslim like eannasir
    I like to think I can. An individual, no matter how thick-headed, must ultimately bow before the power of logic.

    However, I will cease and desist if you insist, and allow eannasir to continue preaching his brand of insanity. Sorry for offending you guys.
    You misunderstand, Q. We don't mind you debating, just ask you not to insult people on personal topics such as religion.

    Islam is a cancer and a bad joke, and deserves to be treated as such. You might think differently if Muslims had their way and you lived under an Islamic state. I spent (2) years traveling through the Europe and Africa and was aghast at what I saw. If anything is meant to cause serious harm, it is Islam. One merely has to look at HAMAS or Saudi or any other Islamic country to see that.
    Yet it was Islam that proved itself to be the driving force behind much discovered by the Arabians. Arabia, during the Dark Ages in Europe, was actually far ahead of Western science, at a time when the Church's teachings held sway. It was only in the Renaissance that Arabia's knowledge was outstripped in capacity.

    Benazir Bhutto, in her memoirs, tried to resolve why Islam treated women as it did. The bare truth was that when Islam was first preached, its teachings were considered, at the time, beneficial and far ahead of its time in its attitude towards women. And in truth, the way women were treated in the West was significantly worse than the way Islamic women were treated. The numerous witch burnings and the Church's - indeed, most professional fields' - attitude towards women is proof of that.

    I do not deny that you have seen much in your travels. Indeed, confined as I am to India, you must have seen more than I have. I only wish to say that the ideas of Islam were for a time when what it preached was treated as common sense and goodwill. Modern men see horror in Islam, yet the way it has been distorted today, I think I can say with confidence, by radicals and revolutionaries, is not the kind of Islam that Muhammed preached.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  33. #233  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    The measurements can carried out by ground based observations from Earth - using the NASA IRT(Infra Red Telescope) for example, or from Mars orbit, as was the case with the Mars Express PFS(Planetary Fourier Spectrometer).
    As I said the measuring of the constituents of the high atmosphere is very difficult; either they use some balloons to collect samples, and this will have some limited high distances, above which they cannot send such balloons, and the maneuver is very difficult indeed, but they have no other choice.

    On the other hand, they may use some indirect means of measuring and detection of such constituents: like the Spectrometer; but this method may give indications about some of the constituents, but certainly, it will not give the percentage and the amount of these gaseous constituents which are different from the constituents of the air (: the troposphere) of which the constituents are easier to be known and their measurements are easier.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Gaseous_Heavens

    And see at the above link: how the gaseous layers originated from the earth itself, and the upper gaseous layers or the seven gaseous heavens were formed.

    In the troposphere, which is the lower layer of the atmosphere, the air is a mixture of many gases like N2, O2, Argon, CO2, water vapor, etc. In the troposphere, there is the wind which keeps these gases in mixture. The cloud also is in this layer.

    The cloud separates between the lower atmosphere or the troposphere and the other layers of the atmosphere.
    This is in the Quran 2: 164
    وَتَصْرِيفِ الرِّيَاحِ وَالسَّحَابِ الْمُسَخِّرِ بَيْنَ السَّمَاء وَالأَرْضِ لآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ
    The explanation:
    (And in the changing of winds, and in clouds that are subjected [into His service] between the sky [or heaven] and the earth, are signs to people who have sense.)

    Here, God –be exalted –explained that the cloud is between the sky and the earth. So, the position of the sky is from the cloud up, while the position of the air is from the cloud down. Therefore, the wind belongs or is related to the earth and not to the sky.
    See this at the end of the subject in this link:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Gaseous_Heavens

    Above the troposphere there are other regions where there is no wind, and the constituents have separated into distinct layers in the stratosphere ...etc.

    I may come to such subject in another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    We have mapped the solid surface of Mars in much greater detail than we have mapped the solid surface of the Earth.
    But not very much; we have seen many of the images obtained from NASA; not very clear like those on Earth giving details of towns and streets …etc. If you do some zoom, the details will be ambiguous.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Science is a method of making deductions and inductions from observations.

    Of course there is ambiguity…. What would be the point?
    This is because some members here denied any possible life on Mars, and claimed that in the name of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Scientists have not declared there is no life on Mars. They have not declared that Mars is completely dead. Why do you say they have?
    Some members here and elsewhere said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    We can say, with a very high certainty indeed, that the interior of Mars is not as hot as that of the Earth.
    You cannot say that absolutely; everyday there is some new discovery, and recently they said the core may not be as solid as they thought before [I have not this link now]. And they may obtain more similar or related information, by time.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    There is absolutely no reason why the presence of 'polar' and 'equatorial' regions on Mars is a reason for the interior of Mars being hot. You have suggested the presence of these regions is a reason to believe the interiior may be hot.
    This was only to demonstrate that not all Mars is frozen, and the ice is only present in the polar regions and on the tops of some mountains, like that on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    1. The surface of Mars is cold and freezing in all regions. Temperatures may briefly rise above freezing near the equator.
    Then why not all its surface is frozen? And the ice is only in the polar regions and on tops of some mountains there?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    2. The axis is not more vertical than that of the Earth. The current Martian axial tilt is 25.19 degrees. The Earth is 23.44 degrees.
    The different inclinations of the planets on their axis is a miracle of God: All Able.
    Such difference in the axes will enable each planet to have its share of the sunlight and sun heat according to its distance from the sun; e.g. a planet as distant as the planet Uranus rotates around an axis inclination of 180 degrees; this will make some areas facing the sun continuously and will be warmer than the rest of such a frozen planet. Moreover there will be some graduation of the temperature: the centre will be more hot, and as long as we go eccentrically the temperature will be less.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    3. The day is longer by less than thirty minutes. That may allow slightly more warming in daylight hours, but it also allows more cooling at night. The effects should balance out.
    A longer day duration will enable more exposure to sun heat; although it may be lost in the long night; but this may not be so; specially the heat loss may be slower than heat gain.

    Just for joking: I saw the Kebab seller: what he does:
    In case the fire is very hot, he will turn the sheesh of the Kebab quickly so that it will not be burnt;
    and when the fire is not very hot, he will turn the sheesh slowly so that the sheesh will be cooked by the fire: his purpose is to let the Kebab roasted but not burnt.

    So similarly, the far planets from the sun will have the duration of the day long, so this may compensate for the far distance of such plants;
    while the near planets to the sun will have short day duration, so that not so much heat will accumulate. Glory be to God!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    4. You seem to think that the surface temperature could dictate the internal temperature of the planet. While the two are related, the primary factor governing the internal temperature is the amount and type of radioactive material in the mantle.
    Not at all; the surface temperature is other than the internal temperature of the planet; it is this internal temperature that makes the planet alive: it spins around itself, and have the gravity that holds its moons …etc.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  34. #234  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I have to agree with mormoopid here. I appreciate debate, but not when it becomes personal to the point of insults. It would make much more sense to simply reason with him instead of alienating him from your viewpoint by insulting him.
    Sorry John, but you will never, ever be able to reason with an indoctrinated Muslim like eannasir.
    Those are not my words, but the words of Liongold. Please edit your post accordingly.
    A thousand apologies, John. I'm really not sure how that mixup occurred.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  35. #235  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Lol, Q, John didn't say that, I did.

    Sorry, but you will never, ever be able to reason with an indoctrinated Muslim like eannasir
    I like to think I can. An individual, no matter how thick-headed, must ultimately bow before the power of logic.
    You may try, but the effort will be in vain. Although, your posts will be read by other peeps who will surely benefit.

    You misunderstand, Q. We don't mind you debating, just ask you not to insult people on personal topics such as religion.
    I am insulting the religion itself, which is fair game. And, I call eannasir a liar if he in fact is lying.


    Yet it was Islam that proved itself to be the driving force behind much discovered by the Arabians. Arabia, during the Dark Ages in Europe, was actually far ahead of Western science, at a time when the Church's teachings held sway. It was only in the Renaissance that Arabia's knowledge was outstripped in capacity.
    Those are lies and propaganda created by Muslims. The so-called, "Golden Age Of Islam" is complete bullshit.

    Benazir Bhutto, in her memoirs, tried to resolve why Islam treated women as it did. The bare truth was that when Islam was first preached, its teachings were considered, at the time, beneficial and far ahead of its time in its attitude towards women. And in truth, the way women were treated in the West was significantly worse than the way Islamic women were treated. The numerous witch burnings and the Church's - indeed, most professional fields' - attitude towards women is proof of that.
    Islam merely reflects the mind of the tribal Arab, who saw women as chattel and treated them as most misogynistic ideologies did, and still do.

    I do not deny that you have seen much in your travels. Indeed, confined as I am to India, you must have seen more than I have. I only wish to say that the ideas of Islam were for a time when what it preached was treated as common sense and goodwill. Modern men see horror in Islam, yet the way it has been distorted today, I think I can say with confidence, by radicals and revolutionaries, is not the kind of Islam that Muhammed preached.
    Muhammad was a murderous despot and slaughtered most of the known world to see his message was instilled in the minds of the conquered, by use of the sword. Islam, or any other Abrahamic religion does not deserve respect by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, we don't respect Nazism, either.

    If modern men see Islam as horrific, can we then say the Crusades never happened?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  36. #236  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    You misunderstand, Q. We don't mind you debating, just ask you not to insult people on personal topics such as religion.
    I am insulting the religion itself, which is fair game. And, I call eannasir a liar if he in fact is lying.
    Actually I have to agree with Liongold and John Galt that at this point and these levels you have become a troll. From what I have seen you have been hijacking every thread related to religion and insulting all participants (eg the merry Christmas/F** religion thread in general discussion. If you hadn't had a long history of valid participation you probably would have been banned by now and if you continue I don't think its long before you are.

    Just my observation
     

  37. #237  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    Actually I have to agree with Liongold and John Galt that at this point and these levels you have become a troll. From what I have seen you have been hijacking every thread related to religion and insulting all participants (eg the merry Christmas/F** religion thread in general discussion. If you hadn't had a long history of valid participation you probably would have been banned by now and if you continue I don't think its long before you are.

    Just my observation
    Fair enough, but can you show me where I insulted the participants themselves as opposed to the ideologies? I would certainly retract them if I did, however I would never retract from insulting the ideology. Other than samcdkey, of course.

    However, based on your observations, I will do better at not trolling and tackling the ideologies with more on-topic discussions.

    Now, could you please tell eannasir to stop trolling?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  38. #238  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    Actually I have to agree with Liongold and John Galt that at this point and these levels you have become a troll. From what I have seen you have been hijacking every thread related to religion and insulting all participants (eg the merry Christmas/F** religion thread in general discussion. If you hadn't had a long history of valid participation you probably would have been banned by now and if you continue I don't think its long before you are.

    Just my observation
    Fair enough, but can you show me where I insulted the participants themselves as opposed to the ideologies? I would certainly retract them if I did, however I would never retract from insulting the ideology. Other than samcdkey, of course.

    However, based on your observations, I will do better at not trolling and tackling the ideologies with more on-topic discussions.

    Now, could you please tell eannasir to stop trolling?
    Thanks

    and to be honest Im not sure why eanassir hasn't already been blocked! :?
     

  39. #239  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Stop trolling eanassir

    There I said it.
     

  40. #240  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Stop trolling eanassir

    There I said it.
    Whew! Glad that's over with... :-D
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    A longer day duration will enable more exposure to sun heat; although it may be lost in the long night; but this may not be so; specially the heat loss may be slower than heat gain.

