Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I forgot to explain Dr, Hasseb-Elnaby's take on this:
Distance travelled by the Earth in 1,000 lunar years divided by time in one day = speed of light
Another way of rebuttal: show how the mathematics / physics is incorrect. There are a few such rebuttals online but when you look closely, they don't actually say anything, they just seem to trail off after voicing some kind of displeasure and contempt ...
Peace be upon you all and your parents and family. Bye for now.
1) he is using modern lunar data that were different when the Koran was written.
2) if he is taking the sun out of the equation, he needs to take everything except the earth and moon out as well. Planets, the galaxy. But that would effect his calculations.
3) he is introducing bogus mathematics with his lunar velocity adjustments. There is no reason to do this other than to get a bogus correction factor.
1) he is using modern lunar data that were different when the Koran was written.
2) if he is taking the sun out of the equation, he needs to take everything except the earth and moon out as well. Planets, the galaxy. But that would effect his calculations.
3) he is introducing bogus mathematics with his lunar velocity adjustments. There is no reason to do this other than to get a bogus correction factor.
1. Yet he gives the speed of light to a very precise value. Odd no? And how differrent was the data back then? And how do you know? Also note that the small discrepancy in the Qur'anic value a la Hasseb-Elnaby, and Google's value, could maybe be explained by your proposed difference between now and back then. Sorry you are being too vague and ignoring the elephant in the room, that the speed of light is arrived at to a very precise value.
2. He is not taking the sun out of the equation. Muslims count the year in lunations. A lunar year. But as l explained, he is still accounting for the sun, moon and earth. It is still linked to the earth travelling around the sun in 12 lunations, that is the lunar year for us. Also note that he has included an heliocentric factor. I'd say thatis factoring in the sun, then.
As for the pull of the planets and the galaxy, maybe they cancel each other out bro?
Also how large an effect do you think they have?
Also maybe their effect is already accounted for in the end product: how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun, and the moon to orbit the earth?
And also .... can't .... type ..... centre .... of ..... milky ..... way ..... holding ..... me ..... down ..... So .... surly ..... ahhhhh that's better Neptune just came into alignment and cancelled it out. Now where was i?
Oh yah,
3. Prove it to be bogus, please don' be like that. Prove it if you have proof or admit you're making a bogus claim by saying it is bogus.
Last edited by TheresACatForThat; 11-20-2019 at 01:12 PM..
1. Yet he gives the speed of light to a very precise value. Odd no?
No. One can always find numbers to readjust a value as close as possible. Here he multiplied the velocity of the moon by it's cosine for no reason other than to readjust his value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
And how differrent was the data back then? And how do you know?
Because we can measure the data for the moon for decades, and we can calculate backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
Also note that the small discrepancy in the Qur'anic value a la Hasseb-Elnaby, and Google's value, could maybe be explained by your proposed difference between now and back then. Sorry you are being too vague and ignoring the elephant in the room, that the speed of light is arrived at to a very precise value.
No. If you take the <<bleep>> factor (0.89157 to be precise) out of the equation, his calculation would have been out by 10% (1 - 0.89157 to be precise). The difference in the moons data can not be that different.[/quote]
Sorry, I have already proved your argument to be bogus, and now you are just making excuses and maybe's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
2. He is not taking the sun out of the equation. Muslims count the year in lunations. A lunar year. But as l explained, he is still accounting for the sun, moon and earth. It is still linked to the earth travelling around the sun in 12 lunations, that is the lunar year for us.
Yes, that is using data with the sun. And afterwards he takes the sun out of the equation using a bogus reason and multiplying a value by it's cosine for no reason other than to get a value close to what he wants. Have you read your link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
Also note that he has included an heliocentric factor. I'd say thatis factoring in the sun, then.
No, the heliocentric factor of 0.89157 is taken out of the equation. Again, have you read your link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
As for the pull of the planets and the galaxy, maybe they cancel each other out bro?
Also how large an effect do you think they have?
Also maybe their effect is already accounted for in the end product: how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun, and the moon to orbit the earth?
And also .... can't .... type ..... centre .... of ..... milky ..... way ..... holding ..... me ..... down ..... So .... surly ..... ahhhhh that's better Neptune just came into alignment and cancelled it out. Now where was i?