    Just for joking: I saw the Kebab seller: what he does:
    In case the fire is very hot, he will turn the sheesh of the Kebab quickly so that it will not be burnt;
    and when the fire is not very hot, he will turn the sheesh slowly so that the sheesh will be cooked by the fire: his purpose is to let the Kebab roasted but not burnt.

    So similarly, the far planets from the sun will have the duration of the day long, so this may compensate for the far distance of such plants;
    while the near planets to the sun will have short day duration, so that not so much heat will accumulate. Glory be to God!



    For far planets:

    A day on Jupiter lasts 10hours,
    11 hours on Saturn
    Uranus' sideral rotation lasts 17hours
    Neptun has a 16hours' Day,




    And, for near planets:

    Mercury rotates around itself in 58 days
    and Venus in 243 days.
    The Earth in, as everybody know, 24 hours
    and Mars in about 25 hours




    As we can see, far planets rotate faster than near planets. That's the opposite of what you stated, enassir.

    Thus, your "theory of kebabs" cannot be applied on planets, in the sense that planets near Sun aren't 'programmed' to have a short day to avoid overheating.


    Not at all; the surface temperature is other than the internal temperature of the planet; it is this internal temperature that makes the planet alive: it spins around itself, and have the gravity that holds its moons …etc.

    Why on earth does Venus rotate slowly, whereas it's very hot (even inside) ?
     

  42. #242  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    eanassir,
    I may get around to replying you eventually, but probably not. Your last response was ignorant. By this I mean you demonstrated a deep misunderstanding of almost everything that I posted. I do not know if this a deliberate ignorance, or a circumstantial ignorance. Either way it is frustrating to deal with. I cannot imagine that going through your response point by point, explaining where you are wrong, will have any effect whatsover. You failed to understand the last set of explanations I offered.

    Is there ny hope that you will see sense?
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Now, could you please tell eannasir to stop trolling?
    I may have an inaccurate view of trolls, but could you explain to me how eannasir is trolling?

    Unless posting about things which you think are right but most others know are wrong is trolling? In which case, you are right and I need to revise my understanding of 'Troll'.
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    [quote="Hazz"]
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Now, could you please tell eannasir to stop trolling?
    I may have an inaccurate view of trolls, but could you explain to me how eannasir is trolling?

    Unless posting about things which you think are right but most others know are wrong is trolling? In which case, you are right and I need to revise my understanding of 'Troll'.
    I don't agree with eannasir either but I understand your point: I would not describe him as a troll. Perhaps I also need to "revise my understanding" of the term!
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I may have an inaccurate view of trolls, but could you explain to me how eannasir is trolling?
    By trolling, we mean to say mainly that we ar either ignorantly continuing on with our assumptions in the face of blind valid contradiction or by generally being rude.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    I thought an internet "troll" was an individual who posted in order to cause trouble or conflict on an internet forum.
    In other words the "troll" has an agenda and this has nothing to do with the truth or accuracy of the his/her posts.
    At the present time I tend to think that "eannasir" believes his posts to be accurate and truthful.
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Indeed he does. But he does have an agenda, which is not to discuss but instead to feed us false information about mountains in the mistaken belief that the Quran is correct in every instance.

    Would that not count as trolling?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Indeed he does. But he does have an agenda, which is not to discuss but instead to feed us false information about mountains in the mistaken belief that the Quran is correct in every instance.

    Would that not count as trolling?
    If he does believe his posts are accurate and truthful then I cannot see how his agenda can be "to feed us false information" even if, objectively, that is what he is doing. He seems to draw his beliefs from the Koran and you admit he believes the Koran to be correct in every instance.
    If I believe someone is giving an honest account of their views, in a post, I do not regard them as a "troll" but perhaps my definition is mistaken.
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    What you say is correct. However, isn't disregarding all information contrary to what the Quran says going a little too far? If you looked through the prevbious pages, at almost every page eanassir has thrust his views forward and has carried on blindly even in the face of overwhleming contradiction. He claims, for example, that gravity is caused by heat, when it is well known that gravity is caused by mass.

    I accept what you say, but believing in your views and being blind to the truth are two different things.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    I'm not a fan of eannasir's views and opinions either.
    For me, a troll is simply a "wind-up merchant" looking to get some kind of emotional reaction from other individuals/posters and the truth/accuracy of his posts matter not a jot to him.
     

  51. #251  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Indeed he does. But he does have an agenda, which is not to discuss but instead to feed us false information about mountains in the mistaken belief that the Quran is correct in every instance.

    Would that not count as trolling?
    If he does believe his posts are accurate and truthful then I cannot see how his agenda can be "to feed us false information" even if, objectively, that is what he is doing. He seems to draw his beliefs from the Koran and you admit he believes the Koran to be correct in every instance.
    If I believe someone is giving an honest account of their views, in a post, I do not regard them as a "troll" but perhaps my definition is mistaken.
    Eannasir's agenda is quite obvious, to present his interpretation of the Quran, which is indeed highly controversial, whether he believes it to be the truth or not. Indeed, he is trolling. By ignoring anything that is presented to him in favor of his agenda would probably also place him in the category of a woo-woo.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Eannasir's agenda is quite obvious, to present his interpretation of the Quran, which is indeed highly controversial, whether he believes it to be the truth or not. Indeed, he is trolling. By ignoring anything that is presented to him in favor of his agenda would probably also place him in the category of a woo-woo.
    I feel reluctant to characterise certain posts as examples of trolling simply because they are "highly controversial" or even if, as in this case, they are also largely drivel.
    Also I find it difficult to understand why someone would bother "to present his interpretation of the Qur'an" even if he did not believe it to be the truth!
    It seems that a definition of trolling is highly subjective.
     

  53. #253  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    For far planets:

    A day on Jupiter lasts 10hours,
    11 hours on Saturn
    Uranus' sideral rotation lasts 17hours
    Neptun has a 16hours' Day,



    And, for near planets:

    Mercury rotates around itself in 58 days
    and Venus in 243 days.
    The Earth in, as everybody know, 24 hours
    and Mars in about 25 hours

    As we can see, far planets rotate faster than near planets.

    These measurements are not dependable, and many of such data are wrong.

    I give you an example:
    The gaseous planets like Saturn and Jupiter; this is not correct; these planets are not gaseous; I think they are like the Earth and the rest of the planets, but because these planets are so tremendous in size, they have great atmospheres, and this gave them this mistake: because they measured the mass and the volume with the huge atmosphere and calculated wrongly the specific gravity to reach such wrong conclusions.

    The indication for this:
    When the famous impact of the last comet happened on Jupiter, the fireballs rebounced after impacting the solid surface of Jupiter, and scientists took the images of that event. And Jupiter has a solid surface, not gaseous.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Why on earth does Venus rotate slowly, whereas it's very hot (even inside) ?
    Venus is not hot inside; its surface is hot, particularly the side facing the Sun, but its core has become cold; therefore, its spinning around itself slowed down until it has stopped its spinning.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation

    Before stopping completely from spinning, the planet will slow down having its day prolonged gradually until ten long nights will come: each about 3 or 6 months, before it stops completely like Mercury which had stopped before Venus.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation

    The Earth will follow Venus in this respect, when its internal heat will be lost, and the same events will also occur on the Earth that occurred on Venus.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_


    Here the "Kebab theory" is inapplicable; because the fire has been extinguished and the sheesh will not be spinned.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    These measurements are not dependable, and many of such data are wrong.

    I give you an example:
    The gaseous planets like Saturn and Jupiter; this is not correct; these planets are not gaseous; I think they are like the Earth and the rest of the planets, but because these planets are so tremendous in size, they have great atmospheres, and this gave them this mistake: because they measured the mass and the volume with the huge atmosphere and calculated wrongly the specific gravity to reach such wrong conclusions.

    The indication for this:
    When the famous impact of the last comet happened on Jupiter, the fireballs rebounced after impacting the solid surface of Jupiter, and scientists took the images of that event. And Jupiter has a solid surface, not gaseous.

    About the internal composition of Jupiter and Saturn, it's true that their are based on theories.


    termina wrote:
    Why on earth does Venus rotate slowly, whereas it's very hot (even inside) ?


    Venus is not hot inside; its surface is hot, particularly the side facing the Sun, but its core has become cold; therefore, its spinning around itself slowed down until it has stopped its spinning.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation

    Before stopping completely from spinning, the planet will slow down having its day prolonged gradually until ten long nights will come: each about 3 or 6 months, before it stops completely like Mercury which had stopped before Venus.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation

    The Earth will follow Venus in this respect, when its internal heat will be lost, and the same events will also occur on the Earth that occurred on Venus.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_


    Here the "Kebab theory" is inapplicable; because the fire has been extinguished and the sheesh will not be spinned. Smile


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    Errr... recent measurements for solid planets shows that they keep on rotating around their axis. Even the Moon.

    For instance: Venus' rotational movement is a fact because we even know that it rotates clockwise.



    Your website bring no proofs about Mercury and Venus' rotation halting; except a certain Reshied Rushdi who doesn't carry weight compared to all Nasa astronomers. Thus, you must bring stronger evidences for the contrary.
     

  55. #255  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Errr... recent measurements for solid planets shows that they keep on rotating around their axis. Even the Moon.

    For instance: Venus' rotational movement is a fact because we even know that it rotates clockwise.

    The movement of Moon:

    Moon circles around the Earth, but it does not spin around itself.
    The indication of this is that it shows one face towards the Earth; the other face is invisible. If it spins around itself, then all its surface will be visible; then why is the other face invisible to us?

    It is on the visible face that we see the phases of Moon
    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 10: 5
    هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ ضِيَاء وَالْقَمَرَ نُورًا وَقَدَّرَهُ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعْلَمُواْ عَدَدَ السِّنِينَ وَالْحِسَابَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ ذَلِكَ إِلاَّ بِالْحَقِّ يُفَصِّلُ الآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (It is He Who made the sun: [light-] emitting
    and the moon: light[-reflecting]
    and decreed for her stages [of the moon during its circling around the earth];
    that you [people] may know the counting of years and the calculation [of months and days.]
    God created not that but with the true [promise of destroying them at their appointed term];
    He expounds the revelations [in the future] to a people who know [astronomy, and they will believe.] )

    Some say: this is because it spins around itself in the same time as does it circle around the Earth; but this is obviously wrong.

    And if we accept that it spins around itself in this strange way; then what makes it move in this strict way exactly as do they claim?

    Moreover, there are other moons belonging to some other planets that move in this way: each keeps one face towards its mother planet.


    The movement of Venus:

    Venus too moves in this same way like the Moon: it circles around the Sun with one face towards the Sun, while the other face does not face it; i.e. one of its hemisphere is very hot because it always faces the Sun and has a perpetual day, while the other half is always in darkness of its night and therefore is very cold and freezing.

    They observed Venus when it was very near to Earth, and saw it kept the same face towards the Earth, and said this is very strange and inexplainable.

    http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html
    "Venus' rotation is somewhat unusual in that it is both very slow (243 Earth days per Venus day, slightly longer than Venus' year) and retrograde.
    In addition, the periods of Venus' rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance effect or merely a coincidence is not known."

    However, we can give the explanation:
    This is because Venus does not rotate around itself (after it lost its internal heat.) like what had happened to Mercury before. And this can explain the hard circumstances of these two planets.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Axial_Rotation


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  56. #256  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Moon circles around the Earth, but it does not spin around itself.
    Then, how is it possible we always view the same side of the moon?

    why is the other face invisible to us?
    Because the moon rotates on it's axis. This is a simple experiment one can conduct at home.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  57. #257  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Moon circles around the Earth, but it does not spin around itself.
    Then, how is it possible we always view the same side of the moon?

    why is the other face invisible to us?
    Because the moon rotates on it's axis. This is a simple experiment one can conduct at home.

    Then why does it spin exactly as such [according to their claim]?

    For had it spinned slower or quicker, then we shall see the other side eventhough gradually.

    This only to demonstrate the subject, while actually it does not spin around itself, but is locked in its orbit around the Earth with one face only confronting its mother Earth.

    It is on this visible face that we see the Moon phases.

    And it is in the Quran 36: 39
    وَالْقَمَرَ قَدَّرْنَاهُ مَنَازِلَ حَتَّى عَادَ كَالْعُرْجُونِ الْقَدِيمِ
    The explanation:
    (And the moon –– We have decreed it[s] phases, till it returns like an old 'curved stalk of a date-clusters.')

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...s_of_the_Moon_


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The movement of Moon:

    Moon circles around the Earth, but it does not spin around itself.
    The indication of this is that it shows one face towards the Earth; the other face is invisible. If it spins around itself, then all its surface will be visible; then why is the other face invisible to us?

    It is on the visible face that we see the phases of Moon
    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 10: 5
    هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ ضِيَاء وَالْقَمَرَ نُورًا وَقَدَّرَهُ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعْلَمُواْ عَدَدَ السِّنِينَ وَالْحِسَابَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ ذَلِكَ إِلاَّ بِالْحَقِّ يُفَصِّلُ الآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (It is He Who made the sun: [light-] emitting
    and the moon: light[-reflecting]
    and decreed for her stages [of the moon during its circling around the earth];
    that you [people] may know the counting of years and the calculation [of months and days.]
    God created not that but with the true [promise of destroying them at their appointed term];
    He expounds the revelations to a people who know [astronomy, and they will believe.] )

    Some say: this is because it spins around itself in the same time as does it circles around the Earth; but this is obviously wrong.
    Why would it be wrong? (a piece of advice: don't use the analogy of a father playing with his child, it's too simplisitic.)


    And if we accept that it spins around itself in this strange way; then what makes it move in this strict way exactly as do they claim?
    Well, it's the torque of the Earth.


    We have Eros, an ateroid. It rotates very quicly around its axis (5 hours), and yet it mustn't be internally hotter than the Sun.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/433_Eros
     

  59. #259  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Then why does it spin exactly as such [according to their claim]?

    For had it spinned slower or quicker, then we shall see the other side eventhough gradually.

    This only to demonstrate the subject, while actually it does not spin around itself, but is locked in its orbit around the Earth with one face only confronting its mother Earth.
    That is why I stated that this is an experiment you could easily do at home. Place your holy book, for example, in the middle of the floor. Walk around it as if you were in orbit, facing it at all times. Go half way around the book and you'll find that you are now looking the opposite direction from where you began. If you wish, have someone else stand in the position you started from and you'll find you are now facing them. Keep going all the way round to the beginning and you'll find that you rotated once. Use a video camera on yourself if you need to see the rotation from another view.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  60. #260  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    About the glorious Quran:
    Read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm

    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)

    --------------------------------------------------
    Now for both of you termina and Q: either of you did not explain why does it act in this strange way: why does it exactly go in such way of claimed spinning around itself; had it spinned somewhat slower or quicker, then we would have seen the other side eventhough gradually.

    Moreover, even if what you say is true, then anyhow it has this way of movement so that it keeps the same face towards the Earth, as do some moons belonging to some other planets.
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    An article explaining how planets make their moons showing the same face:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking




    We have Eros, an ateroid. It rotates very quicly around its axis (5 hours), and yet it mustn't be internally hotter than the Sun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/433_Eros

    So, that seem to refute your theory of heat providing rotational movement.
    In fact, any bodies in space that recieved an impuslion keep on moving.


    Regaring Venus, its period of rotation and that of orbit aren't exactly in resonance:
    its day takes 243day whereas its year lasts 224day.

    So, according to measurement, Venus spins. Indeed, otherwise we couldn't know that that planet rotates clockwise and at a velocity of 6 km/hour.
     

  62. #262  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    An article explaining how planets make their moons showing the same face:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking




    We have Eros, an ateroid. It rotates very quicly around its axis (5 hours), and yet it mustn't be internally hotter than the Sun.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/433_Eros


    So, that seem to refute your theory of heat providing rotational movement.

    Regaring Venus, its period of rotation and that of orbit aren't exactly in resonance:
    its day take 243day whereas its year lasts 224day.

    So, according to measurement, Venus spins. Indeed, otherwise we couldn't know that that planet rotates clockwise and at a velocity of 6 km/hour.


    I want from termina to free himself from the lectures and textbooks and think the matter and consider the subject:

    Venus - as do they claim - circles around the sun before it completes one spin around itself! What could this mean? And when it comes near to the Earth, Venus show one face towards the Earth!

    For the moon - as do they claim - it spins around itself in the same time as it completes one circle around the Earth, and they say this is the torque of the Earth; ok then without this torque; it does not spin around itself.

    Moreover, this Asteroid "433 Eros": it is irregular in shape; how could it spin around itself? At least its movement will be bizarre; it cannot be that they checked it exactly.
     

  63. #263  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Now for both of you termina and Q: either of you did not explain why does it act in this strange way: why does it exactly go in such way of claimed spinning around itself; had it spinned somewhat slower or quicker, then we would have seen the other side eventhough gradually.
    In the past, the rotation was most likely different, but over time, the moon has become tidally locked with the earth. Explanations for this phenomena are easily attainable.

    Moreover, even if what you say is true, then anyhow it has this way of movement so that it keeps the same face towards the Earth, as do some moons belonging to some other planets.
    That may very well be the case, but the fact remains that the moon rotates on it's axis, which refutes your holy book.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  64. #264  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    About the glorious Quran:
    Read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm

    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)
    More fallacious nonsense. Muslims often use that excuse to no avail. Languages can be translated from one to other and still retain their meaning. It is the interpretation of holy books by their followers that is the dispute, which is self-evident in the many sects of Islam, for example.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  65. #265  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87

    I want from termina to free himself from the lectures and textbooks and think the matter and consider the subject:

    Venus - as do they claim - circles around the sun before it completes one spin around itself! What could this mean? And when it comes near to the Earth, Venus show one face towards the Earth!
    Yes, so what? How do we know that it spins clockwise?


    For the moon - as do they claim - it spins around itself in the same time as it completes one circle around the Earth, and they say this is the torque of the Earth; ok then without this torque; it does not spin around itself.
    Actually, when our Moon was attracted to the Earth, its torque slow down the velocity of Earth's rotation (through tides, for instance), and Earth's torque did the same to the Moon until the period of rotation equaled to that of revolution.

    So, without the torque, the Moon would spin faster.




    Moreover, this Asteroid "433 Eros": it is irregular in shape; how could it spin around itself? At least its movement will be bizarre; it cannot be that they checked it exactly.


    The animation here speaks for itself:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._a_7000_km.gif



    I want from termina to free himself from the lectures and textbooks and think the matter and consider the subject:
    But, if that may lead to make pseudo-scientific theories (for instance, falling mountains, gravity provoked by heat) with various non-credible example (non for falling mountains, wrongly interpreted experiments, too simplisyic analogies, ect...), then I can't do so.
     

  66. #266  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Now for both of you termina and Q: either of you did not explain why does it act in this strange way: why does it exactly go in such way of claimed spinning around itself; had it spinned somewhat slower or quicker, then we would have seen the other side eventhough gradually.
    In the past, the rotation was most likely different, but over time, the moon has become tidally locked with the earth. Explanations for this phenomena are easily attainable.

    Moreover, even if what you say is true, then anyhow it has this way of movement so that it keeps the same face towards the Earth, as do some moons belonging to some other planets.
    That may very well be the case, but the fact remains that the moon rotates on it's axis, which refutes your holy book.


    About the glorious Quran, read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm
    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Moon in the past was part of the Earth and it detached from it, and started to orbit around the Earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...ir_Formation._

    This is in the Quran13: 41
    أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْاْ أَنَّا نَأْتِي الأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا وَاللّهُ يَحْكُمُ لاَ مُعَقِّبَ لِحُكْمِهِ وَهُوَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ
    The explanation: (See they* not that We come to the earth and reduce it from its edges ? God judges and there is none to change His judgment: and He is Swift in punishment.)
    [* the idolaters (or associaters) of Mecca.]

    >> ( reduce it from its edges) means: We detach their edges or prominences from them, in order that they will be spherical and those edges will become the moons that shine for them.


    At the start the Moon was hot, and it started to circle around the Earth and to rotate around itself; but because it is relatively a small object it lost its internal heat more quickly; therefore it stopped its axial rotation, while it kept up circling around its mother Earth.

    If we go along with some astronomers about their claim: that the Moon spins in the same time as does it circle around the Earth by the effect of the "torque";
    then anyhow without this claimed torque, the Moon practically does not move around itself, but only keeps up circling around the Earth showing her only one of its two sides.



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  67. #267  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The Moon in the past was part of the Earth and it detached from it, and started to orbit around the Earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...ir_Formation._

    This is in the Quran13: 41
    أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْاْ أَنَّا نَأْتِي الأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا وَاللّهُ يَحْكُمُ لاَ مُعَقِّبَ لِحُكْمِهِ وَهُوَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ
    The explanation: (See they* not that We come to the earth and reduce it from its edges ? God judges and there is none to change His judgment: and He is Swift in punishment.)
    [* the idolaters (or associaters) of Mecca.]

    >> ( reduce it from its edges) means: We detach their edges or prominences from them, in order that they will be spherical and those edges will become the moons that shine for them.

    1° There are a lot of hypothesis on Moon's formation. The widely accepeted one is that of an asteroid that collided with our planet.

    2° It's a stretch of imagination to see in "reducing it from its edges" the formation of Moon he described. If this verse really mention Moon's formation, it would be more precise. Indeed, science is precision. Nostradamus predictions are vague, so we can make the same kind of intepretations, always a posteriori.

    3° The intepreter is flaw, he writes that the term 'they' in this verse refered to Meccan mushrikun. But how could they know Moon formation?

    4° Anyway, the verse is at present tense; to refer to Moon's formation, it must be at past tense.






    At the start the Moon was hot, and it started to circle around the Earth and to rotate around itself; but because it is relatively a small object it lost its internal heat more quickly; therefore it stopped its axial rotation, while it kept up circling around its mother Earth.

    If we go along with some astronomers about their claim: that the Moon spins in the same time as does it circle around the Earth by the effect of the "torque";
    then anyhow without this claimed torque, the Moon practically does not move around itself, but only keeps up circling around the Earth showing her only one of its two sides.
    No. I said that Moon spins due to a first impuslion (that's concevable, because any object in space that recieved an impuslion keep on moving forever if it isn't slown down) , and I explained you that without Earth's torque, it would, on the contrary, spins faster.

    BTW, do you still believe that the Earth used to be a Sun (which isn't the Sun we can see everyday) that gradually cooled?
     