Oh yah,
Maybe you do not know what you are talking about, Moderator cut: unnecessary insult
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
3. Prove it to be bogus, please don' be like that. Prove it if you have proof or admit you're making a bogus claim by saying it is bogus.
I have already proven it is bogus. Prove my argument to be bogus, please don' be like that. Prove it if you have proof or admit you're making a bogus claim by saying it is bogus. Do not ignore the <<bleep>> in the room (0.89157 to be precise), and no maybes.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 11-21-2019 at 06:55 AM..
Reason: Be civil, and read the rules about circumventing the language filter
Here is why your objections are, as you keep saying, "bogus"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No. One can always find numbers to readjust a value as close as possible.
... No. If you take the <<bleep>> factor (0.89157 to be precise) out of the equation, his calculation would have been out by 10% (1 - 0.89157 to be precise).
Yes, that is using data with the sun. And afterwards he takes the sun out of the equation using a bogus reason
... No, the heliocentric factor of 0.89157 is taken out of the equation. Again, have you read your link?
... Maybe you do not know what you are talking about, Moderator cut: unnecessary insult
I have already proven it is bogus. Prove my argument to be bogus, please don' be like that. Prove it if you have proof or admit you're making a bogus claim by saying it is bogus. Do not ignore the <<bleep>> in the room (0.89157 to be precise), and no maybes.
Hello. I don't understand your objections (nor your anger - if you have a point, then you can make it without being so personal). Please could you rephrase them in the light of my shorthand version of the Hasseb-Elnaby's work, which in fact l took from the version on the second website l posted in the OP: Speed Of Light 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day
The cosine of a constant relevant to the model in question is NOT a mere random value. Nor is it retracted later. Please read this recapitulation of the derivation:
The distance travelled by angels in one day = 1000 lunar years' worth of lunar orbits
= 12000 Lunar orbits x Length of a lunar orbit (L')
L' = Average lunar velocity (= 3682.8 km/hr) x length of a sidereal lunar month in synodic days ramped up to hours to match the units for lunar velocity (km / hr) (= 27.321661 synodic days = 655.71986 hours) x THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR
About THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR: I gather the factor accounts for shearing forces on the moon's orbit.
That would account for the influence of the Sun, and all the rest of the universe (the rest of the universe is negligible, my friend, please understand that gravity is a very, very weak force, look how the planets don't care about the plane of the milky way, we're orbiting almost perpendicular to it, and some stars come toward us, some recede, and even within our own solar system, some planets and moons have weird orbits at odds with the rest of the system. Gravity is very weak my friend, not the elephant in the room that you are making out.
Here is what l gather about the calculation of the HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR:
Synodic days in 1 sidereal lunar month = 27.321661 (as stated earlier).
Synodic days in 1 solar year = 365.2421987
ø = angle moved by the earth-moon system AROUND THE SUN in 1 complete 360 degree lunar revolution AROUND THE EARTH. ø = (360 degrees / 365.2421987 synodic days) x 27.32166088 synodic days = 26.92952225 degrees
Today, when the moon makes 360 degrees around Earth with respect to stars the Earth-moon system moves 26.92952225 degrees around the sun. Hence the lunar orbit's twist angle ø = 26.92952225 degrees.
THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR = adjacent/hypotoneuse = cosø = cos(26.92952225)
Therefore: L' = 3682.8 km/hr x 655.71986 hr x cos(26.92952225)
The distance travelled by angels in one day = 1000 lunar years' worth of lunar orbits
= 12000 Lunar orbits x Length of a lunar orbit (L')
= 12000 x L'
= 12000 x 3682.8 km/hr x 655.71986 hr x cos(26.92952225) = 25836303825 km (EDIT: my calculator says 25836303839.7 km)
Time in 1 day = 86170.43114 sec
The distance traveled by light in one Earth Day = 299792.458 km/sec x 86170.43114 sec = 25833245358 km
Compare with the Qur'anic value for distance travelled by Angels, made of light, in 1 day: = 25836303825 km (EDIT: my calculator says 25836303839.7 km)
Let's step that down to the speed of the Angels
= 25836303839.7 km (my calculator's value) divided by 86170.43114 sec
= 25836303839.722046764÷86170.43114
= 299827.951397227 km/s = 299,827.951 km/s
Or using the article author's values:
= 25836303825 km divided by 86170.43114 sec
= 299827.951226379 km/s = 299,827.951 km/s (again)
Whereas Speed of Light = 299,792.458 km/sec
OK l have to admit there is a bit of discrepancy there. It could well be attributed to rounding errors somewhere down the line. But still, the two values are frighteningly close, especially for the 7th century CE.