  68. #268  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    About the glorious Quran:
    Read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm

    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)
    More fallacious nonsense. Muslims often use that excuse to no avail. Languages can be translated from one to other and still retain their meaning. It is the interpretation of holy books by their followers that is the dispute, which is self-evident in the many sects of Islam, for example.

    This indicates you are Muslim in origin; although a large number of Muslims belong to the Islam by name only.

    The one that reviles more than all others.

    The foriegner has some politeness and morale to prevent him from transgressing on others; but you [I know who you are] kept up reviling the Islam, the Prophet and God - be glorified. And shame on you. And double shame on you, because you belonged to some Muslim sect then you apostatized, then started to transgress and revile God and all the prophets; this is only to your disadvantage and shame be on you double fold.
    This even is not any way of any scientist or at least science-related man.
     

  69. #269  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    About the glorious Quran:
    Read at least the translation of the meaning of the Quran by a non-muslim translator: A J Arberry

    http://mlivo.com/translations/Arberry.htm

    (although his translation is much defective; and any translation is only the translation of the meaning according to the understanding of such translator.)
    More fallacious nonsense. Muslims often use that excuse to no avail. Languages can be translated from one to other and still retain their meaning. It is the interpretation of holy books by their followers that is the dispute, which is self-evident in the many sects of Islam, for example.

    This indicates you are Muslim in origin; although a large number of Muslims belong to the Islam by name only.

    The one that reviles more than all others.

    The foriegner has some politeness and morale to prevent him from transgressing on others; but you [I know who you are] kept up reviling the Islam, the Prophet and God - be glorified. And shame on you. And double shame on you, because you belonged to some Muslim sect then you apostatized, then started to transgress and revile God and all the prophets; this is only to your disadvantage and shame be on you double fold.
    This even is not any way of any scientist or at least science-related man.
    Stick to the topic you chose in your opening post please.

    Do you have any PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC literature to back your claims?

    O and I STILL want a list of SPECIFIC mountains which are not from earth. you have been very careful to ignore each and every one of our requests for this information which you professed to have.
     

  70. #270  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    1° There are a lot of hypothesis on Moon's formation. The widely accepeted one is that of an asteroid that collided with our planet.

    How can you be sure about this; have you or anyone else seen such a thing happening by a telescope or an event like this that may result in the detachment of Moon; this may lead to much damage in the earth or its breaking up rather than a moon may be detached.

    More reasonable: Because the Earth was spinning quickly in the past, and was very hot and had some protrusions or edges (was not regularly spherical) and was not very hard at the start; then it will be more reasonable for the formation of moons: our moon and the rest of the moons of the other planets.

    Moreover, if an asteroid hit the Earth, as do they imagine, then will the other moons of the other planets formed by other asteroids hitting of those planets?


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    2° It's a stretch of imagination to see in "reducing it from its edges" the formation of Moon he described. If this verse really mention Moon's formation, it would be more precise. Indeed, science is precision. Nostradamus predictions are vague, so we can make the same kind of intepretations, always a posteriori.
    The ambiguous ayat of the Quran have their meaning covert, and will be known in the fututre; because people at that time did not know many sciences, as do the contemporary people do not know the knowledge of the future people.

    The Quran include a large number of marvels and secrets that will be revealed and explained in the future, to be a miracle of the Quran and a miracle of the interpreter; because even scientists and religious clerics cannot know the meaning of many ayat.

    Moreover, nothing as "Posteri" as have you called it. E.g. the Quran foretells a future meeting with the people of Mars and some other planets on one hand with the people of Earth on the other hand. The thing which have not been proved yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    3° The intepreter is flaw, he writes that the term 'they' in this verse refered to Meccan mushrikun. But how could they know Moon formatio

    He is not flaw: he interpreted it in another way later on: This is related to the Meccans: the idolaters, and God explains to them that the land is being taken from their control gradually; therefore it is better for them to convert. This is the idea in general. It may be this aya has two meanings and give two implications.

    And although the idolaters of Mecca did not of course know the formation of Moon; but God may expressed their words in some way to give the telling about Moon formation.

    E.g. the aya 54: 1-2
    اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ . وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً يُعْرِضُوا وَيَقُولُوا سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ
    The explanation:
    (1- The hour [of their death] has become imminent, and the moon split [and detached from the earth in the past, and will split into two halves in the future, just before Doomsday.]
    2-Yet if they see a sign, they will turn away, and keep up saying, ‘ [the Quran is] a magic!’)

    The reason for revealing this aya of the Quran, was that Quraish, the tribe of Prophet Mohammed - Peace be on him – laughed and mocked at Mohammed and said to him: “If, really, you are a prophet, then cleave the moon apart into two halves. Only in case you do that we shall believe you!” Therefore, this aya of the Quran was revealed.

    The interpretation:
    >> ( The hour [of their death] has become imminent) means: the hour of their death has approached and become very near; and We shall punish them for their stubbornness and mocking.
    >> ( and the moon split [and detached from the earth in the past, and will split into two halves in the future, just before Doomsday.] ) means: the moon had cleft and parted from the Earth in the past, i.e. detached from it, and it will also cleave when Doomsday is nearby.
    >> (Yet if they see a sign, they will turn away, and keep up saying, ‘ [the Quran is] a magic!’) means: If We show them, nowadays, one of Our manifest signs [or miracles] like the cleavage of the moon, or the other signs which they have demanded, and they see it with their own eyes, then after all, they will not believe in you, Mohammed, because of their stubbornness, but on the contrary, they will go astray, away from you, and will say: it [: the Quran] is merely a magic, and will go on saying that the Quran is a magic.



    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    4° Anyway, the verse is at present tense; to refer to Moon's formation, it must be at past tense.

    Refer to the above explanation. In addition, it may give an idea for the formation of Moons in general: how they are detached from the planets.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    No. I said that Moon spins due to a first impuslion (that's concevable, because any object in space that recieved an impuslion keep on moving forever if it isn't slown down) , and I explained you that without Earth's torque, it would, on the contrary, spins faster.

    How can you be sure concerning this? And why do you deny the central heat of the planet as the causative of its rotation, so that when this heat decreases gradually, the planet movement will gradually slow down until it stops completely from rotating around themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    BTW, do you still believe that the Earth used to be a Sun (which isn't the Sun we can see everyday) that gradually cooled?
    Have I ever told you that I disbelieved that the Earth and the rest of the planets were one earth and that earth was a flaming sun?
     

  71. #271  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Yes, so what? How do we know that it spins clockwise?
    When it was near to the Earth, they observed it more clearly and saw it keeps the same face towards the Earth: it means: it does not rotate around itself; so that the same face was kept facing the Earth.

    In addition, the rotation of Venus around itself opposite to the other planets give some idea about their wrong thinking: why it is opposite to the rest of the planets?

    The Sun spins from right to left and drag the planets to circle around it in this same direction: from right to left, and all the planets spin around themselves in this same direction: from right to left;

    then why does Venus spin [as do they claim] in the opposite direction?

    But because Venus does not rotate around itself, they thought it rotates in the opposite direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Actually, when our Moon was attracted to the Earth, its torque slow down the velocity of Earth's rotation (through tides, for instance), and Earth's torque did the same to the Moon until the period of rotation equaled to that of revolution.

    So, without the torque, the Moon would spin faster.
    How do you know that this what happened exactly and you speak so certain?

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The animation here speaks for itself:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._a_7000_km.gif

    This bizarre movement is not rotation: it is only turning awkwardly, because of the irregularity of its shape.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    But, if that may lead to make pseudo-scientific theories (for instance, falling mountains, gravity provoked by heat) with various non-credible example (non for falling mountains, wrongly interpreted experiments, too simplisyic analogies, ect...), then I can't do so.
    These are not pseudo-scientific theories; it is only many of you that consider it so; but they are more logical than your theories: of the torque that kept the Moon and the explantion of the unusual movement of Venus and the denying of the falling of portions of the past planets that carried life to Earth and the rest of the present planets and the denial of the people on Mars and the other planets.

    In addition, you will not admit that you were wrong when the things will be proved that Mars has people on it, but you will only say: Yes, it could be; we did not say that there is no life or no water; the Quran was not the only book that said so; because it is a matter of belief and that is up to God alone.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...Are_Inhabited_

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Is_Successful_

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...pated_Meeting_



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  72. #272  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    This indicates you are Muslim in origin; although a large number of Muslims belong to the Islam by name only.
    I've read your holy book as I've read a number of holy books, but I'm not Muslim nor ever have been.

    The foriegner has some politeness and morale to prevent him from transgressing on others; but you [I know who you are] kept up reviling the Islam, the Prophet and God - be glorified. And shame on you. And double shame on you, because you belonged to some Muslim sect then you apostatized, then started to transgress and revile God and all the prophets; this is only to your disadvantage and shame be on you double fold.
    And you refuse to learn. Triple triple shame on you.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  73. #273  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    And you refuse to learn. Triple triple shame on you.

    The shame and disgrace for the disbeliever and atheist is of two kinds:

    1- The disgrace in the present life of the World:
    This is for those who disbelieve in God alone and disbelieve in the apostle of God. They will be afflicted by the punishment of the disgrace in the life of the World like:
    >> the earthquake of Lot's people, the tribe of Thamood, and the people of Prophet Shuaib,
    >> the deluge of Noah's people
    >> and the hurricanes of the tribe of Aad.

    As in the Quran 10: 98
    إِلاَّ قَوْمَ يُونُسَ لَمَّآ آمَنُواْ كَشَفْنَا عَنْهُمْ عَذَابَ الخِزْيِ فِي الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَمَتَّعْنَاهُمْ إِلَى حِينٍ
    The explanation:
    (… as did the folk of Jonah: when [they saw the torment coming on them] they believed [so at that time] We drew off from them the torment of disgrace in the life of the World, and gave them comfort for a while [: till the end of their life, when their death appointment was due.] )

    2- The disgrace in the next afterlife:
    They will be exposed before the souls of people on Judgment Day, and whatever sins and crimes they did will be displayed before people like the movie film.

    This is like His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 26: 87-89 about Abraham's prayer:
    وَلَا تُخْزِنِي يَوْمَ يُبْعَثُونَ . يَوْمَ لَا يَنفَعُ مَالٌ وَلَا بَنُونَ . إِلَّا مَنْ أَتَى اللَّهَ بِقَلْبٍ سَلِيمٍ
    The explanation:
    ("And bring not shame on me on the day when they will be sent [to the Hereafter.]

    "The day whereon neither wealth nor sons will avail [any disbeliever]."

    "But only he [will prosper] that comes to God with an intact heart.
    [: a heart without association with God, without hypocrisy, without wrong-doing and without stinginess]")
     

  74. #274  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The shame and disgrace for the disbeliever and atheist is of two kinds:

    1- The disgrace in the present life of the World:
    This is for those who disbelieve in God alone and disbelieve in the apostle of God. They will be afflicted by the punishment of the disgrace in the life of the World like:
    >> the earthquake of Lot's people, the tribe of Thamood, and the people of Prophet Shuaib,
    >> the deluge of Noah's people
    >> and the hurricanes of the tribe of Aad.
    Ah, that would explain the tsunami of 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people, they must all have been disbelievers, geographically speaking, and Allah decided their punishments? How many of the dead were Muslims?


    2- The disgrace in the next afterlife:
    They will be exposed before the souls of people on Judgment Day, and whatever sins and crimes they did will be displayed before people like the movie film.
    Would that be a Hollywood movie film or Bollywood movie film?

    "But only he [will prosper] that comes to God with an intact heart.
    [: a heart without association with God, without hypocrisy, without wrong-doing and without stinginess]")
    You best be careful then, you've presented to us from your holy book that which reeks of hypocrisy and wrong-doing. Are you ready for your fate in hellfire?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Ah, that would explain the tsunami of 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people, they must all have been disbelievers, geographically speaking, and Allah decided their punishments? How many of the dead were Muslims?

    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 11: 117
    وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ لِيُهْلِكَ الْقُرَى بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا مُصْلِحُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Nor would your Lord [O Mohammed] destroy the cities unjustly when their people being reformers.)

    And He – be exalted – said in the Quran 28: 59
    وَمَا كُنَّا مُهْلِكِي الْقُرَى إِلَّا وَأَهْلُهَا ظَالِمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (We never destroyed the cities unless that their people were wrong-doers.)

    This means: it is not necessarily the people [destroyed by many of the afflictions of God's punishment] are Muslims or non-Muslims; all of them are His servants; any of them that associates others [like Jesus, saints, Moses, sages, Ali or imams) with God ––– they will be punished according to their association with God and their wronging each other.
     

  76. #276  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    How can you be sure about this; have you or anyone else seen such a thing happening by a telescope or an event like this that may result in the detachment of Moon; this may lead to much damage in the earth or its breaking up rather than a moon may be detached.
    This is an hypothesis. But in early times, the Earth had probably different properties, and the size of the asteroid may be a factor.



    More reasonable: Because the Earth was spinning quickly in the past, and was very hot and had some protrusions or edges (was not regularly spherical) and was not very hard at the start; then it will be more reasonable for the formation of moons: our moon and the rest of the moons of the other planets.
    No, Earth's Gravity was able to hold those edges.




    Moreover, if an asteroid hit the Earth, as do they imagine, then will the other moons of the other planets formed by other asteroids hitting of those planets?
    Depends. Each planet is original.


    termina wrote:
    2° It's a stretch of imagination to see in "reducing it from its edges" the formation of Moon he described. If this verse really mention Moon's formation, it would be more precise. Indeed, science is precision. Nostradamus predictions are vague, so we can make the same kind of intepretations, always a posteriori.


    The ambiguous ayat of the Quran have their meaning covert, and will be known in the fututre; because people at that time did not know many sciences, as do the contemporary people do not know the knowledge of the future people.
    This ambiguous verse can be rejected from a scientific viewpoint. Because science is precision. You can justify anything with your kind of excuses: indeed Nostradamus interpreters do the same as you.



    Moreover, nothing as "Posteri" as have you called it. E.g. the Quran foretells a future meeting with the people of Mars and some other planets on one hand with the people of Earth on the other hand. The thing which have not been proved yet.


    1° Questions about life on planets (especially Mars) wasn't raised at Muhammad's times. So, your intepreter still does concordism.

    deals with creatures in earth and heavens. This could mean:

    on earth: people, dogs, monkeys, snakes ect... and in heavens: many kinds of birds.
    But your intepreter wants absolutely the Quran to look scientifically modern, so he claim that heavens is 'planets' (I've already told you that the different meanings of "heavens" your interpreter made weren't scientifically rigorous!) ;

    Believe me, if the Quran said that there are ET in planets, he would be clearer by saying something like: And many are the creatures We scattered on the earth and on the planets.





    He is not flaw: he interpreted it in another way later on: This is related to the Meccans: the idolaters, and God explains to them that the land is being taken from their control gradually; therefore it is better for them to convert. This is the idea in general. It may be this aya has two meanings and give two implications.

    And although the idolaters of Mecca did not of course know the formation of Moon; but God may expressed their words in some way to give the telling about Moon formation.
    Yes, but as soon as a verse become so ambiguous, rigorous people may stop interpreting it.




    termina wrote:
    4° Anyway, the verse is at present tense; to refer to Moon's formation, it must be at past tense.



    Refer to the above explanation. In addition, it may give an idea for the formation of Moons in general: how they are detached from the planets.

    In general? not always. For instance, Mars' moon are nothing but asteroids that were caught by martian attraction. But that doesn't prove wrong my fourth point.



    How can you be sure concerning this?
    Because it makes sense. The earth being more larger than the moon, it's not surprising that it may affect the movement of the latter.
    And how can you be sure that, without Earth's torque, the Moon stops spinning?


    And why do you deny the central heat of the planet as the causative of its rotation, so that when this heat decreases gradually, the planet movement will gradually slow down until it stops completely from rotating around themselves?
    because it's baseless, and i bring other explanation for rotation: the conservation of angular momentum in space.

    termina wrote:
    BTW, do you still believe that the Earth used to be a Sun (which isn't the Sun we can see everyday) that gradually cooled?


    Have I ever told you that I disbelieved that the Earth and the rest of the planets were one earth and that earth was a flaming sun?
    No.




    When it was near to the Earth, they observed it more clearly and saw it keeps the same face towards the Earth: it means: it does not rotate around itself; so that the same face was kept facing the Earth.
    How can you be sure that Venus show the same face to the Earth?



    In addition, the rotation of Venus around itself opposite to the other planets give some idea about their wrong thinking: why it is opposite to the rest of the planets?
    Maybe because it recieved its first impulsion in a different manner. This is not the only planet to have a strange rotation: Uranus spins 'lying'.


    The Sun spins from right to left and drag the planets to circle around it in this same direction: from right to left, and all the planets spin around themselves in this same direction: from right to left;
    I've aready told you to avoid the analogy of a father playing with his child.


    then why does Venus spin [as do they claim] in the opposite direction?

    But because Venus does not rotate around itself, they thought it rotates in the opposite direction.
    Well, if you're stronger than all NASA astronomers, well provide your own measumrents.






    termina wrote:

    The animation here speaks for itself:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._a_7000_km.gif



    This bizarre movement is not rotation: it is only turning awkwardly, because of the irregularity of its shape.
    This movement seem to be strange due to the loop of the animation. So, in fact, Eros' rotation isn't bizarre, except for you.




    termina wrote:

    But, if that may lead to make pseudo-scientific theories (for instance, falling mountains, gravity provoked by heat) with various non-credible example (non for falling mountains, wrongly interpreted experiments, too simplisyic analogies, ect...), then I can't do so.


    These are not pseudo-scientific theories; it is only many of you that consider it so; but they are more logical than your theories: of the torque that kept the Moon and the explantion of the unusual movement of Venus and the denying of the falling of portions of the past planets that carried life to Earth and the rest of the present planets and the denial of the people on Mars and the other planets.

    In addition, you will not admit that you were wrong when the things will be proved that Mars has people on it, but you will only say: Yes, it could be; we did not say that there is no life or no water; the Quran was not the only book that said so; because it is a matter of belief and that is up to God alone.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...Are_Inhabited_

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Is_Successful_

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...pated_Meeting_



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

    For falling old mountains => you wasn't able to bring a single example. plus it's contradicted by erosion.


    About gravity caused by heat, your interpreter wrongly interpreted an experiment showing that he knows nothing about electrostatic.

    isn't that pseudoscience?

    You criticise me for following textbooks, but you aren't scientifically rigorous: you mix science with religion. You criticise me for being too certain of what i said whereas you're too certain to find scientific concepts in vague verses.
     

  77. #277  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    How can you be sure about this; have you or anyone else seen such a thing happening by a telescope or an event like this that may result in the detachment of Moon; this may lead to much damage in the earth or its breaking up rather than a moon may be detached.
    This is an hypothesis. But in early times, the Earth had probably different properties, and the size of the asteroid may be a factor.

    The asteroid that might have separated such a large piece as the Moon, would certainly have shattered the Earth into many pieces rather than causing the mere detachment of the Moon with this relatively large size.



    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    No, Earth's Gravity was able to hold those edges.

    The Earth at the beginning was very hot and spanned very quickly.

    And the Earth was not regular in shape (It was one portion of a broken up sun).

    And if there were some cracks: it might not be very compacted; such edge or protrusion might detach at some weak points or lines, because of the awkward and quick spinning.

    But the detached piece will not get away, it will be held by the Earth gravity; just like how the Earth is held by the Sun gravity.

    And because the whole mass of the Earth and the Moon mass were hot and semisolid: yet they did not cool completely: so the Earth, while spinning (as you expressed it), it acquired the spherical shape; the same thing was about the Moon: at first it started to spin around itself, so that it also became spherical in shape.

    But because the Moon is much smaller than the Earth, it lost its internal heat before that of the Earth, so that it stopped spinning around itself (or to go along with you: it kept the same face toward the Earth.)

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Moreover, if an asteroid hit the Earth, as do they imagine, then will the other moons of the other planets formed by other asteroids hitting of those planets?
    Depends. Each planet is original.
    I did not speak about the planet but about the moons of all the planets; did that necessitate asteroids to detach the moons of the planets!?



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  78. #278  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    EANASSIR!!!!!

    MOUNTAINS!!!!


    I really do get tired of being purposely ignored, You brought up a point, and WE wnat clarification.

    Stop pretending I'm not asking and answer.


    What specific mountains (names) fell from the sky???
     

  79. #279  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The asteroid that might have separated such a large piece as the Moon, would certainly have shattered the Earth into many pieces rather than causing the mere detachment of the Moon with this relatively large size.

    The collision with that asteroid was indeed very violent (some scientists think that this is the origin for Earth's axial tilt) and projected many pieces of both the Earth and the asteroid (even some terrestal mantle rocks from the mantle) into the space.
    Some of those pieces were re-attracted to the Earth (contributing to the 'repairing' of the latter) and the others (which were projected too quickly) formed the Moon.

    Thus, that didn't necessarly break the whole Earth into many pieces, but many part of it, anyway it could 'repair' itself.




    The Earth at the beginning was very hot and spanned very quickly.
    Yes.


    And the Earth was not regular in shape (It was one portion of a broken up sun).
    The Earth weren't irregular (ie, like asteroids). Its formation consisted in accretion of asteroids and planetoids. With the high gravity it get, it were about spherical, like the formation of the Moon (which is also due to accretion).




    And if there were some cracks: it might not be very compacted; such edge or protrusion might detach at some weak points or lines, because of the awkward and quick spinning.

    But the detached piece will not get away, it will be held by the Earth gravity; just like how the Earth is held by the Sun gravity.

    And because the whole mass of the Earth and the Moon mass were hot and semisolid: yet they did not cool completely: so the Earth, while spinning (as you expressed it), it acquired the spherical shape; the same thing was about the Moon: at first it started to spin around itself, so that it also became spherical in shape.
    1° Spinning isn't a sphericity factor. On the contrary, the angular momentum of a planet tends to provoke a centrifugal force on the latter, which is responsible for the bulge at the equator.

    2° To scatter some pieces (at weak spots, as you said) too far away, it must be caused by a collision; Earth's gravity were high enough to hold those pieces from leaving the surface, regardless the velocity (if it's constant)...
    maybe unless our planet used to rotate at 6,500 km/sec !




    But because the Moon is much smaller than the Earth, it lost its internal heat before that of the Earth, so that it stopped spinning around itself (or to go along with you: it kept the same face toward the Earth.)
    1° "Heat causing spinning" theory were obviously refuted by the spinning of Eros.
     