Bearing in mind that l am only human like you, and l have feelings too: Please argue.
Hello. I don't understand your objections (nor your anger - if you have a point, then you can make it without being so personal).
Anger? And if you do not understand, I must presume you have not actually read your own links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
Please could you rephrase them in the light of my shorthand version of the Hasseb-Elnaby's work, which in fact l took from the version on the second website l posted in the OP: Speed Of Light 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day
The cosine of a constant relevant to the model in question is NOT a mere random value. Nor is it retracted later. Please read this recapitulation of the derivation:
The distance travelled by angels in one day = 1000 lunar years' worth of lunar orbits
= 12000 Lunar orbits x Length of a lunar orbit (L')
L' = Average lunar velocity (= 3682.8 km/hr) x length of a sidereal lunar month in synodic days ramped up to hours to match the units for lunar velocity (km / hr) (= 27.321661 synodic days = 655.71986 hours) x THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR
About THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR: I gather the factor accounts for shearing forces on the moon's orbit.
That would account for the influence of the Sun, and all the rest of the universe (the rest of the universe is negligible, my friend, please understand that gravity is a very, very weak force, look how the planets don't care about the plane of the milky way, we're orbiting almost perpendicular to it, and some stars come toward us, some recede, and even within our own solar system, some planets and moons have weird orbits at odds with the rest of the system. Gravity is very weak my friend, not the elephant in the room that you are making out.
Here is what l gather about the calculation of the HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR:
Synodic days in 1 sidereal lunar month = 27.321661 (as stated earlier).
Synodic days in 1 solar year = 365.2421987
ø = angle moved by the earth-moon system AROUND THE SUN in 1 complete 360 degree lunar revolution AROUND THE EARTH. ø = (360 degrees / 365.2421987 synodic days) x 27.32166088 synodic days = 26.92952225 degrees
Today, when the moon makes 360 degrees around Earth with respect to stars the Earth-moon system moves 26.92952225 degrees around the sun. Hence the lunar orbit's twist angle ø = 26.92952225 degrees.
THE HELIOCENTRIC FACTOR = adjacent/hypotoneuse = cosø = cos(26.92952225)
Therefore: L' = 3682.8 km/hr x 655.71986 hr x cos(26.92952225)
The distance travelled by angels in one day = 1000 lunar years' worth of lunar orbits
= 12000 Lunar orbits x Length of a lunar orbit (L')
= 12000 x L'
= 12000 x 3682.8 km/hr x 655.71986 hr x cos(26.92952225) = 25836303825 km (EDIT: my calculator says 25836303839.7 km)
Time in 1 day = 86170.43114 sec
The distance traveled by light in one Earth Day = 299792.458 km/sec x 86170.43114 sec = 25833245358 km
Compare with the Qur'anic value for distance travelled by Angels, made of light, in 1 day: = 25836303825 km (EDIT: my calculator says 25836303839.7 km)
Let's step that down to the speed of the Angels
= 25836303839.7 km (my calculator's value) divided by 86170.43114 sec
= 25836303839.722046764÷86170.43114
= 299827.951397227 km/s = 299,827.951 km/s
Or using the article author's values:
= 25836303825 km divided by 86170.43114 sec
= 299827.951226379 km/s = 299,827.951 km/s (again)
Whereas Speed of Light = 299,792.458 km/sec
OK l have to admit there is a bit of discrepancy there. It could well be attributed to rounding errors somewhere down the line. But still, the two values are frighteningly close, especially for the 7th century CE.
Bearing in mind that l am only human like you, and l have feelings too: Please argue.
From one of your links I used to find out where the dishonesty is.
"Since the presence of the sun changes the geometrical properties of space and time , we must screen out its gravitational effect on the earth moon system according to the validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity, i.e. we must only consider the lunar geocentric motion without the heliocentric motion of the earth-moon system. Thus a velocity component VO=V cosO representing the net orbital velocity of the moon as shown in fig. (1) is introduced for calculating the net length L of the lunar orbit assuming a stationary earth."