  80. #280  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Nostradamus predictions are vague, so we can make the same kind of intepretations, always a posteriori.
    You cannot make such comparison between Nostradamus and the Quran; yes indeed I think that Nostradamus is very vague.

    The Quran was not posteriori as do you say: there are many predictions that proved to be true and fulfilled, while many others are not yet fulfilled:

    • Like the liberation of Palestine and the Aqsa mosque in the future, See:
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...of_Perishing,_

    • And like the triumph of the Greek (: the Room Byzantine) over the Persian and the triumph of Muslims on both the Greek and the Persian altogether, which was fulfilled within few years following the revelation of this aya 30: 2-6
    غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ . فِي أَدْنَى الْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ . فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ لِلَّهِ الْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِن بَعْدُ وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ. بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنصُرُ مَن يَشَاء وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ . وَعْدَ اللَّهِ لَا يُخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (The Greeks (: Room) have been overcome,

    in the nearer land [of Palestine];but they, even after defeating them, will be victorious,

    within a few years; [for] the determination [of the victory] is up to God, both before and after [the Greeks triumph;] on that day the believers will rejoice,

    in the help of God; He helps whomsoever He pleases; [for] He is the All-Mighty, the Most Wise.

    [That] is a promising from God; [for] God never breaks His promise, but most people do not know.



    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This ambiguous verse can be rejected from a scientific viewpoint. Because science is precision. You can justify anything with your kind of excuses: indeed Nostradamus interpreters do the same as you.

    God promised to explain the mysterious ayat of the Quran, some long time following the revealing of the Glorious Quran (when the Arab and non-Arab will be unable to explain it neither to solve its puzzles nor to bring about something like the straightforward ayat of the Quran.

    God-be exalted- promised to explain to people in the future what was mysterious of the Quranic revelations and what they could not understand about it.

    That is His saying-be exalted- in the Quran, chapter 38: 88
    ولَتَعلمُنَّ نبأهُ بعدَ حينٍ
    The explanation:
    ( And you [people] shall surely come to know, after a time, the truth thereof.)
    It means after a period of time.

    God-be exalted- said in chapter 75: 19
    ثُمّ إنّ علينا بيانَهُ
    The explanation:
    (Then [after a long time] We have to explain it [to people])
    It means: the explanation of what revelations of the Quran were mysterious to them, and which they do not understand their meaning.

    And God-be exalted- said in the Quran, chapter 6: 105
    و لِيَقُولُوا دَرَسْتَ و لِنُبَيِّنَهُ لِقومٍ يَعلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (That they may say [to you, Mohammed,] “You have studied [the past heavenly scriptures]”, and that We may explain the [Quran in the future] to people who know [modern sciences.])
     

  81. #281  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    EANASSIR!!!!!

    MOUNTAINS!!!!


    I really do get tired of being purposely ignored, You brought up a point, and WE wnat clarification.

    Stop pretending I'm not asking and answer.


    What specific mountains (names) fell from the sky???

    The late interpreter was not a geologist, astronomer nor physicist, nor even did he study at any school, other than learning how to read and write Arabic by some local public teacher.

    He did not give the name of any specific mountain which fell down from the space.

    But he said that: "most of the mountains on Earth fell on it from the space in the past.

    And there are other mountains that are newly formed from volcanoes, some geological factors like the earthquake
    and from rain water:
    the rain dissolves CO2 that is in the air, which will form the acid H2CO3 and this in turn will dissolve the Calcium carbonate in most of mountain rocks leading to the formation of CaO which will go to the valleys and by time another mountain will be formed in this way.

    Therefore, these are three ways of forming new mountains.
    But most of the mountains fell on Earth, after being in the space."

    So to know which mountain fell from the space, you have to exclude:
    1- mountains due to volcanoes.
    2- long chains or ranges of mountains, which are due to the lowering and raising of some layers of the Earth crust.
    3- the new mountains that form in the above explained way.

    And another hint is that the fallen mountains are usually the most high of the Earth mountains, as indicated in another aya 77: 27 which was explained in a previous reply.
    وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ شَامِخَاتٍ وَأَسْقَيْنَاكُم مَّاء فُرَاتًا
    The explanation:
    (And [have We not] made in the [earth] high [mountains] "that landed and settled", and given you to drink 'sweet and pure' water?)

    So such very high mountains: they almost came in this way.
    I think e.g. the Himalaya with its highest mountains on earth might have come in this way of landing and settling on the Earth.

    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike; but most certainly they had fallen from the space in the form of the meteoritic portions of the planets that had been destroyed in the past.

    Moreover, in another aya 13: 14 these fallen pieces had neighbored each other, after being disperse in the space.
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation:
    (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    The interpretation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites because they came to the earth from the space.


    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    You cannot make such comparison between Nostradamus and the Quran; yes indeed I think that Nostradamus is very vague.

    The Quran was not posteriori as do you say: there are many predictions that proved to be true and fulfilled, while many others are not yet fulfilled:

    • Like the liberation of Palestine and the Aqsa mosque in the future, See:
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...of_Perishing,_

    • And like the triumph of the Greek (: the Room Byzantine) over the Persian and the triumph of Muslims on both the Greek and the Persian altogether, which was fulfilled within few years following the revelation of this aya 30: 2-6
    غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ . فِي أَدْنَى الْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ . فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ لِلَّهِ الْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِن بَعْدُ وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ. بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنصُرُ مَن يَشَاء وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ . وَعْدَ اللَّهِ لَا يُخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (The Greeks (: Room) have been overcome,

    in the nearer land [of Palestine];but they, even after defeating them, will be victorious,

    within a few years; [for] the determination [of the victory] is up to God, both before and after [the Greeks triumph;] on that day the believers will rejoice,

    in the help of God; He helps whomsoever He pleases; [for] He is the All-Mighty, the Most Wise.

    [That] is a promising from God; [for] God never breaks His promise, but most people do not know.



    termina wrote:
    This ambiguous verse can be rejected from a scientific viewpoint. Because science is precision. You can justify anything with your kind of excuses: indeed Nostradamus interpreters do the same as you.



    God promised to explain the mysterious ayat of the Quran, some long time following the revealing of the Glorious Quran (when the Arab and non-Arab will be unable to explain it neither to solve its puzzles nor to bring about something like the straightforward ayat of the Quran.

    God-be exalted- promised to explain to people in the future what was mysterious of the Quranic revelations and what they could not understand about it.

    That is His saying-be exalted- in the Quran, chapter 38: 88
    ولَتَعلمُنَّ نبأهُ بعدَ حينٍ
    The explanation:
    ( And you [people] shall surely come to know, after a time, the truth thereof.)
    It means after a period of time.

    God-be exalted- said in chapter 75: 19
    ثُمّ إنّ علينا بيانَهُ
    The explanation:
    (Then [after a long time] We have to explain it [to people])
    It means: the explanation of what revelations of the Quran were mysterious to them, and which they do not understand their meaning.

    And God-be exalted- said in the Quran, chapter 6: 105
    و لِيَقُولُوا دَرَسْتَ و لِنُبَيِّنَهُ لِقومٍ يَعلَمُونَ
    The explanation:
    (That they may say [to you, Mohammed,] “You have studied [the past heavenly scriptures]”, and that We may explain the [Quran in the future] to people who know [modern sciences.])

    This is the problem with predictions, always a posteriori. Nostradamus intepreter find more predictions than in the Qur'an (such as the death of Henry IV).
    You can tell me that the Qur'an state that it will find the thruth of this, however don't forget that it's the principle of any predictions, indeed they are made vague and to be 'confirmed' in the future as well.



    Wait... the verses you used to bring were no so 'mysterious'. They have a "normal meaning" (that were found by classical interpeters and Ibn Abbas by using the context of revelation and the context of the verse), but your intepreter brings an alternative interpretation depending on modern science. His interpretation, as I said, weren't rigorous, twisting, far-fetched and non-refutable; showing that your interpreter does anything to 'stick' a verse with scientific modern knowledge.

    In fact, he's re-interpreting verses which have already an apparent meaning. Mysterious verses would imply that we cannot find meanings in hadeeth, nor in the context of the verse, nor in the other similar verses (Qur'an Al Karim), and nor interpreters would all agree on the meaning of a verse.
    An example of mysterious verse would be that of the 'seven earths'.
     

  83. #283  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    the deluge of Noah's people

    they will be punished according to their association with God and their wronging each other.
    As you can clearly see, you've contradicted yourself. The Abrahamic god wiped out every living thing on the planet except Noah and his people. Yet, your holy book states it is "their wrongdoing each other." So, essentially you are claiming that every man, woman, child and every other living thing on the planet were "wrongdoing each other."

    Do you see how utterly absurd that is?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  84. #284  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This is the problem with predictions, always a posteriori. Nostradamus intepreter find more predictions than in the Qur'an (such as the death of Henry IV).
    None other than God does know the knowledge of the forefuture; anything like such prediction that turn to be true only comes via some dreams or vision during sleep. The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose.

    Which book other than the Quran and better than the Quran as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    You can tell me that the Qur'an state that it will find the thruth of this, however don't forget that it's the principle of any predictions, indeed they are made vague and to be 'confirmed' in the future as well.
    The Quran is the last heavenly revealed book; in which book after the Quran will they believe and follow to find guidance?

    This is in the Quran 7: 185
    وَأَنْ عَسَى أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
    The explanation:
    (And [see that], it may be, their term is already drawing nigh; in what relation, after this [Quran], then will they believe?)

    It means: after the Quran.

    The interpretation:
    There will be no heavenly book after the Quran to believe in it. Therefore, no excuse for you from now on, and anyone who will believe, a period of time after this explanation, then his belief will not be accepted from him.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...rary_Zionists_


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Wait... the verses you used to bring were no so 'mysterious'. They have a "normal meaning" (that were found by classical interpeters and Ibn Abbas by using the context of revelation and the context of the verse), but your intepreter brings an alternative interpretation depending on modern science. His interpretation, as I said, weren't rigorous, twisting, far-fetched and non-refutable; showing that your interpreter does anything to 'stick' a verse with scientific modern knowledge.
    The interpreter was inspired the interpretation by Jesus Christ; i.e. the one that revealed to him the interpretation of the Quran was Jesus Christ - salam be to him; in addition to another angel.
    Jesus said in the Gospel according to John 16
    "12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
    13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    In fact, he's re-interpreting verses which have already an apparent meaning. Mysterious verses would imply that we cannot find meanings in hadeeth, nor in the context of the verse, nor in the other similar verses (Qur'an Al Karim), and nor interpreters would all agree on the meaning of a verse.

    In his interpretation he uses the Quran to explain the Quran; the true hadeeths are good, but there are false hadeeths which contradict the Quran; the Quran is authentic and true, so any hadeeth that contradicts the Quran, then it is false and fabricated. The interpreters are good and righteous; but the mysterious ayat are only known by God Who will inspire someone in the future to interpret such ayat and to correct the mistakes and distortions that occurred in the past heavenly books: the Torah and Gospel.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://man-after-death.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    An example of mysterious verse would be that of the 'seven earths'.
     

  85. #285  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    *Double post* sorry
     

  86. #286  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    .........

    Out of curiosity have you ever see or heard of the Indian tectonic plate?

    Here is a picture of the tectonic plates of the earth with arrows indicating the direction they are traveling.