The orange is the bogus mathematics he introduced to adjust his approximate value by almost 11%. There is no reason to calculate the cosine of the velocity, neither does it remove the heliocentric motion of the earth-moon system. So you only get your not quiet accurate approximation with this 0.89157 bogus factor, and by using the metric system. The value will also only ever be accurate once as the moon moves away from the earth.
Please can you refer back to my summary in previous post? It took a long time for me to write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Anger? And if you do not understand, I must presume you have not actually read your own links.
From one of your links I used to find out where the dishonesty is.
"Since the presence of the sun changes the geometrical properties of space and time , we must screen out its gravitational effect on the earth moon system according to the validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity, i.e. we must only consider the lunar geocentric motion without the heliocentric motion of the earth-moon system. Thus a velocity component VO=V cosO representing the net orbital velocity of the moon as shown in fig. (1) is introduced for calculating the net length L of the lunar orbit assuming a stationary earth."
The orange is the bogus mathematics he introduced to adjust his approximate value by almost 11%. There is no reason to calculate the cosine of the velocity, neither does it remove the heliocentric motion of the earth-moon system. So you only get your not quiet accurate approximation with this 0.89157 bogus factor, and by using the metric system. The value will also only ever be accurate once as the moon moves away from the earth.
Please can you refer back to my summary in my previous post.
I'll admit the first link in my OP was confusing, least of all because it had lost the associated diagrams. Therefore l summarised the second link in my recent post (the one before this one here).
Please, as requested, refer back to my summary in my previous post. You really need to do that. Please attack that, not anything else. Humour me, please? Please don't do something else.
Speed of the Angels = 299,827.951 km/s (my calculated value) Whereas Speed of Light = 299,792.458 km/sec
Still a slightly larger discrepancy than l was originally told, but look at the actual difference: 35.493 km/s faster than light speed. Hey maybe angels need to go a tinsy bit faster to jump into the next higher plane? We're not talking about chugging along at light speed to reach Allah in a billion years, we're talking about jumping right out of this reality into a hyperreality.
Peace be upon you. Please only attack my summary, here, because the other articles will just cause confusion at this point.
Speed of the Angels = 299,827.951 km/s (my calculated value) Whereas Speed of Light = 299,792.458 km/sec
Still a slightly larger discrepancy than l was originally told, but look at the actual difference: 35.493 km/s faster than light speed. Hey maybe angels need to go a tinsy bit faster to jump into the next higher plane? We're not talking about chugging along at light speed to reach Allah in a billion years, we're talking about jumping right out of this reality into a hyperreality.
Peace be upon you. Please only attack my summary, here, because the other articles will just cause confusion at this point.
OK, as you are avoiding my first refutation, I will refute this as well.
1) your heliocentric excuse is bogus. Distance = velocity * time. That is it. You do not need a cosine.
2) if you are talking about the actual length of the lunar orbit, this requires the sidereal month (27.321661 days). To calculate the length traveled in a lunar month requires the synodic month (29.530587981days).
Your velocity is 3682.8 km/hr.
So for the sidereal month, your value is 28978621381.6704 / 86170.43114 = 336,294 km/s.
For the synodic month, your value is 31321511831.9309184 / 86170,43114 = 363,483 km/s.
Does all knowledge reach Allah through these angels of light?
That's a good question. I think we need to exercise doublethink:
1. We exist in this physical cosmos
2. Nothing but Allah exists in the ultimate hyperreality where there is no time. There is no time because everything exists all at once, so there's no need for anything new, so there's no change, no flux. But everything is perfect, it lacks nothing. So it is a hyperreality of perfect unchanging bliss.
So, l think Allah uses angels for a purpose. The ultimate purpose is that he wants to be known, and so angels, humans, jinn, planets, animals etc. etc. all contribute to that ultimate purpose. Example: an intricate order of angels, with their duties, their ranks. He won't even personally handle sinners on the day of judgement, he will call angels to do the work - because he is pure. So, the order of doing things illustrates various aspects of himself, which all in all are the epiphany of his nature, the purpose of Creation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is why your objections are, as you keep saying, "bogus"