    Here is a map of the Himalaya mountain range. Notice that it sits directly on the contact zone between the Eurasian plate and the Indian plate.



    The Himalayas were formed as a result of the Indian subcontinent ramming into the southern edge of the Asia at ~50 million years ago. This collision is thrusting The seafloor material and underlying igneous rock up as it is squeezed between the two plates.

    Also the geology of mount Everest, the highest mountain on the land, (The big island of Hawai'i is the biggest mountain on the face of the earth), completely contradicts your assertion.

    The top of Everest for 8,600 meters and up is composed of limestone formed during the Ordovician period (488-443 million years ago) and contains fossil os trilobites, crinoids and Ostracods.

    The main bulk of the mountain, from 7,000-8,600 m is composed of marble (Calcium carbonate!!) and showing the remains of crinoids, and metamorphosed schists and phyllites, which formed from the heating and compression of sedimentary rocks as the two tectonic plates collided.

    The base of the mountain, up to 7,000m, is composed of schists with many intrusive dykes ans sills. Remember intrusives are bodies of magma which moved upward from the asthenosphere and cooled in the cold crustal rock.

    Thus not only is there no indication of movement through space for the tallest mountain on land but it shows definitive proof of its origins as ancient earth seafloor.

    This same geology is present through the Himalayas

    Next range you would like to claim as not from earth?
     

  87. #287  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    None other than God does know the knowledge of the forefuture; anything like such prediction that turn to be true only comes via some dreams or vision during sleep. The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose.
    And, what would be your purpose in spreading propaganda?

    Which book other than the Quran and better than the Quran as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?
    That might be arguable, but one thing is certain, the Quran is not useful for anything else.


    The Quran is the last heavenly revealed book; in which book after the Quran will they believe and follow to find guidance?
    The Book of Mormon, of course. It supersedes the Quran.

    In his interpretation he uses the Quran to explain the Quran
    Letting the fox look after the chicken pen.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  88. #288  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This is the problem with predictions, always a posteriori. Nostradamus intepreter find more predictions than in the Qur'an (such as the death of Henry IV).
    None other than God does know the knowledge of the forefuture; anything like such prediction that turn to be true only comes via some dreams or vision during sleep. The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose.

    Which book other than the Quran and better than the Quran as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    You can tell me that the Qur'an state that it will find the thruth of this, however don't forget that it's the principle of any predictions, indeed they are made vague and to be 'confirmed' in the future as well.
    The Quran is the last heavenly revealed book; in which book after the Quran will they believe and follow to find guidance?

    This is in the Quran 7: 185
    وَأَنْ عَسَى أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
    The explanation:
    (And [see that], it may be, their term is already drawing nigh; in what relation, after this [Quran], then will they believe?)

    It means: after the Quran.

    The interpretation:
    There will be no heavenly book after the Quran to believe in it. Therefore, no excuse for you from now on, and anyone [of Jews] who will believe, a period of time after this explanation, then his belief will not be accepted from him.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...rary_Zionists_


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Wait... the verses you used to bring were no so 'mysterious'. They have a "normal meaning" (that were found by classical interpeters and Ibn Abbas by using the context of revelation and the context of the verse), but your intepreter brings an alternative interpretation depending on modern science. His interpretation, as I said, weren't rigorous, twisting, far-fetched and non-refutable; showing that your interpreter does anything to 'stick' a verse with scientific modern knowledge.
    The interpreter was inspired the Quran interpretation by Jesus Christ; i.e. the one that revealed to him the interpretation of the Quran was Jesus Christ - salam be to him; in addition to another angel.

    Jesus said in the Gospel according to John 16
    "12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
    13 However when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    In fact, he's re-interpreting verses which have already an apparent meaning. Mysterious verses would imply that we cannot find meanings in hadeeth, nor in the context of the verse, nor in the other similar verses (Qur'an Al Karim), and nor interpreters would all agree on the meaning of a verse.

    In his interpretation he used the Quran to explain the Quran; the true hadeeths (: Prophetic traditions) are good, but there are some false hadeeths which contradict the Quran; the Quran is authentic and true, so any hadeeth that contradicts the Quran, then it is false and fabricated. He also used the poetry of the Arab to give the meaning of some words.

    The interpreters are good and righteous men; but the mysterious ayat are only known by God Who will inspire someone in the future:
    • to interpret such mysterious ayat,
    • and to correct the mistakes and distortions that occurred in the past heavenly books: the Torah and Gospel.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://man-after-death.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    An example of mysterious verse would be that of the 'seven earths'.
     

  89. #289  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    None other than God does know the knowledge of the forefuture; anything like such prediction that turn to be true only comes via some dreams or vision during sleep. The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose.
    this is a matter of belief.


    Which book other than the Quran and better than the Quran as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?
    Same remark as above, plus it has nothing to do with science.


    The interpreter was inspired the Quran interpretation by Jesus Christ; i.e. the one that revealed to him the interpretation of the Quran was Jesus Christ - salam be to him; in addition to another angel.

    Jesus said in the Gospel according to John 16
    "12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
    13 However when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
    matter of belief. From a scientific viewpoint, we don't care if your interpreter was inspired by angels, Issa, or not.



    In his interpretation he used the Quran to explain the Quran; the true hadeeths (: Prophetic traditions) are good, but there are some false hadeeths which contradict the Quran; the Quran is authentic and true, so any hadeeth that contradicts the Quran, then it is false and fabricated. He also used the poetry of the Arab to give the meaning of some words.

    The interpreters are good and righteous men; but the mysterious ayat are only known by God Who will inspire someone in the future:
    • to interpret such mysterious ayat,
    • and to correct the mistakes and distortions that occurred in the past heavenly books: the Torah and Gospel.

    The example of the several 7 heavens clearly show that he rejected the hadeeth of Muhammad's Miraj. Indeed, the 7 heavens where angels live are the same as that are above us; as proofs, the nearest heaven, where there are angels discussing about celestal matters, is protected by meteors (which are tangible objects) against devils.


    Again, the example of different interpretations of heavens proves that your interpreter used his own interpretation, which is baseless (why does 'heavens' mean here this and there something else? Merely, because your intepreter wants absolutely to 'stick' these verses with science, regardless the context of the verse or the indication in similar verses => that's not rigorous at all!). Whereas, in all verses, 'heavens' with the same meaning makes more sense.

    Or, the verse with the term 'a rock' that become, by magic of course, Moon.
     

  90. #290  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    None other than God does know the knowledge of the forefuture; anything like such prediction that turn to be true only comes via some dreams or vision during sleep. The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose.

    Which book other than the Quran and better than the Quran as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?
    Repeating yourself doesn't make your holy book any more worthless, if that were possible.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  91. #291  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The late interpreter was not a geologist, astronomer nor physicist, nor even did he study at any school, other than learning how to read and write Arabic by some local public teacher.
    This is why his claim about the origin of mountains is non-credible.



    And another hint is that the fallen mountains are usually the most high of the Earth mountains, as indicated in another aya 77: 27 which was explained in a previous reply.
    وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ شَامِخَاتٍ وَأَسْقَيْنَاكُم مَّاء فُرَاتًا
    The explanation:
    (And [have We not] made in the [earth] high [mountains] "that landed and settled", and given you to drink 'sweet and pure' water?)
    Indeed, that's an interesting indication to know whether your claim is true or not.



    So such very high mountains: they almost came in this way.
    I think e.g. the Himalaya with its highest mountains on earth might have come in this way of landing and settling on the Earth.

    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike; but most certainly they had fallen from the space in the form of the meteoritic portions of the planets that had been destroyed in the past.

    You contradicted yourself. How do Himalayas (which is a young mountains-range) come from space, whereas you excluded young and any mountains-ranges?


    "So to know which mountain fell from the space, you have to exclude:
    1- mountains due to volcanoes.
    2- long chains or ranges of mountains, which are due to the lowering and raising of some layers of the Earth crust.
    3- the new mountains that form in the above explained way.
    "



    The second part of your answer is naive. Tectonic may build up geological high structures; thanks to the mecanism of continental collision:

    when a continent meets another one, since it's too buoyant, it can't continu its course in the mantle, rather it collides. The border of the latter is halted, so due to the mechanical properties of the continental crust, the colliding continent here divide into a 'block' (=> implying a normal fault), then another block form in the same manner lifting the first one, ect...

    Thus, the stacked 'blocks' are a crustal thickening sinking down into the mantle and beeing, on the surface, a moutains-range. Many mountains-ranges came in this way, such as the Alps, Zagros, and the Himalayas, of course !

    Even volcanic activity may form high reliefs: Mt Ararat, Mt Mount Kilimanjaro, ect...



    Thus, high mountains aren't due to asteroids falling.






    Moreover, in another aya 13: 14 these fallen pieces had neighbored each other, after being disperse in the space.
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation:
    (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    The interpretation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites because they came to the earth from the space.

    I've already shown that this interpretation negligated the context of this verse (the latter is dealing with vegetation and earth products in general).
     

  92. #292  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Repeated and ommited.
     

  93. #293  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    The Himalayas were formed as a result of the Indian subcontinent ramming into the southern edge of the Asia at ~50 million years ago. This collision is thrusting The seafloor material and underlying igneous rock up as it is squeezed between the two plates.

    Also the geology of mount Everest, the highest mountain on the land, (The big island of Hawai'i is the biggest mountain on the face of the earth), completely contradicts your assertion.

    The top of Everest for 8,600 meters and up is composed of limestone formed during the Ordovician period (488-443 million years ago) and contains fossil os trilobites, crinoids and Ostracods.

    The main bulk of the mountain, from 7,000-8,600 m is composed of marble (Calcium carbonate!!) and showing the remains of crinoids, and metamorphosed schists and phyllites, which formed from the heating and compression of sedimentary rocks as the two tectonic plates collided.

    The base of the mountain, up to 7,000m, is composed of schists with many intrusive dykes ans sills. Remember intrusives are bodies of magma which moved upward from the asthenosphere and cooled in the cold crustal rock.

    Thus not only is there no indication of movement through space for the tallest mountain on land but it shows definitive proof of its origins as ancient earth seafloor.

    This same geology is present through the Himalayas

    Next range you would like to claim as not from earth?


    This certainly is a valuable and thorough knowledge about geology and mountains, and indicates a scientific high level; thank you.

    However:
    When Geologists did their researches and studies and made their classifications, they might not have such idea of the mountains being parts of some destroyed planets, which then were attracted by the gravity of the present Earth and the planets,

    and the mountains rested on the ground to make many advantages of :
    • Stabilizing the Earth movement,
    • Inclining the Earth on some axis inclination,
    • Carrying the seed of life, that once had existed on those past planets that had been destroyed in the past Doomsday.

    The thing that I said about the Himalaya was from myself (according to my opinion: I may be wrong or correct); the interpreter did not mention the Himalaya (refer to our site http://universeandquran.741.com
    and see there the subject of: http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    And read there this paragraph:
    "(*In Beirut museum, there are fossils of fishes discovered in one of Beirut mountains, which indicate that, in ancient times, that mountain was under the sea surface; those fishes swam above its ground, then when the earth surface contracted, its surface was broken, so that some of its layers rose up and some others were depressed, because of its contraction, so that the high [layers] formed these mountains.)"

    The interpreter saw those fossils in the Beirut museum, and he wrote this note in his book.

    Moreover, I heard from him that "it may be some fossils and the skeletons of strange creatures like the Dinosaurs might have come embedded in the mountains which once were some portions of the destroyed past planets, and such creatures lived there on those planets and not on the present Earth."

    I say (this is my opinion): it could be still that these Himalaya mountains came from the space and their layers are the layers of those planets: they might become upside down or any other way.
    Moreover, scientist in fact have not seen such tectonic processes; they postulate this theory; although it may be correct; I don't insist: it is only my idea.

    So when I read the aya about the high mountains that rested on the Earth, I said it may be the Himalaya, or some other high mountains; because you insisted that I should mention the names of some mountains; while in fact the interpreter did not mention any name in particular.

    It is not necessary that all the constituents of rocks are calcium carbonate; it may be the carbonate of other elements or other salts, but still the calcium carbonate is very prevalent; and the extreme heat will smash the hardest rock by this way when the Earth will stop its axial rotation; see here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...l_Be_Dispersed

    "God -be exalted - said in the Quran 20: 105-107
    وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْجِبَالِ فَقُلْ يَنسِفُهَا رَبِّي نَسْفًا . فَيَذَرُهَا قَاعًا صَفْصَفًا . لَا تَرَى فِيهَا عِوَجًا وَلَا أَمْتًا
    The explanation:
    (105- They are asking you [Mohammed] about the mountains [of Mecca on that day.] Say: ‘My Lord will smash them [into scattered dust.]

    106- So He will leave it as a level plain.
    107- Wherein you will see no hill neither any valley.)

    We said that the Earth will stop its axial rotation, so that in one side there will be an everlasting day, while in the other side there will be an everlasting night.
    Obviously, the side facing the Sun will have severe heat sufficient to burn out and smash stones and rocks; because most of rocks are formed from calcium carbonate; therefore, if they are heated, carbon dioxide gas will emerge from them, and calcium oxide – which is a white powder – will remain.

    Secondly: the falling down of the comets – prior to Doomsday – upon the mountains will lead to their melting away and smashing.

    Thirdly: the heat inside the Earth core will diminish gradually, and will put off in the course of time; and by that the parts of the mountains and rocks become fragmented and disintegrated; because the gravitational power will have been finished inside the Earth core.

    That is because “the sole cause in the formation of the gravitational force is the heat” ; for this reason, the mountains will become like sand-hills and become face to face with the factors of denudation and erosion; because the wind will carry away and scatter the dust to the seas and oceans, and so the Earth will become a wasteland or desolate area where you cannot see any waviness or elevation.

    This condition will issue before Doomsday and after the standstill of the Earth from its axial rotation. While on Doomsday, the Earth will break up into meteorites."

    And see there more details, and my comment:
    "Such incidents and observations of the earth in the Last Day, like: the everlasting day and night, the dryness of rivers and seas, the crushing and grinding of mountains, …etc. Such incidents may now be seen on Mercury and Venus; because they have stopped their axial spinning, and are now in their Last Day."

    By the way, I didn't ignore your reply, but sometimes I may have some difficulty in the internet service, and this may cause some delay. In addition, some members started to revile the Quran and the Prophet and so I was obliged to answer them first.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  94. #294  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Glory be to God!

    When you said something about the Quran and its interpretations, and I answered you that:

    "The Quran can never be surpassed, and the one who tells you other than this is either a liar or he has some purpose."

    And I asked:

    "Which book other than the Quran, and better than the Quran, as regards the monotheism and inviting people to devote their worship to God alone?"

    You answered:
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    this is a matter of belief.
    Yes, indeed, this is a matter of belief and disbelief; and God does not guide the wrong-doer, but guides whomsoever He pleases to guide to the straight and standard way of monotheism and devotion to God alone, which will lead to Paradise and the good-pleasure of God in the afterlife.

    Then you objected to the interpreter, and that he did not strictly follow the traditional interpretation of the Quran, and I said to you:

    "The interpreter was inspired the Quran interpretation by Jesus Christ; i.e. the one that revealed to him the interpretation of the Quran was Jesus Christ - salam be to him; in addition to another angel.

    Jesus said in the Gospel according to John 16
    "12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
    13 However when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

    You said:
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    we don't care if your interpreter was inspired by angels, Issa [: Jesus], or not.
    Anyhow:

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The example of the several 7 heavens clearly show that he rejected the hadeeth of Muhammad's Miraj. Indeed, the 7 heavens where angels live are the same as that are above us; as proofs, the nearest heaven, where there are angels discussing about celestal matters, is protected by meteors (which are tangible objects) against devils.
    The story of Mohammed's ascension to heaven (with his soul, together with Gabriel the angel) is mentioned in the Quran, and it is a true story of this spiritual journey where God showed to him many of His signs in the heavens and in the spiritual world, and revealed to him many revelations concerning the monotheism and devotion to God alone.

    See the last question and its answer in the subject of :
    http://man-after-death.t35.com/3.htm#Explanation_

    But the traditional story attributed to Ibn Abbas and mentioned as some prophetic traditions is not as a whole true; some of it true and some other parts are fabricated and distorted.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Again, the example of different interpretations of heavens proves that your interpreter used his own interpretation, which is baseless (why does 'heavens' mean here this and there something else?

    Merely, because your intepreter wants absolutely to 'stick' these verses with science, regardless the context of the verse or the indication in similar verses => that's not rigorous at all!). Whereas, in all verses, 'heavens' with the same meaning makes more sense.

    We said the word "heaven" or "sky" in singular, and the word "heavens" in plural cannot give the same meaning, although the word "heaven" or "sky" in Arabic means anything above you, even the ceiling is the sky of the room.

    In addition, the word "heavens" when mentioned together with the "earth" it gives some meaning other than it is mentioned alone.

    Moreover, when the word "heavens" is mentioned before the "earth" indicating the heavens that were created before the earth.

    While when the word "heavens" is mentioned after the "earth" indicates the heavens that were created after creating the earth.

    That is because:
    • Some heavens are the ancient ethereal heavens or the spiritual heavens of the kingdom of heavens.
    • While the "heavens and the earth" indicate the heavens are of the same kind of the earth: i.e. the planets.
    • Whereas the "heavens" mentioned after the "earth" indicate they are created after the earth, which are the gaseous layers of the high atmosphere, which is created from the gases emerging from the earth itself.
    • Also the "heaven" in singular indicates the space.

    So all these "heavens" and "heaven" cannot mean the same thing, and this has not been discussed by any commentator before the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan al-Hilly.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Sky_or_Heaven_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#Heavens


    While what you said as a proof: the lowermost heaven and the meteors: in fact the genies (or demons) ascended to it and touched it with their hands; as in the aya 72: 8
    وَأَنَّا لَمَسْنَا السَّمَاء فَوَجَدْنَاهَا مُلِئَتْ حَرَسًا شَدِيدًا وَشُهُبًا
    The explanation:
    ('And [we had ascended up in the space until] we had touched the [ethereal or spiritual] heaven [with our hands], but had found it filled with stern guards [: angels] and meteors [under that heaven.]')


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    my best impressions of eanassir



     

  96. #296  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,197
    As an addendum to my prior post regarding fossil in the Himalayas. Fossil of those same taxa are found WORLDWIDE and most are NOT found ON MOUNTAINS.

    Geologists and paleontologist do not need pseudoscientific hypothesis about mountains from outerspace. There is something called to geologic collum which shows a full succession of rock ages that dates back 4.6 BILLION years. Life is not detected in the fossil record until 3.1BILLION years then a steady transition of froms is found through the rest of the geologic collum. For the mountains to have brought.

    This is supported by ove 500 YEARS of peer reviewed research.

    One fallible human interpreter of a manuscript which has been copied translate innumerable times over the centuries is NOT an authority on Geology, biology palaeontology or any other physical science.

    Every singe mountain and mountain range on earth has been studied and there origins are understood. NONE of them have e.t. origins.

    Bottom line: everyone makes mistakes when dealing in areas where they have NO knowledge.
     

  97. #297  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Bottom line: everyone makes mistakes when dealing in areas where they have NO knowledge.
    I forgive you eanassir
     

  98. #298  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    The story of Mohammed's ascension to heaven (with his soul, together with Gabriel the angel) is mentioned in the Quran, and it is a true story of this spiritual journey where God showed to him many of His signs in the heavens and in the spiritual world, and revealed to him many revelations concerning the monotheism and devotion to God alone.
    It is a true story in the Quran because it's written in the Quran. The book is the authoritative and arbiter of itself.

    Aesop's fables introduces talking animals, many stories have pictures depicting the animals carrying out the actions of the stories. Nowhere in the book does it state animals cannot talk, hence the stories must be true.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  99. #299  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    my best impressions of eanassir

    The display indicates its owner.
     

  100. #300  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    As an addendum to my prior post regarding fossil in the Himalayas. Fossil of those same taxa are found WORLDWIDE and most are NOT found ON MOUNTAINS.

    Geologists and paleontologist do not need pseudoscientific hypothesis about mountains from outerspace. There is something called to geologic collum which shows a full succession of rock ages that dates back 4.6 BILLION years. Life is not detected in the fossil record until 3.1BILLION years then a steady transition of froms is found through the rest of the geologic collum. For the mountains to have brought.

    As a reply to your addendum:

    I told you such fossils may have come from the sea of the Earth (like some fossils found on the mountains of Beirut), or these fossils might have come embedded in the mountains, and this may explain why it is so ancient in time; because they belong to very old life on some of the past planets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    This is supported by ove 500 YEARS of peer reviewed research.

    Science will not stop at some time duration of 500 years or more or less; the research will continue, whether it suits some people or not.

    Such transmission of the life seed from the past broken-up planets to the present planets is reasonable, and it explains the appearance of life better than Darwin and his evolution.

    Life has to come in this way to the earth that once was flaming and very hot and sterilized; because fire kills life, then how could life appear on a sterilized Earth?


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    One fallible human interpreter of a manuscript which has been copied translate innumerable times over the centuries is NOT an authority on Geology, biology palaeontology or any other physical science.

    The "manuscript which has been copied translate innumerable times over centuries"; what is this?

    If you mean the Quran; the Quran is in Arabic only; there is no English or French Quran; and the English is merely the translation of the meaning into English; the original Arabic text should be mentioned together with it.

    This is in contrast to the Hebrew Bible which is in fact not the Torah of God but the Torah of Ezra who wrote it for them following their return from the captivity of Babylon; the original Torah had been torn by Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#The_Torah_[or_Hebrew_Bible]_of_Ezra_

    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#...k%20of%20bible


    While the Gospel is some translations from a Greek intermediary source; (the original Aramaic original Gospel said by the Christ) is lost by time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Every singe mountain and mountain range on earth has been studied and there origins are understood. NONE of them have e.t. origins.

    I told you that such an idea of the mountains being portions of the broken up planets, that landed on Earth and the present planets; Geologists had no such idea before, and when they studied and classified the mountains: they had not considered such an idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Bottom line: everyone makes mistakes when dealing in areas where they have NO knowledge.

    I didn't say I have made any mistake by saying this.

    Only I said the interpreter did not say anything about the Himalaya and did not specify any mountain by name.

    On the contrary, it is very reasonable that the same sort of mountains are present on the planets in addition to the Earth, and their origin is the same. And such portions of the destroyed planets carried life to the present Earth and planets.

    Bottom line: No one may be guardian over science; the true scientist always does researche, investigates, checks, examines, and do not stop to consider any new idea.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://man-after-death.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com

     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •