MUSLIMS ARE ALWAYS FINDING "MIRACLES" OUT OF VERY VAGUE TEXTS BUT THE QURAN IS TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. THE QURAN SAYS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MADE UP OF 7 HEAVENS, AN OLD, FALSE BELIEF OF MUHAMMED'S TIME, 41:12, THAT "STARS ARE MISSILES TO SHOOT THE DEVIL", 67:5, THAT "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVENS FROM DEMONS LISTENING TO THE DEVINE ASSEMBLY", 37:6-8 AND THAT "THERE IS A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE SUN SET", AS IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT, 18:83-90
Iam very happy to be not a muslim. There is no science in Quaran. And I read the rubbish. Wow I have the feeling to burn the bible or the quaran now :D
Asalamu alykom, I would also like to get your input on therationalizers video. Especially on his comments refering to the other verse stating the "50,000 years". I have no doubt that there is an explanation, but I have not found it yet.
Let me know what he said or give me the time link in his video where he said it. TheRationalizers video is wrong on quite a few points so please let me know which one your referring to and i'll explain
leave it. the videos of the rationalizer are so funny. I mostly agree with the calculations. They are amazing calculations. but I could not find any "university website" of any ISI journal to find these calculations.
who did these calculations? probably the website: speed-light.info but this is not an official website.
Why the owner of these calculations does not publish his result in a scientific journal to terminate the disagreements? Thanks
1st of all who r U to determine who is or who is not a Muslim. 2nd what about the golden number and the Qaba?? Since you didn't say anything about them i have no clue how to even respond to your nothing but disrespectful comment. So who is truly not acting like a Muslim
Are you serious dude? Just because the Angels of Allah are made of light does not mean that they travel at the speed of light. It would take them billions of years to travel from heaven to earth to send messages from Allah. They are made of a light not from our dimension.
Relativity dude. The closer to the speed of light you reach the slower time goes. If an angel reached the speed of light "time" would in essence stop so it doesn't matter whether it would take them billions of years or 2 seconds it would still be the same amount of time because time has stopped
@TrueJihadiWarrior True but that is for them, if they go at the speed of light for a couple of minutes it will pass for us like a couple of years. By the time it would of taken Angel Gabriel to go Allah and bring the message to Mohammad (PBUH) he would be already dead.
That's not true dude. Time is time. Think about it like this. if your driving in your car and your going 110 mph. Time for you in the car is the same as it is for me outside of the car. Time doesn't split. So if you were to reach the speed of light and time stopped it would stop for both of us not just you. The angel Gabriel leaving and coming back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have seemed like the blink of an eye not years. It would have seemed that he never left.
believe what u want? so u living just to believe? why don't learn some physic before start any false arguments. speed, relativity, time is very weird that human can't imagine, example, u r in rockect MOVING FORWARD WITH SPEED OF LIGHT, then, if light passes u, u CAN'T see light stall beside, but light moving FASTER THAN U WITH SPEED OF LIGHT. same happen when backward, u don't see light moving faster, but moving at light constant speed... this the General Theory of Relativity
Thank you brother. Mashallah, I hope Allah always keeps you strong in stomping out the devil in the minds of the people. Life is too short, they dont know any better through all their intelligence.
1. 32:5 in quran speeks of arrangement of affairs between heaven and earth and visa versa.
a. AFFAIRS doesn't mean LIGHT and b. IT'S NOT BETWEEN SUN AND EARTH
2. If speed is distance divided by time then you should divide the distance of 1000 years (Quran day) by the time of 1000 years(and not regular day) which is 12 x 1000 x 27.32 (lunar month) x 86164.0906 secs(length of day in secs)= 2824803460 secs
TJ. why are you still defending this stance? our pm exchange thoroughly obliterated this entire issue. you will at the very very best be more than 10% out from the true value, and in reality you are closer to 20% off. c is not in the quran.
and btw, a ray of light travelling through a gravitational well is not "refracted", the velocity of the ray is constant, as has been pointed out. even though the beam "bends" it doesn't change direction compared to the space-time geometry it travels through
Uhhh no your argument didn't obliterate anything. I have a partial reply that I made a long time ago. I've been busy so I haven't had time to complete but what I will do since you have attempted to 'jump back in' is i will send it to you and you can see that once again your Mathematical skills are deplorable at best.
and btw, I never claimed that light traveling THROUGH a gravitational well is refracted. I said light is the only thing in nature that is known to 'bounce off' gravity
to takaja you said "the speed of light is not the same inside a gravitational field." and when questioned by silveren you justified that by having him "look up refractive index"
so yes, you DID claim that light is refracted in a gravity well. which is wrong
now you've jumped from that position to this one: "light is the only thing in nature that's known to "bounce off" gravity"
how? light bounces of mirrors, but off gravity? i think not. care to clarify what you actually mean?
BTW this claim about Moon isolated speed is inconsistent with simple celestal mechanics: speed of satellite are determined with the following formula
v=sqrt[GM / r]
Running at 3280km/h with an orbital radius inferior or equal to 380000km, our Moon wouldn't be fast enough to get put in orbit, and would fall upon our head.
Conclusion? lightspeed calculated from the Quran is still 10% too fast.
What? If Earth were isolated from Sun's gravity, Moon would run at 3280km/h in a 27 days period?
The justification with the cosineφ is clumsy and pedantic pseudoscience in order to get the results they want :
what you calculate is actually nothing but one of the components of angular velocity when Moon is at 26.9° of its orbit: the instantaneous vertical speed; as others said. Ergo, this has nothing to do with the isolated angular mean velocity!
Your video is blatantly wrong from the first few minutes. You said 'this speed is the same as the speed of light outside of gravitational forces,' however the speed of light cannot be affected by another factor, it's a constant. So the speed of light in gravitational forces, is the same as the speed of light outside of gravitational forces.
You need to do some research into Physics dude. Light is affected by gravity just like everything else in nature. The only difference is light has the ability to bounce off of a gravitational field. But due to the law of Physics a change in trajectory causes a change in velocity so the speed of light is not the same inside a gravitational field. The only way speed is constant is outside of gravitational fields. This was proven by Albert Einstein almost 100 years ago.
You might want to look up refractive index. An objects density will determine the velocity of an object that moves thru it. This is true for anything in nature including light. The velocity of light is only constant in a vacuum. Outside a vacuum the velocity is determined by the refractive index. Since this is light we are talking about the change in velocity is rather small. However a change in velocity is a change in velocity.
Light rays passing through a material may indeed be slown down. But this has nothing to do with what i'm talking, when a ray come near the Sun, it doesn't move through it, refraction isn't relevant.
[Quran 70.4] The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
Here angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years (time vs. time and not time vs. distance as the other lunar verse). However, according to the theory of special relativity, given this time difference (time dilation), we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled. We can verify if those angels really accelerate up to the speed of light.
Some Mulsims tried to use Lorents's transformation to obtain a precise value of lightspeed. However, their premise is flimsy because from the verse, we don't know if this difference of duration for man's and angel's travel is caused by angels approaching lightspeed; indeed it can be merely due to a difference of speed.
=> So if this axis is used in that triangle, the component represents nothing but a RECTILINEAR SPEED, which has moreover an INSTANTANEOUS modulus (so an instantaneous speed), since as the Moon moves, the angle between "actual M's speed" (remaining unchanged in modulus) vector and "isolated M's speed" obviously varies.
As others suggest, the cosine part is problematic.
In the triangle of vectors whose resultant is actual Moon's angular speed, the 'isolated Moon's speed' component doesn't reprensent an angular speed, contrary to what the video states.
chasing angels made of light and tablets floating in space - absolutely pathetic - the kooraan is nonsense, just like every other 'book' that was written to make YOU a faithful FOLLOWER. wake up! think for yourself!
I sincerely hope you got AlRasuwl's permission before taking his video because all you did was erase his face, keep his voice and narration and made a video out of it. No disrespect but that's foul dude. If this is AlRasuwl then i apologize but if not then what you did was really messed up and i've already told AlRawul that I will respond to his video which is the Original of your's so when i respond to his you'll get your response as well
Quran - al - ma'idah verses 101-102 - Dude, even Muhammad knew that his teachings made no sense. He knew that the only way anyone could keep their faith in such drivel is if they were mindless sheep that questioned nothing. It's indicated quite clearly in this verse.
The whole eqaution doesn't matter simply because it takes light from the earth aproximately 1 second to reach the moon. Matter of fact it is simply playing with numbers, The whole eqaution is useless, Nice try though.
Speed of light is hidden in Koran, & its a Mathamaticcal Miracle.Here's why:
(9^9)-((6^9) * 9)+((9^6)*(9 - 6))=Speed of light in meters /sec:
9=age of the child(Ayeesha) when MO started having full vaginal intercourse with her; 6=age when 52 yrs old MO started masturbating on this child's thighs
Btw. 1400 years ago the moon was about 50m nearer to the earth resulting in a shorter orbit. What means in the past and futre this will not fit.
But if we change the alpha of the throw (!) calculation a litte... Or if we use the resulting speed instead of the whole vector instead of the x part only...
May I quote Dr. Neumair on the site you linked: "...this equation has no
natural meaning as a distance actually travelled by the moon in a
meaningful interval, and seems strained to force the result." - "The equation is completely unreladed to special relativity..." - "Such speculations are the decoy for the unfortunate people who desire
Right. The operative word here is "were". Why is it that no scientific discoveries are being contributed by Muslims today? Why did nobody come forward 500 years ago and say: here's the Big-Bang and here's how it all went down?
Instead we have the hobby of retro-fitting. I can do that with Nostradamus and have more success than with the Koran.
2. Nobody mentioned the Big-Bang 500 years ago even though it was always in the Koran.
3. Today almost every aya contains science.
4. People do that with the Nostradamus quatrains.
In 1250 the Arab scholars were chucked out of Europe and their discoveries stolen by the Catholic Church. Is that what you call my slave masters or are the Muslims the slave masters? Or both?
All institutions are dominated by Free mason & zionist atheist. Zionism is a GODless ideology. Zionism has infiltrated every known instution. Including Gov. i can not see how an ATHEIST who hate CREATIONISTgiving award any Muslim for any achievements.
@StopSpamming1 No zionism is against any belief in GOD.Not Just Muslims. Its a godless ideology that is fueled by hatred, racisim,superiorty and classification of the masses being sub human. WHICH is YOU.
AND you devote your life defending such a devient ideology.
@StopSpamming1 Darwin him self veiwed coloured people as transitional APES. LIKE see the sickness of this unscientific science. Its communism/materialism dressed up in education. Im not claiming religion should be taught in biology.
But evolution is just a presumption a belief and a very fanatical religion.Backed up by the wealthy rich. OFCOURSE they will invest/advertise for such a theory. IT suits their interest.
Do you want their names? They were Taliban who blew themselves up and then stormed the hotel in Kabul, 6 metres away from me. I ducked and ran.
Where on earth did you get that idea with Darwin from?
Evolution is a fact and substantiated by experiments, tests, observation and peer review. Only because we can not be sure it is a fact on every planet it remains the Theory of Evolution.
Maybe the Koran can explain an entire theory in 2 words. I can't. There are volumes and entire libraries full of proof. I don't know if you are just a braggart or are capable of looking something up, so the easiest one is Lenski or Lenski affair.
Then there's morphological and nucleotide sequence homology, adaptation, speciation, extinction, etc etc, all proving the mechanism and results of evolution. Easy.
@StopSpamming1 Homology contradicts morphogical, extinctions mean shit because animals in our life time were extint and no new species evolved from them. Speciation is totally scientifically disproven as mechanism for evolution or any GENETIC changes.
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.
@StopSpamming1 Adaption is very real science, and even evolutionist know the limitations of it. If Adaption was evolution it would have been able to come to life in the labs.
Evolution through adaption basically sums up to humans being able to fly out to space without an aircraft.
Erm, this makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about? What is adaption?
If you mean abiogenesis the first part makes sense, but not the second. The second is totally nonsensical.
Your second post gives me the impression that you are making this up. You have no idea what I am talking about. Who has disproven speciation? Genetic changes are the centerpiece for speciation, not the other way around. Where do you find this nonsense?
Speciation has to almost always start with complete isolation of populations. A population may have gone through a severe genetic bottleneck, as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called founder effect model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists' best efforts, no new species from a founder population.
Ernst Mayr was one of the most significant adherents of the theory of evolution in the 20th century. He based his theory on mutation, and yet at the same time admitted the impossibility of this:
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation . . . is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as hopeless.'
@StopSpamming1 They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection . . . the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .
Numerology, that is to say massaging numbers and interpretation to fit a desired outcome.
It is logical to assume that if angels are made of light, they travel at the speed of light. But do you know how long a round trip to the edge of the universe would take, at the speed of light ?
There is no science in the Koran, just a bunch of crazy desperate people trying to make an ancient text, relevant to todays world. In doing so they only expose one of the worlds great religions to ridicule.
It would take quite a long time to make round trips across the universe but your forgetting one small thing. Relativity. The faster you go the slower time goes so once you reach the speed of light time stops. So it doesn't matter how 'long' it takes because there would be no 'time' to measure it by.
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ "So it doesn't matter how 'long' it takes because there would be no 'time' to measure it by" ]
Excuse me, but you're the one forgetting relativity.
Time may not matter from an angels point of view. But for the Earth, less than half the time taken for one round trip to heaven by an angel, represents the entire lifetime of this planet.
The claim is absurd. It makes religion, which is supposed to be concerned with mans spiritual needs, look stupid.
I didn't forget about Relativity, i said in the very beginning that it would take a long time lol. But if time doesn't matter from an angels point of view then what is the point of your comment?? The equation is about angels not people. Saying that from our perspective it would take a long time is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the angel's perspective. I fail to see how the claim is absurd by saying that a entity made of light should logically travel at the speed of light.
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ " But if time doesn't matter from an angels point of view then what is the point of your comment??" ]
The point is: That regulating affairs between Heaven & Earth at the speed of light, using Angels as intermediaries. Is both, impractical and impossible. Because the Earth would have come into existence and ceased to exist, before even one exchange between heaven and earth could occur.
You can't say that because your supposing that "Heaven" is on the other side of the universe. If you don't know where Heaven is you can't automatically assume it's "lightyears" away. Hell dude, people still think that Hell is in the center of the Earth.
And once again your attempting to distort Relativity. Our time and their time wouldn't 'seperate'. Time would stop for them so when they traveled and came back...to US it would seem as if they had never left.
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ "Time would stop for them so when they traveled and came back...to US it would seem as if they had never left." ]
Seem to for them, not for us. Try to realise, that light travels at an actual, finite speed. Read the 'twin paradox' to help you understand special relativity.
[ "your supposing that "Heaven" is on the other side of the universe" ]
My understanding of the Islamic view, is that God is not part of his creation and exists outside space and time.
I understand special relativity. the equation is based off of special relativity. What your not understanding is that time does not seperate. when you reach the speed of light time = 0. There will be no passage of time for either them or us. The Twin Paradox is not based off of reaching the speed of light so that doesn't apply here. Since the Twin Paradox is based off of one traveling through space at a speed lower then the speed of light time would still apply.
That would bel fine, if the angel photons, were minding their own business like normal photons. But they're not, are they? They putatively interact with us, reciting verses and such, on a very human time scale.
Once we start using light to communicate, we have to wait. Even though the light or radio waves carrying our messages, are not themselves experiencing time.
You have watched the news and noticed the time delay on satellite links to distant correspondents.
Your comments aren't making any sense now. We are not using light to communicate. The angels are MADE of light. When they travel they can accelerate up to the speed of light. this has nothing to do with communication. Your supoosing they communicate thru light. Light waves and radio waves are 2 different things moving at completely different rates. You are putting light waves and radio waves on the same plane. Radio waves have interference which is what causes time delay light waves don't.
[ "The angels are MADE of light." ] Please explain what you mean by this.
He regulates the affairs on Earth from Heaven. If he's using Angels to do that, it most certainly is all about communication.
[ "Light waves and radio waves are 2 different things moving at completely different rates." ]
Not so. Google electromagnetic spectrum. Radio, microwave, infra red, visible, UV, x ray and gamma. All travel at the speed of light, just different wavelengths of the same thing.
Well i'm still waiting for someone to prove it false. The equation specifies that it is light outside of a vaccum.
I understand your view but your forgetting that there is something called Scientific fact as well. A fact doesn't change. Science advances a theory until it establishes a fact then it moves on to the next. This same rule applies to the Quran. If the Quran is stating scientific fact then your attempt to claim it is subject to updating is wrong. a fact cannot be updated.
In my own view. The people making scientific claims for the Koran are misguided.
The whole point of science is that everything is falsifiable and is subject to improvement or replacement. Consequently, ideas can and generally do, become outdated as our knowledge increases.
If there is science in the Koran, then it to, is subject to same process, it too can become outdated and therefore irrelevant. After all, if God is wrong about the science, why would he be right about anything else.
Please send posts to my message inbox I don't like using all my comment space to keep replying back and forth like this. Plus you and i can keep all ideas on one solid page instead of being limited to 300 words.
You don't accept that the physical limit on the speed of light, presents a significant problem for God, who is said to regulate events on Earth at that speed. You accuse me of a straw-man, when I'm only demonstrating that said speed limit, is not trivial for everything that has mass.
The objections equation are clear and valid. You simply won't accept them.
The detail of how we understand facts is important. e.g The Earth is not flat, it is also not shaped like an egg.
Proving that an angel can accelerate up to the speed of light doesn't necessary mean that it is limited to that speed. It could very well travel faster then that. However to say so is going beyond what the equation is proving and beyond what the Surah is saying so to do so supposition. I accuse you of strawman because you have yet to show anything proving the equation wrong. All you've done is deviate from the actual equation by bringing up things that have nothing to do with it.
It's a very good thing that the equation is wrong.
Because if it were accepted as true, it would just compound the difficulties of explaining how the God/Earth/Angel relationship could practically work, within the physical limits of this universe.
That's why the equation is using 2nd Theory of Special Relativity. it's taking the Cos(theta) from Sidereal (reference to distant star). Your solving for theta in reference to the Moon. So your the one fudging not the equation.
The equation doesn't matter at all. It takes Light about 1 second to go from the earth to the moon. You wouldn't need to introduce cosine at all, its just a simple distance problem within a vacuum.
yeah that'd be great, when you get the time. i assume you've been busy.
if you're not able then feel free to give me a link to where you got the idea about this 2nd theory of special relativity. i'd be happy to have a look at it.
Ok I have to make this short an sweet. you can reference it from pretty much any physics site it doesn't matter which. But to answer your question there are 2 ways to solve for the angle Theta. One is forming the angle in reference to a distant star (Sidereal) which is what the equation uses and where the Cos (theta) comes from. the other way is to solve for Theta by forming the angle in reference to the Earth which doesn't use the Cos (Theta).
no, you're describing how to form the angle theta, any 7yr old can do that. you've still failed to show how it's valid to use cos(theta) to fudge your equation.
one reason why it's NOT valid is that cos(theta) will produce negative orbital lenghts for angles between 90 and 270. negative orbital lenghts do not make sense, hence it's wrong to use cos(theta) to fudge your equation
No i'm describing how to SOLVE for the angle theta. in order to solve for it you must first ascertain how the angle was FORMED. Why?? Because the equation is different depending on how the angle was formed.
And your absolutely right the Cos of an angle between 90-270 would produce negative orbital lengths. Your only forgetting one small thing. IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.
The only way for the Moon to produce any angle above 45 in relation to a distant star it would have to LEAVE ITS ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH. This would not happen. All you've done is posed an impossible situation. The only way for the Moon to form a 90-270 angle would be if it was in RELATION TO THE EARTH. Which is (as i've already told you) a completely different equation that DOESN'T use the Cos. Why?? Fot the very reason you just stated...it would produce negative orbital lengths.
Dude do you have ANY clue what your talking about. that is NOT how you solve for theta. Theta is nothing more then a Trig term for the unknown angle of a triangle. In order to solve for Theta you must identify the other 2 sides of the triangle. For any triangle a, b, c. Sin(theta) = a/c, Cos(theta) = b/c, and Tan(theta) = a/b.
In all of your examples you have not given any clue as to what your referencing your angle to. As your talking about satelites i can only assume your referencing your angle in relation to the Earth. Which as i've already told you is a completely different equation. IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an object around the Earth. Whether is be the Moon or a satelite to be any angle higher then 45. That's simple Calculus. That silly ass equation that you posted is Copernicus' theory
Copernicu's Theory is used to calculate a planets Sidereal Period from it's Synodic one. LOL. i finally figured out what your so confused about. You saw the original equation that is calculating the difference between the Synodic month and Sidereal month using Copernicus Theory and your attempting to claim that THAT is how you find the angle of THETA. DUDE YOUR A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!
No you took ONE PART of the equation and your trying to claim it's invalid. Once again you have no clue about Trigonometry. This equation used Copernicus Theory to calculate the difference in the Sidereal and Synodic periods. That's where those nuts get the "the equation is 'switching' between Sidereal and Synodic" idiotic rebuttal. It THEN solves for Theta. As i told you several posts ago you must FIRST determine HOW THE ANGLE IS FORMED. Then you use either Sin, Cos, or Tan.
2ndly the angle formed IN THE EQUATION is a right triangle. for ALL right triangles the ONLY thing that you can use is the Cos(theta) because of the Pythagorean Theorem. in YOUR equations you have not referenced how the angle is formed so you can use either Sin, Cos, or Tan to solve for theta depending on HOW THE ANGLE IS FORMED whether you have a/b, b/c or a/c. So no your equations DON'T stand because a) you don't show how your angle is formed
b) you simply plugged some numbers in and then claim that Cos can be used for all of them except one which doesn't prove anything because that's simple Trigonometry. Cos doesn't HAVE to be used for all of them. Cos can ONLY be used if the angles formed are b/c. Since you don't show which angle is which simply claim it is "theta'. Which it isn't. then my earlier claim stands. You have no clue what your talking about. You saying Cos(theta) can be used any time Theta is known and it can't.
"you took ONE PART of the equation trying to claim it's invalid"
precisely, and if part of the equation is faulty, then the result is invalid. this is not a sidereal/synodic rebuttal (also a valid objection imo), i'm demonstrating how using cos(@) is invalid in Elnaby's equation 5: C =12000V*cos(@)*T/t
now, i can see you're very excited about your triangles, so i'll humour you: @ is "formed" with hypotenus and adjacent side. good?
the physical meaning of @ is the angle that the earth-moon systems travels around the sun in one sidereal period of the moon, as Elnaby agrees. @ is intimately connected to the orbital radius which was my point. as R increases so does orbital period T. as T increases so does @ (due to the equation @=T/Y*360, where Y is a year). so the further out an object orbits the larger @ is. eventually it becomes more than 90, leading to negative results for orbital length.
it's not a matter of "just plugging in numbers". if cos(@) is ment to be valid, then it must work for all cases concerning orbital mechanics. it does not, therefore it is invalid. further, i only have to show 1 single case where it does not work to invalidate it. i've done so, namely case 3.d below, which lead to a negative orbital length. notice than i'm sticking to exactly what Elnaby is doing, so you can't dispute the equations without conceding that Elnabys conclusion is wrong. checkmate, eh
Once again simply...DUMB!! You can't claim that Cos(@) should work for all cases because you can't solve for an angle the same way for EVERY angle. If a/b are the only angles known you CAN'T use Cos or Tan. If a/c are known you CAN'T use Sin or Tan...etc. This statement is just like saying the Pythagorean Theorem shoud be able to be used with ANY triangle. That's just stupid. So yes Ansible...checkmate. You win!!! I have better things to do with my time then debate with ignorance.
No the physical meaning of @ is "The unknown angle". In the particular case of this equation the angle just happens to form a 90 degree angle which means Cos(Theta) is used. If the angle was formed some other way then Sin(theta) or Tan(theta) would have been used. However it DIDN'T so they WEREN'T. Once again T/Y * 360 (which is actually wrong it's actually (E / P)*S is NOT solving for the angle of theta it's calculating the difference between the Sidereal and Synodic periods.
AFTER that is solved you THEN solve for Theta by (in this particular instance) taking the Cos. If the angle were smaller or LARGER then the resultant angles would NOT be a 90 angle therefore Cos would NOT be used an either Sin or Tan would be. It's TRIGONOMETRY You really need to learn some. Try googling "solve for angle theta", THEN Goolge (E / P)*S and THEN come back and tell me that the way to solve for theta is Copernicus Theory (E/P)*S.You sound like a buffon.
If part of the equation is faulty, then the result is invalid.
THAT'S BULL!! Copernicus Theory MUST be used the same way every time. However solving for an angle CAN'T be solved the same way for EVERY instance. 2nd you can't simply SAY this one is hypotenus this one is adjacent. YOUR FUDGING. It's a mathematical formula it must be PROVEN. Since you CAN'T your bull is once again exposed for what it is.
i don't have to "prove" anything here. read Elnaby's paper and it becomes clear that i'm using his equations exactly as he posited them, simple as that. and exposing the flaws in those equations is not "fudging". you can shout "copernicus" and "pythagoras" all you want, but it does nothing for your case. this is just a matter of plugging in numbers for satellites into Elnaby's equation and showing what the resulting orbital lengths would be. namely using L=V*cos(@)*T
the meaning of @ is not in dispute here. the direct quote from Elnaby shows what i was saying: @ is "the angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun during one sidereal period"
the equation for @ comes from Elnaby: @=(T/Y)*360. Elnaby does not use pythagoras to find the VALUE of @, he uses the period T. so when T increases, so does @. tried googling E/P*S without result. it does not feature in any of Elnaby's work. where did you find it and what does E,P and S represent?
cos(@) is then used to find the orbital length. and as i showed with case 3.d (an object three times further out than the moon) doing this may result in negative values. since this is not consistent with reality, the eqation is in error. note that for case 3.d i ran the numbers through EXACTLY THE SAME EQUATIONS AS ELNABY USES. and the result is a negative value. that's CLEAR proof that the equations are invalid
which means that Elnaby's equation C=12000*V*cos(@)*T/t must be invalid.
Please listen to me carefully. YOU CAN'T USE COS TO SOLVE FOR EVERY INSTANCE OF AN ANGLE. It's impossible!!! Certain conditions must be met in order to use either Sin, Cos or Tan. That's MATHEMATICS. To claim that Dr. Elnaby used it in this instance so it should therefore be able to be used in EVERY instance is not only wrong it's dumb dude. and it shows a severe lack of knowledge of Math on your part. I know you've already Googled how to solve for theta so you KNOW your wrong.
of course it doesn't feature in any of Elnaby's work because it's COPERNICUS. E/P * S is used to find the difference between the Sidereal and Synodic periods of an object. Listen to what your saying. "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T".
E = Sidereal period of an object
P = Sidereal Year
S = Synodic year
I learned it in a Physics book in college so i'm sorry but i can't reference it. You need to update your Googling skills i guess.
I HAVE read Elnaby's paper. What do you think my video is based on LOL. Yes your using his equations exactly as he posted them but your not using MATH. Your not using TRIGONOMETRY. Your simply attempting to claim that a Trig problem should be able to be solved the same way for every instance and it CAN'T. Period. You have no case because you don't understand Math.
this is not a matter of trigonometry, you've misunderstood my criticism.
ok, first off: this is a misqoute: "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T". what i said was "Elnaby uses T to find @" (we all do! you do too) which is the opposite of what you tried to make out i said. you don't use trig in order to find the value of @. you don't solve for it with trig. you find @ using the period T (or E if you wil), along with Y (or P). not cos, not sin, not tan.
...second, you need to refresh your college physics. E/P*S is not the formula you would use. P & S are virtually the same. you could use Sm/P*360 to find the angle travelled by the moon around the earth during the time difference between a synodic and sidereal month (where Sm is a synodic lunar month). Sm is found as 1/((1/E)-(1/P)), and the time difference is simply Sm-E. simple orbital mechanics (incidentally, wiki has a good article on this under "orbital period")
...but this second point is just a distraction from the real issue, namely that you don't use trig to find the value of @. if at any point there was a formula reading "@=acos(x/y)" then you would be correct. if you had sides y,z or x,z then you'd use atan or asin. but that's not the case here. @ is found using T/Y*360 (or E/P*360), not using acos(x/y)
after that, cos(@) is used to modify the orbital length of the moon in the equation L=V*cos(@)*T which is then used to find C.
...it is this use of cos(@) i take issue with. why? because it makes no sense to put in the cos(@) term. it should simply read L=V*T. and the reason i know that it shouldn't include cos(@) is that objects further out than the moon would have their orbital lenghts reduced to zero or negative, depending on the orbital radius, because nothing stops @ from increasing as R and T increase.
There are other factors which must be taken into account then simply saying it's hypotenuse and adjacent. It doesn't work that way. it CAN'T simply be L = V * T. Because the velocity of the Moon is not constant it speeds up and slows down therefore you can't simply say V. There are points in the Earth-Moon system in which it leaves the Solar System thus it can't simply be T. This is what i mean by you have no clue what you talking about.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK T/Y * 360 IS!!!!!!!! it's a/b, b/c or c/a then you SOLVE FOR THETA depending on how the angle was formed that GAVE YOU THAT VALUE. Which turns into Sin(T/Y * 360) OR Cos(T/Y * 3600 OR Tan(T/Y * 360) DEPENDING ON THE ANGLE or as you know it Sin(@), Cos(@), Tan(@). that's what i've been trying to tell you this whole time
ok, first off: this is a misqoute: "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T". what i said was "Elnaby uses T to find @"
That is NOT what you said. your exact words were, "Elnaby does not use pythagoras to find the VALUE of @, he uses the period T". No when I point out what you did wrong you want to claim it's a misquote. THEN you say it again above. And you DO use trig to find angle theta. It's the only way you CAN solve for theta.
ok, you've misunderstood. here's what that sentence means:
Elnaby uses T to find @. not the other way around. and he does not use trig to find @.
@ is calculated as @=T/Y*360. not as @=a/b or b/c or c/a. this is very clear from Elnaby's own paper (read it!) and this is not up for dispute. but let me say it again in case you missed it: trig is not used to find the value of @
now T/Y*360 is not the same as E/P*S, because S is not 360 (although T=E and Y=P)
...so far you've not given a reason for why L=V*cos(@)*T should be used. which in turn means that there is no reason to use C=12000*V*cos(@)*T/t. which is my point
on top of that i've given you a reason why L=V*cos(@)*T is invalid. which is that it produces negative orbital lengths for objects further out than the moon. and the only way for this equation to be valid is if it produces consistent results for all possible conditions. that's why it's wrong
"so far you've not given a reason for why L=V*cos(@)*T should be used"
Watch the end of the video. I specifically talk about the displacement vector of the Earth-Moon system and so does Dr. Elnaby since you claim you read his paper you should know that. You should also know that this displacement is ALWAYS at a 90 degree angle with the rotational force around earth thus HYPOTENUSE AND ADJACENT. You remember those 2 don't you? So would use COS(@) because of the Pythagorean Therom.
"on top of that i've given you a reason why L=V*cos(@)*T is invalid."
No all you've done is "proven" that the Cos can't be used to solve for EVERY angle which is EXACTLY what i told you DAYS AGO And it's what you already KNOW from your own reading and B.S about your satellites having hypotenuse and adjacent angles.The equation CAN produce consistent results IF YOU KNOW MATH AND SOLVE THE EQUATION CORRECTLY.
My counter argument is that you know NOTHING about math. You've claimed that you don't use Trig to solve for an angle. Which is wrong. That's like saying if have a+b = c you don't use Algebra to solve it. You've DELIBERATELY tried to manipulate equations to get the answer you needed (claiming hypotenuse an adjacent because you KNOW only they can use the Cos) and even if you DIDN'T an just 'randomly' picked them your STILL wrong.
You've attempted to 'correct' me on Copernius theory even though you didn't even know what it WAS until i told you. So this is what i'm going to do. This is my last post to you and if you want to reply then do so but it will be deleted and you will be blocked. Your arguments are redundant and show no mathematical knowledge whatsoever. I have better things to do with my time. Assalamalaykum
"because Sm (synodic) is not the same value as T (sidereal)" I never said it was that was YOUR equation. i told you it's (E/P)S. You showed your lack of knowledge by attempting to claim that P & S were virtually the same. OF COURSE THEY ARE because P is a Sidereal year and S is a Synodic year an these 2 are virutally the same.
"V is the measured AVERAGE orbital velocity of the moon". so your objection is not valid.
Vis IS the average velocity of the Moon but this is Science you can't simply SAY the average is this...YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. And that's what he does he solves for the average velocity. It's just like in your earlier post when you attempted to manipulate tell me the 'angles' formed were hypotenuse and adjacent. Why did you SPECIFICALLY say those 2.
Because you KNEW from your reading that you HAVE TO have the hypotenuse an adjacent angles in order to use the Cos. You KNEW if you have used any other angles you would not be able to use the Cos and your entire idiotic 'satelitte' argument would have been over because you KNEW i would have pointed that out to you. But let me guess you just 'named 2 random angles' right?? And if that's what you did then that's even MORE stupid and shows you don't know what your talking about.
He DOES use Trig to find @. That's where Cos(@) comes from. You KNOW that already because you've already looked up how to solve for @ yet you sit there and CONTINUE to claim that it's wrong. So how do you solve for @ for any angle?? Since you claim that it's not Sin(@), Cos(@) or Tan(@) an please give some kind of reference but we both know you won't.
T=E and Y=P but it's not the same equation. LOL. So what is S? We know you won't answer that too.
well, before you block me i'd like to point out something
first, YOU defined S some 20 posts ago: S = Synodic year = 365.242days, not 360. that means (E/P*S) has units of (Edays/Pdays*Sdays) which returns Xdays not an angle @
second, if V is defined as the average velocity, what's the problem? you can find V yourself with V=2*pi*R(avg)/T
third, you don't use trig to find @, you use @=T/Y*360. there's no trig in this equation. what you do with @ later doesn't matter
...fourth, look at these two sentences you wrote: "You showed your lack of knowledge by attempting to claim that P & S were virtually the same. OF COURSE THEY ARE because P is a Sidereal year and S is a Synodic year an these 2 are virutally the same."
are you seriously calling me stupid for saying P&S are nearly the same, when you in the very...next...sentence turn around and say exactly the same?? qoute: "well of course they are nearly the same"? that's... pretty unbelievable o_O
...now, my uni degree included astrodynamics and orbital mechanics. i'm not as ignorant as you may think. but i think college physics and some common sense should be more than adequate for this type of debate.
and i'm certainly not mainupalting any equations. i'm using Elnaby's equations. and nowhere in his paper does he calculate @ using @=acos(b/c). nowhere! if it did that would be solving for @ using trig. but it doesn't. L=V*cos(@)*T is NOT solving for @, it's calculating L
...i've seen the illustration of Elnaby's equations, and yes, you can make a triangle with vectors V and VCos(@), but so what? that's for illustration purposes, not for finding angle @. and the reason should be obvious: you don't know the value of Vcos(@) before you calculate @, not the other way around. which means you use cos(@)=b/c to find b, by rearranging to b=c*cos(@). you don't solve for @, which would be @=acos(b/c)
block me if you wish, but it's certainly no way to "win" an argument
This has been flagged as spam show
MUSLIMS ARE ALWAYS FINDING "MIRACLES" OUT OF VERY VAGUE TEXTS BUT THE QURAN IS TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. THE QURAN SAYS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MADE UP OF 7 HEAVENS, AN OLD, FALSE BELIEF OF MUHAMMED'S TIME, 41:12, THAT "STARS ARE MISSILES TO SHOOT THE DEVIL", 67:5, THAT "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVENS FROM DEMONS LISTENING TO THE DEVINE ASSEMBLY", 37:6-8 AND THAT "THERE IS A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE SUN SET", AS IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT, 18:83-90
DictaduraNo123 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheCaptainlam 2 months ago
Iam very happy to be not a muslim. There is no science in Quaran. And I read the rubbish. Wow I have the feeling to burn the bible or the quaran now :D
jomushin7 3 months ago
I love how Atheists intentionally misunderstand everything to make them seem right
NocriZle 4 months ago
@NocriZle absolutely spot on!
juujuubie 3 months ago
@juujuubie thanks
NocriZle 3 months ago
After watching this video one can come to think that the Koran states the speed of light and shows the working. What a load of nonsense.
How many times does this need to be debunked before people pull these laughable videos?
Why doesn't anyone ever show the two sides of the equation?
The sun is "receding away" from Earth due to ocean friction? Man, you gotta get your facts straight.
Getting from angels to the moon and the speed of light is truly amazing! LOL.
StopSpamming1 6 months ago
Masha Allah..... Cool Explanation.... Jazakullah khair
ahamedali1981 8 months ago
Preserved tablet? This is only for Allah angels dont read whats inside and its not in space its with God.
TeenageIronman 9 months ago
Asalamu alykom, I would also like to get your input on therationalizers video. Especially on his comments refering to the other verse stating the "50,000 years". I have no doubt that there is an explanation, but I have not found it yet.
IqraZz 1 year ago
@IqraZz
Let me know what he said or give me the time link in his video where he said it. TheRationalizers video is wrong on quite a few points so please let me know which one your referring to and i'll explain
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior here is the link >>>> youtube(.)com/watch?v=njPLyu3ci48 i am not physic student ..just in case if ur intrested
sicker57 6 months ago
leave it. the videos of the rationalizer are so funny. I mostly agree with the calculations. They are amazing calculations. but I could not find any "university website" of any ISI journal to find these calculations.
who did these calculations? probably the website: speed-light.info but this is not an official website.
Why the owner of these calculations does not publish his result in a scientific journal to terminate the disagreements? Thanks
SCRUTINIZER2000 2 months ago
Do what you want. You have the responsibility for each deed.
kaltersi 1 year ago
What about golden number and the Qaba, in Mekka?
You are just a BIG hypocrite. U are not Muslim.
kaltersi 1 year ago
@kaltersi
1st of all who r U to determine who is or who is not a Muslim. 2nd what about the golden number and the Qaba?? Since you didn't say anything about them i have no clue how to even respond to your nothing but disrespectful comment. So who is truly not acting like a Muslim
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior Assalamu Alaykum, an amazing video bro. May Allah protect you from the disbelievers and their allies. Ameen.
Bilal1234live 10 months ago
Are you serious dude? Just because the Angels of Allah are made of light does not mean that they travel at the speed of light. It would take them billions of years to travel from heaven to earth to send messages from Allah. They are made of a light not from our dimension.
TeenageIronman 1 year ago
@TeenageIronman
Relativity dude. The closer to the speed of light you reach the slower time goes. If an angel reached the speed of light "time" would in essence stop so it doesn't matter whether it would take them billions of years or 2 seconds it would still be the same amount of time because time has stopped
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior True but that is for them, if they go at the speed of light for a couple of minutes it will pass for us like a couple of years. By the time it would of taken Angel Gabriel to go Allah and bring the message to Mohammad (PBUH) he would be already dead.
TeenageIronman 1 year ago
@TeenageIronman
That's not true dude. Time is time. Think about it like this. if your driving in your car and your going 110 mph. Time for you in the car is the same as it is for me outside of the car. Time doesn't split. So if you were to reach the speed of light and time stopped it would stop for both of us not just you. The angel Gabriel leaving and coming back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have seemed like the blink of an eye not years. It would have seemed that he never left.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior Anyway I don't wanna argue, you believe what you want and I believe what I want.
TeenageIronman 1 year ago
@TeenageIronman
believe what u want? so u living just to believe? why don't learn some physic before start any false arguments. speed, relativity, time is very weird that human can't imagine, example, u r in rockect MOVING FORWARD WITH SPEED OF LIGHT, then, if light passes u, u CAN'T see light stall beside, but light moving FASTER THAN U WITH SPEED OF LIGHT. same happen when backward, u don't see light moving faster, but moving at light constant speed... this the General Theory of Relativity
WTHeavenful 9 months ago
You should check out TheRationalizer's video on this matter. I think it's the best video on youtube debunking this ridiculous claim.
robbegx 1 year ago
Thank you brother. Mashallah, I hope Allah always keeps you strong in stomping out the devil in the minds of the people. Life is too short, they dont know any better through all their intelligence.
ParadiseAtMyFeet 1 year ago
Two fatal mistakes are made in the video
1. 32:5 in quran speeks of arrangement of affairs between heaven and earth and visa versa.
a. AFFAIRS doesn't mean LIGHT and b. IT'S NOT BETWEEN SUN AND EARTH
2. If speed is distance divided by time then you should divide the distance of 1000 years (Quran day) by the time of 1000 years(and not regular day) which is 12 x 1000 x 27.32 (lunar month) x 86164.0906 secs(length of day in secs)= 2824803460 secs
the result is 9.144 ridiculous right?
intushabitat 1 year ago
God bless you!
BOSKEEEEEEEEE 1 year ago
TJ. why are you still defending this stance? our pm exchange thoroughly obliterated this entire issue. you will at the very very best be more than 10% out from the true value, and in reality you are closer to 20% off. c is not in the quran.
and btw, a ray of light travelling through a gravitational well is not "refracted", the velocity of the ray is constant, as has been pointed out. even though the beam "bends" it doesn't change direction compared to the space-time geometry it travels through
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
Uhhh no your argument didn't obliterate anything. I have a partial reply that I made a long time ago. I've been busy so I haven't had time to complete but what I will do since you have attempted to 'jump back in' is i will send it to you and you can see that once again your Mathematical skills are deplorable at best.
and btw, I never claimed that light traveling THROUGH a gravitational well is refracted. I said light is the only thing in nature that is known to 'bounce off' gravity
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
to takaja you said "the speed of light is not the same inside a gravitational field." and when questioned by silveren you justified that by having him "look up refractive index"
so yes, you DID claim that light is refracted in a gravity well. which is wrong
now you've jumped from that position to this one: "light is the only thing in nature that's known to "bounce off" gravity"
how? light bounces of mirrors, but off gravity? i think not. care to clarify what you actually mean?
theansible 1 year ago
BTW this claim about Moon isolated speed is inconsistent with simple celestal mechanics: speed of satellite are determined with the following formula
v=sqrt[GM / r]
Running at 3280km/h with an orbital radius inferior or equal to 380000km, our Moon wouldn't be fast enough to get put in orbit, and would fall upon our head.
Conclusion? lightspeed calculated from the Quran is still 10% too fast.
luxordu93 1 year ago
What? If Earth were isolated from Sun's gravity, Moon would run at 3280km/h in a 27 days period?
The justification with the cosineφ is clumsy and pedantic pseudoscience in order to get the results they want :
what you calculate is actually nothing but one of the components of angular velocity when Moon is at 26.9° of its orbit: the instantaneous vertical speed; as others said. Ergo, this has nothing to do with the isolated angular mean velocity!
luxordu93 1 year ago
Preserved Tablet somewhere in Space? And where is this exactly and what does the preserved tablet located outside gravitational forces contain?
Thetalispin 1 year ago
@Thetalispin
Only Allah(swt) knows where it is located. And the Preserved Tablet contains the words of Allah(swt) and his instructions for the angels
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
Preserved Tablet somewhere in Space? And where is this exactly and what does the preserved tablet located outside gravitational forces?
Thetalispin 1 year ago
Your video is blatantly wrong from the first few minutes. You said 'this speed is the same as the speed of light outside of gravitational forces,' however the speed of light cannot be affected by another factor, it's a constant. So the speed of light in gravitational forces, is the same as the speed of light outside of gravitational forces.
Takaja316 1 year ago
@Takaja316
You need to do some research into Physics dude. Light is affected by gravity just like everything else in nature. The only difference is light has the ability to bounce off of a gravitational field. But due to the law of Physics a change in trajectory causes a change in velocity so the speed of light is not the same inside a gravitational field. The only way speed is constant is outside of gravitational fields. This was proven by Albert Einstein almost 100 years ago.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior sorry, you're right.
Takaja316 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
Gravity indeed bends light rays but their velocity is unchanged, only the apparent velocity based on the assumption of a straigh ray-path decreases.
silveren777 1 year ago
@silveren777
You might want to look up refractive index. An objects density will determine the velocity of an object that moves thru it. This is true for anything in nature including light. The velocity of light is only constant in a vacuum. Outside a vacuum the velocity is determined by the refractive index. Since this is light we are talking about the change in velocity is rather small. However a change in velocity is a change in velocity.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
Light rays passing through a material may indeed be slown down. But this has nothing to do with what i'm talking, when a ray come near the Sun, it doesn't move through it, refraction isn't relevant.
silveren777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
faults.
1) precision error.
you can't use a 5 sf number (cosine alpha) to make a 7sf conclusion
2) it only works with cosine alpha to 5sf - if you use 6sf, the answer is 1km out
(this proves deliberate dishonesty by the video makers)
3) the full formula gives the orbit of the moon, which is more than 100km out from what NASA say it is (measured to 5cm accuracy).
Dishonest rubbish for the simple-minded and the gullible.
TheMathCheck 1 year ago
How can you still get the speed of light in this verse when the measure is 50000 years .obviously numbers are being played with.
Master8laster 1 year ago
[Quran 70.4] The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
Here angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years (time vs. time and not time vs. distance as the other lunar verse). However, according to the theory of special relativity, given this time difference (time dilation), we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled. We can verify if those angels really accelerate up to the speed of light.
Master8laster 1 year ago
@Master8laster
Some Mulsims tried to use Lorents's transformation to obtain a precise value of lightspeed. However, their premise is flimsy because from the verse, we don't know if this difference of duration for man's and angel's travel is caused by angels approaching lightspeed; indeed it can be merely due to a difference of speed.
silveren777 1 year ago
=> So if this axis is used in that triangle, the component represents nothing but a RECTILINEAR SPEED, which has moreover an INSTANTANEOUS modulus (so an instantaneous speed), since as the Moon moves, the angle between "actual M's speed" (remaining unchanged in modulus) vector and "isolated M's speed" obviously varies.
silveren777 1 year ago
Comment removed
silveren777 1 year ago
As others suggest, the cosine part is problematic.
In the triangle of vectors whose resultant is actual Moon's angular speed, the 'isolated Moon's speed' component doesn't reprensent an angular speed, contrary to what the video states.
It's, as we can see, a DIRECTION, an axis.
silveren777 1 year ago
chasing angels made of light and tablets floating in space - absolutely pathetic - the kooraan is nonsense, just like every other 'book' that was written to make YOU a faithful FOLLOWER. wake up! think for yourself!
dthrckt 1 year ago
My rebuttal: youtube.com/watch?v=njPLyu3ci48
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer
@TheRationalizer
I sincerely hope you got AlRasuwl's permission before taking his video because all you did was erase his face, keep his voice and narration and made a video out of it. No disrespect but that's foul dude. If this is AlRasuwl then i apologize but if not then what you did was really messed up and i've already told AlRawul that I will respond to his video which is the Original of your's so when i respond to his you'll get your response as well
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
I'm the same person, I closed the other account :)
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Quran - al - ma'idah verses 101-102 - Dude, even Muhammad knew that his teachings made no sense. He knew that the only way anyone could keep their faith in such drivel is if they were mindless sheep that questioned nothing. It's indicated quite clearly in this verse.
kendrawhisp 1 year ago
The whole eqaution doesn't matter simply because it takes light from the earth aproximately 1 second to reach the moon. Matter of fact it is simply playing with numbers, The whole eqaution is useless, Nice try though.
slicingwater 1 year ago
@slicingwater Playing with numbers?
So is it such a big coincidence then?
IslamAyaat 1 year ago
The funny thing is that the verse 32:5 is plagiarized from the Bible. Here are the original Biblical verses:
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. Psalm 90:4
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.2 Peter 3:8
waqasanees 1 year ago
U are my new hero. Islam needs more intelligent young brothers like yourself to state facts using clear logic and reason. MasAllah.
samster10001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Speed of light is hidden in Koran, & its a Mathamaticcal Miracle.Here's why:
(9^9)-((6^9) * 9)+((9^6)*(9 - 6))=Speed of light in meters /sec:
9=age of the child(Ayeesha) when MO started having full vaginal intercourse with her; 6=age when 52 yrs old MO started masturbating on this child's thighs
ch44na45va46ga 2 years ago
Btw. 1400 years ago the moon was about 50m nearer to the earth resulting in a shorter orbit. What means in the past and futre this will not fit.
But if we change the alpha of the throw (!) calculation a litte... Or if we use the resulting speed instead of the whole vector instead of the x part only...
I am sure you guys find a way to make it match =)
Raabtronic 2 years ago
Comment removed
Raabtronic 2 years ago
May I quote Dr. Neumair on the site you linked: "...this equation has no
natural meaning as a distance actually travelled by the moon in a
meaningful interval, and seems strained to force the result." - "The equation is completely unreladed to special relativity..." - "Such speculations are the decoy for the unfortunate people who desire
a shortcut in their search for truth and life"
Raabtronic 2 years ago
I'll have to trot out my old argument:
If there was so much scientific knowledge in the Koran, why has no science come from Muslims since the Golden Age?
Why has only one scientific Nobel Prize been awarded to a Muslim?
How can scientific discoveries be updated in a static book?
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
well eiinstein watch the arrivals you will know exactly why why..
afglionheart 1 year ago
No science from Muslims are you kidding me?
Muslims were the pioneers of logic and reason and founders of scientific breakthroughs. The first public hospital was opened by Muslims.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
Right. The operative word here is "were". Why is it that no scientific discoveries are being contributed by Muslims today? Why did nobody come forward 500 years ago and say: here's the Big-Bang and here's how it all went down?
Instead we have the hobby of retro-fitting. I can do that with Nostradamus and have more success than with the Koran.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Oh really????? How did you come up with that.
BTW Muslims did spread knowledge. But it was your slave masters that muted Islam and concealed its contributions.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
With what?
1. One scientific Nobel Prize
2. Nobody mentioned the Big-Bang 500 years ago even though it was always in the Koran.
3. Today almost every aya contains science.
4. People do that with the Nostradamus quatrains.
In 1250 the Arab scholars were chucked out of Europe and their discoveries stolen by the Catholic Church. Is that what you call my slave masters or are the Muslims the slave masters? Or both?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
UMMM obama won the nobel prize! Perez a mass murderer won a NOBEL prize. WE know the european governments are all cooked.
.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
And this is why I specified "scientific" Nobel prize.
And the other 4 questions/comments?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
All institutions are dominated by Free mason & zionist atheist. Zionism is a GODless ideology. Zionism has infiltrated every known instution. Including Gov. i can not see how an ATHEIST who hate CREATIONISTgiving award any Muslim for any achievements.
Even if they are deserving. The
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
SCIENTIFIC institutions is not excluded from ZIONIST infiltration.
IF anything EVOLUTION an opposition that TRIES to deny CREATION shows the BLUE PRINT.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Ah, the "us poor Muslims" argument. The whole world is conspiring against the clever, intelligent and scientific Muslims.
The Muslims who tried to kill me were not using words or arguments but guns.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 No zionism is against any belief in GOD.Not Just Muslims. Its a godless ideology that is fueled by hatred, racisim,superiorty and classification of the masses being sub human. WHICH is YOU.
AND you devote your life defending such a devient ideology.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Comment removed
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Darwin him self veiwed coloured people as transitional APES. LIKE see the sickness of this unscientific science. Its communism/materialism dressed up in education. Im not claiming religion should be taught in biology.
But evolution is just a presumption a belief and a very fanatical religion.Backed up by the wealthy rich. OFCOURSE they will invest/advertise for such a theory. IT suits their interest.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Who tried to kill you?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
Do you want their names? They were Taliban who blew themselves up and then stormed the hotel in Kabul, 6 metres away from me. I ducked and ran.
Where on earth did you get that idea with Darwin from?
Evolution is a fact and substantiated by experiments, tests, observation and peer review. Only because we can not be sure it is a fact on every planet it remains the Theory of Evolution.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 lol hahahahah tell me the experiments test and observation which prove its fact?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
Maybe the Koran can explain an entire theory in 2 words. I can't. There are volumes and entire libraries full of proof. I don't know if you are just a braggart or are capable of looking something up, so the easiest one is Lenski or Lenski affair.
Then there's morphological and nucleotide sequence homology, adaptation, speciation, extinction, etc etc, all proving the mechanism and results of evolution. Easy.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Homology contradicts morphogical, extinctions mean shit because animals in our life time were extint and no new species evolved from them. Speciation is totally scientifically disproven as mechanism for evolution or any GENETIC changes.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
extinctions mean shit
Can you prove this little gem of wisdom?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Well since you have less than a 1st grader mind i thought i use slang to get it in your head!
You claimed extinction as a solid proof for EVOLUTION.
Animals are going extinct as we speak now? ANY NEW species evolve from this process?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 If you have any evidence of speciation occurance. Please share it with me?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
No, this is too stupid.
You should have asked me for the definition of species, whether I prefer Dobzhansky or Mayr.
This shows me you have zero knowledge on the topic. Go back to school and learn something real and insult people with your level of intellect.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Jonathan Wells continues:
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 Adaption is very real science, and even evolutionist know the limitations of it. If Adaption was evolution it would have been able to come to life in the labs.
Evolution through adaption basically sums up to humans being able to fly out to space without an aircraft.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
Erm, this makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about? What is adaption?
If you mean abiogenesis the first part makes sense, but not the second. The second is totally nonsensical.
Your second post gives me the impression that you are making this up. You have no idea what I am talking about. Who has disproven speciation? Genetic changes are the centerpiece for speciation, not the other way around. Where do you find this nonsense?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Speciation has to almost always start with complete isolation of populations. A population may have gone through a severe genetic bottleneck, as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called founder effect model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists' best efforts, no new species from a founder population.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Ernst Mayr was one of the most significant adherents of the theory of evolution in the 20th century. He based his theory on mutation, and yet at the same time admitted the impossibility of this:
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation . . . is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as hopeless.'
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1 They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection . . . the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans No science before muslims? LOL, you should do stand up comedy.
C0C0nutFace 1 year ago
Numerology, that is to say massaging numbers and interpretation to fit a desired outcome.
It is logical to assume that if angels are made of light, they travel at the speed of light. But do you know how long a round trip to the edge of the universe would take, at the speed of light ?
There is no science in the Koran, just a bunch of crazy desperate people trying to make an ancient text, relevant to todays world. In doing so they only expose one of the worlds great religions to ridicule.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
It would take quite a long time to make round trips across the universe but your forgetting one small thing. Relativity. The faster you go the slower time goes so once you reach the speed of light time stops. So it doesn't matter how 'long' it takes because there would be no 'time' to measure it by.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ "So it doesn't matter how 'long' it takes because there would be no 'time' to measure it by" ]
Excuse me, but you're the one forgetting relativity.
Time may not matter from an angels point of view. But for the Earth, less than half the time taken for one round trip to heaven by an angel, represents the entire lifetime of this planet.
The claim is absurd. It makes religion, which is supposed to be concerned with mans spiritual needs, look stupid.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
I didn't forget about Relativity, i said in the very beginning that it would take a long time lol. But if time doesn't matter from an angels point of view then what is the point of your comment?? The equation is about angels not people. Saying that from our perspective it would take a long time is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the angel's perspective. I fail to see how the claim is absurd by saying that a entity made of light should logically travel at the speed of light.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ " But if time doesn't matter from an angels point of view then what is the point of your comment??" ]
The point is: That regulating affairs between Heaven & Earth at the speed of light, using Angels as intermediaries. Is both, impractical and impossible. Because the Earth would have come into existence and ceased to exist, before even one exchange between heaven and earth could occur.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
You can't say that because your supposing that "Heaven" is on the other side of the universe. If you don't know where Heaven is you can't automatically assume it's "lightyears" away. Hell dude, people still think that Hell is in the center of the Earth.
And once again your attempting to distort Relativity. Our time and their time wouldn't 'seperate'. Time would stop for them so when they traveled and came back...to US it would seem as if they had never left.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior [ "Time would stop for them so when they traveled and came back...to US it would seem as if they had never left." ]
Seem to for them, not for us. Try to realise, that light travels at an actual, finite speed. Read the 'twin paradox' to help you understand special relativity.
[ "your supposing that "Heaven" is on the other side of the universe" ]
My understanding of the Islamic view, is that God is not part of his creation and exists outside space and time.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
I understand special relativity. the equation is based off of special relativity. What your not understanding is that time does not seperate. when you reach the speed of light time = 0. There will be no passage of time for either them or us. The Twin Paradox is not based off of reaching the speed of light so that doesn't apply here. Since the Twin Paradox is based off of one traveling through space at a speed lower then the speed of light time would still apply.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
That would bel fine, if the angel photons, were minding their own business like normal photons. But they're not, are they? They putatively interact with us, reciting verses and such, on a very human time scale.
Once we start using light to communicate, we have to wait. Even though the light or radio waves carrying our messages, are not themselves experiencing time.
You have watched the news and noticed the time delay on satellite links to distant correspondents.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
Your comments aren't making any sense now. We are not using light to communicate. The angels are MADE of light. When they travel they can accelerate up to the speed of light. this has nothing to do with communication. Your supoosing they communicate thru light. Light waves and radio waves are 2 different things moving at completely different rates. You are putting light waves and radio waves on the same plane. Radio waves have interference which is what causes time delay light waves don't.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior `
[ "The angels are MADE of light." ] Please explain what you mean by this.
He regulates the affairs on Earth from Heaven. If he's using Angels to do that, it most certainly is all about communication.
[ "Light waves and radio waves are 2 different things moving at completely different rates." ]
Not so. Google electromagnetic spectrum. Radio, microwave, infra red, visible, UV, x ray and gamma. All travel at the speed of light, just different wavelengths of the same thing.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
Light is very interesting and quite a lot is understood about it.
Did you know that in 2000, Dr Lene Hau, a Danish physicist found a way to slow light down to only 1.6 km per hour?
This 2 min clip shows how light is used to measure the distance from the Earth to the moon:
watch?v=X-aFTeXjcRw
The claim that the speed light per day, equals the distance travelled by 12000 moon orbits, is false. Anyone can easily check this for themselves.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
Well i'm still waiting for someone to prove it false. The equation specifies that it is light outside of a vaccum.
I understand your view but your forgetting that there is something called Scientific fact as well. A fact doesn't change. Science advances a theory until it establishes a fact then it moves on to the next. This same rule applies to the Quran. If the Quran is stating scientific fact then your attempt to claim it is subject to updating is wrong. a fact cannot be updated.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
In my own view. The people making scientific claims for the Koran are misguided.
The whole point of science is that everything is falsifiable and is subject to improvement or replacement. Consequently, ideas can and generally do, become outdated as our knowledge increases.
If there is science in the Koran, then it to, is subject to same process, it too can become outdated and therefore irrelevant. After all, if God is wrong about the science, why would he be right about anything else.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
Please send posts to my message inbox I don't like using all my comment space to keep replying back and forth like this. Plus you and i can keep all ideas on one solid page instead of being limited to 300 words.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
You don't accept that the physical limit on the speed of light, presents a significant problem for God, who is said to regulate events on Earth at that speed. You accuse me of a straw-man, when I'm only demonstrating that said speed limit, is not trivial for everything that has mass.
The objections equation are clear and valid. You simply won't accept them.
The detail of how we understand facts is important. e.g The Earth is not flat, it is also not shaped like an egg.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
Proving that an angel can accelerate up to the speed of light doesn't necessary mean that it is limited to that speed. It could very well travel faster then that. However to say so is going beyond what the equation is proving and beyond what the Surah is saying so to do so supposition. I accuse you of strawman because you have yet to show anything proving the equation wrong. All you've done is deviate from the actual equation by bringing up things that have nothing to do with it.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
Ok. The equation is wrong, because it's a fudge. For it to work, it needs a special set of conditions that don't match observed reality.
The calculation according to what we observe, is very simple:
Speed of angels per day = 12,000 ( π • 2r )
Where: Lunar orbital circumference = π • 2r. and r = radius of Moons orbit = 284,403 km
Also c is a physical constant the radius of the Moons orbit is not.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
It's a very good thing that the equation is wrong.
Because if it were accepted as true, it would just compound the difficulties of explaining how the God/Earth/Angel relationship could practically work, within the physical limits of this universe.
In this universe, c is the maximum speed limit.
6Untitled9 2 years ago
That's why the equation is using 2nd Theory of Special Relativity. it's taking the Cos(theta) from Sidereal (reference to distant star). Your solving for theta in reference to the Moon. So your the one fudging not the equation.
TrueJihadiWarrior 2 years ago
The equation doesn't matter at all. It takes Light about 1 second to go from the earth to the moon. You wouldn't need to introduce cosine at all, its just a simple distance problem within a vacuum.
slicingwater 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
2nd theory of special relativity? i think you'll have to explain to me how that is relevant, and how it produces this fake cos(theta) term...
because if you can't show how this cos(theta) term is real, than it's blatantly obvious that the equation IS fudged.
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
I'll explain it to you in a personal message because I don't have enough space here to explain it in this limited amount of words.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
yeah that'd be great, when you get the time. i assume you've been busy.
if you're not able then feel free to give me a link to where you got the idea about this 2nd theory of special relativity. i'd be happy to have a look at it.
theansible 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
hey bud, been a week... where's your reply?
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
Ok I have to make this short an sweet. you can reference it from pretty much any physics site it doesn't matter which. But to answer your question there are 2 ways to solve for the angle Theta. One is forming the angle in reference to a distant star (Sidereal) which is what the equation uses and where the Cos (theta) comes from. the other way is to solve for Theta by forming the angle in reference to the Earth which doesn't use the Cos (Theta).
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
no, you're describing how to form the angle theta, any 7yr old can do that. you've still failed to show how it's valid to use cos(theta) to fudge your equation.
one reason why it's NOT valid is that cos(theta) will produce negative orbital lenghts for angles between 90 and 270. negative orbital lenghts do not make sense, hence it's wrong to use cos(theta) to fudge your equation
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
No i'm describing how to SOLVE for the angle theta. in order to solve for it you must first ascertain how the angle was FORMED. Why?? Because the equation is different depending on how the angle was formed.
And your absolutely right the Cos of an angle between 90-270 would produce negative orbital lengths. Your only forgetting one small thing. IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
The only way for the Moon to produce any angle above 45 in relation to a distant star it would have to LEAVE ITS ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH. This would not happen. All you've done is posed an impossible situation. The only way for the Moon to form a 90-270 angle would be if it was in RELATION TO THE EARTH. Which is (as i've already told you) a completely different equation that DOESN'T use the Cos. Why?? Fot the very reason you just stated...it would produce negative orbital lengths.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
"IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN"
orly? christ, i guess we'll take baby steps here and i'll show how
1. how is theta found? it is simply (sidereal period/lenght of a year)*360
2. theta for the moon? 26.9deg (27.3/365.25)*360
3. but what about other objects?
a. the period of satelites in low orbit (like the ISS) is a matter of hours (0.1day). it's theta is about 0.1deg (0.1/365)*360
b. for satelites in high orbit (geostationary sats) it's about a day. theta is about 1deg (1/365)*360...
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
Dude do you have ANY clue what your talking about. that is NOT how you solve for theta. Theta is nothing more then a Trig term for the unknown angle of a triangle. In order to solve for Theta you must identify the other 2 sides of the triangle. For any triangle a, b, c. Sin(theta) = a/c, Cos(theta) = b/c, and Tan(theta) = a/b.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
In all of your examples you have not given any clue as to what your referencing your angle to. As your talking about satelites i can only assume your referencing your angle in relation to the Earth. Which as i've already told you is a completely different equation. IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an object around the Earth. Whether is be the Moon or a satelite to be any angle higher then 45. That's simple Calculus. That silly ass equation that you posted is Copernicus' theory
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
Copernicu's Theory is used to calculate a planets Sidereal Period from it's Synodic one. LOL. i finally figured out what your so confused about. You saw the original equation that is calculating the difference between the Synodic month and Sidereal month using Copernicus Theory and your attempting to claim that THAT is how you find the angle of THETA. DUDE YOUR A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
complete idiot? hardly ^_^
here's an exact qoute from Elnaby's paper (the one you're defending):
between equations 2 and 3
"@ (Fig. 1) is the angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun during one sidereal period (27.3days)"
it then calculates @ as
@ = 27.321661*360/365.25636= 26,92848
...which is EXACTLY what i did. so the "silly ass equation" i posted is the same one Elnaby is using
so case 3.d (below) is still valid, demonstrating Elnaby's (and your) error
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
No you took ONE PART of the equation and your trying to claim it's invalid. Once again you have no clue about Trigonometry. This equation used Copernicus Theory to calculate the difference in the Sidereal and Synodic periods. That's where those nuts get the "the equation is 'switching' between Sidereal and Synodic" idiotic rebuttal. It THEN solves for Theta. As i told you several posts ago you must FIRST determine HOW THE ANGLE IS FORMED. Then you use either Sin, Cos, or Tan.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
2ndly the angle formed IN THE EQUATION is a right triangle. for ALL right triangles the ONLY thing that you can use is the Cos(theta) because of the Pythagorean Theorem. in YOUR equations you have not referenced how the angle is formed so you can use either Sin, Cos, or Tan to solve for theta depending on HOW THE ANGLE IS FORMED whether you have a/b, b/c or a/c. So no your equations DON'T stand because a) you don't show how your angle is formed
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
b) you simply plugged some numbers in and then claim that Cos can be used for all of them except one which doesn't prove anything because that's simple Trigonometry. Cos doesn't HAVE to be used for all of them. Cos can ONLY be used if the angles formed are b/c. Since you don't show which angle is which simply claim it is "theta'. Which it isn't. then my earlier claim stands. You have no clue what your talking about. You saying Cos(theta) can be used any time Theta is known and it can't.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
"you took ONE PART of the equation trying to claim it's invalid"
precisely, and if part of the equation is faulty, then the result is invalid. this is not a sidereal/synodic rebuttal (also a valid objection imo), i'm demonstrating how using cos(@) is invalid in Elnaby's equation 5: C =12000V*cos(@)*T/t
now, i can see you're very excited about your triangles, so i'll humour you: @ is "formed" with hypotenus and adjacent side. good?
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
the physical meaning of @ is the angle that the earth-moon systems travels around the sun in one sidereal period of the moon, as Elnaby agrees. @ is intimately connected to the orbital radius which was my point. as R increases so does orbital period T. as T increases so does @ (due to the equation @=T/Y*360, where Y is a year). so the further out an object orbits the larger @ is. eventually it becomes more than 90, leading to negative results for orbital length.
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
it's not a matter of "just plugging in numbers". if cos(@) is ment to be valid, then it must work for all cases concerning orbital mechanics. it does not, therefore it is invalid. further, i only have to show 1 single case where it does not work to invalidate it. i've done so, namely case 3.d below, which lead to a negative orbital length. notice than i'm sticking to exactly what Elnaby is doing, so you can't dispute the equations without conceding that Elnabys conclusion is wrong. checkmate, eh
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
Once again simply...DUMB!! You can't claim that Cos(@) should work for all cases because you can't solve for an angle the same way for EVERY angle. If a/b are the only angles known you CAN'T use Cos or Tan. If a/c are known you CAN'T use Sin or Tan...etc. This statement is just like saying the Pythagorean Theorem shoud be able to be used with ANY triangle. That's just stupid. So yes Ansible...checkmate. You win!!! I have better things to do with my time then debate with ignorance.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
No the physical meaning of @ is "The unknown angle". In the particular case of this equation the angle just happens to form a 90 degree angle which means Cos(Theta) is used. If the angle was formed some other way then Sin(theta) or Tan(theta) would have been used. However it DIDN'T so they WEREN'T. Once again T/Y * 360 (which is actually wrong it's actually (E / P)*S is NOT solving for the angle of theta it's calculating the difference between the Sidereal and Synodic periods.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
AFTER that is solved you THEN solve for Theta by (in this particular instance) taking the Cos. If the angle were smaller or LARGER then the resultant angles would NOT be a 90 angle therefore Cos would NOT be used an either Sin or Tan would be. It's TRIGONOMETRY You really need to learn some. Try googling "solve for angle theta", THEN Goolge (E / P)*S and THEN come back and tell me that the way to solve for theta is Copernicus Theory (E/P)*S.You sound like a buffon.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
If part of the equation is faulty, then the result is invalid.
THAT'S BULL!! Copernicus Theory MUST be used the same way every time. However solving for an angle CAN'T be solved the same way for EVERY instance. 2nd you can't simply SAY this one is hypotenus this one is adjacent. YOUR FUDGING. It's a mathematical formula it must be PROVEN. Since you CAN'T your bull is once again exposed for what it is.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
i don't have to "prove" anything here. read Elnaby's paper and it becomes clear that i'm using his equations exactly as he posited them, simple as that. and exposing the flaws in those equations is not "fudging". you can shout "copernicus" and "pythagoras" all you want, but it does nothing for your case. this is just a matter of plugging in numbers for satellites into Elnaby's equation and showing what the resulting orbital lengths would be. namely using L=V*cos(@)*T
cont...
theansible 1 year ago
the meaning of @ is not in dispute here. the direct quote from Elnaby shows what i was saying: @ is "the angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun during one sidereal period"
the equation for @ comes from Elnaby: @=(T/Y)*360. Elnaby does not use pythagoras to find the VALUE of @, he uses the period T. so when T increases, so does @. tried googling E/P*S without result. it does not feature in any of Elnaby's work. where did you find it and what does E,P and S represent?
continues..
theansible 1 year ago
cos(@) is then used to find the orbital length. and as i showed with case 3.d (an object three times further out than the moon) doing this may result in negative values. since this is not consistent with reality, the eqation is in error. note that for case 3.d i ran the numbers through EXACTLY THE SAME EQUATIONS AS ELNABY USES. and the result is a negative value. that's CLEAR proof that the equations are invalid
which means that Elnaby's equation C=12000*V*cos(@)*T/t must be invalid.
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
Please listen to me carefully. YOU CAN'T USE COS TO SOLVE FOR EVERY INSTANCE OF AN ANGLE. It's impossible!!! Certain conditions must be met in order to use either Sin, Cos or Tan. That's MATHEMATICS. To claim that Dr. Elnaby used it in this instance so it should therefore be able to be used in EVERY instance is not only wrong it's dumb dude. and it shows a severe lack of knowledge of Math on your part. I know you've already Googled how to solve for theta so you KNOW your wrong.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
of course it doesn't feature in any of Elnaby's work because it's COPERNICUS. E/P * S is used to find the difference between the Sidereal and Synodic periods of an object. Listen to what your saying. "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T".
E = Sidereal period of an object
P = Sidereal Year
S = Synodic year
I learned it in a Physics book in college so i'm sorry but i can't reference it. You need to update your Googling skills i guess.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
I HAVE read Elnaby's paper. What do you think my video is based on LOL. Yes your using his equations exactly as he posted them but your not using MATH. Your not using TRIGONOMETRY. Your simply attempting to claim that a Trig problem should be able to be solved the same way for every instance and it CAN'T. Period. You have no case because you don't understand Math.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
this is not a matter of trigonometry, you've misunderstood my criticism.
ok, first off: this is a misqoute: "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T". what i said was "Elnaby uses T to find @" (we all do! you do too) which is the opposite of what you tried to make out i said. you don't use trig in order to find the value of @. you don't solve for it with trig. you find @ using the period T (or E if you wil), along with Y (or P). not cos, not sin, not tan.
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
...second, you need to refresh your college physics. E/P*S is not the formula you would use. P & S are virtually the same. you could use Sm/P*360 to find the angle travelled by the moon around the earth during the time difference between a synodic and sidereal month (where Sm is a synodic lunar month). Sm is found as 1/((1/E)-(1/P)), and the time difference is simply Sm-E. simple orbital mechanics (incidentally, wiki has a good article on this under "orbital period")
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
...but this second point is just a distraction from the real issue, namely that you don't use trig to find the value of @. if at any point there was a formula reading "@=acos(x/y)" then you would be correct. if you had sides y,z or x,z then you'd use atan or asin. but that's not the case here. @ is found using T/Y*360 (or E/P*360), not using acos(x/y)
after that, cos(@) is used to modify the orbital length of the moon in the equation L=V*cos(@)*T which is then used to find C.
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
...it is this use of cos(@) i take issue with. why? because it makes no sense to put in the cos(@) term. it should simply read L=V*T. and the reason i know that it shouldn't include cos(@) is that objects further out than the moon would have their orbital lenghts reduced to zero or negative, depending on the orbital radius, because nothing stops @ from increasing as R and T increase.
which means that C=12000V*cos(@)*T/t is invalid.
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
There are other factors which must be taken into account then simply saying it's hypotenuse and adjacent. It doesn't work that way. it CAN'T simply be L = V * T. Because the velocity of the Moon is not constant it speeds up and slows down therefore you can't simply say V. There are points in the Earth-Moon system in which it leaves the Solar System thus it can't simply be T. This is what i mean by you have no clue what you talking about.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK T/Y * 360 IS!!!!!!!! it's a/b, b/c or c/a then you SOLVE FOR THETA depending on how the angle was formed that GAVE YOU THAT VALUE. Which turns into Sin(T/Y * 360) OR Cos(T/Y * 3600 OR Tan(T/Y * 360) DEPENDING ON THE ANGLE or as you know it Sin(@), Cos(@), Tan(@). that's what i've been trying to tell you this whole time
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
IT'S THE SAME THING. All you did was use months instead of YEARS.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
ok, first off: this is a misqoute: "he uses @ to define the PERIOD T". what i said was "Elnaby uses T to find @"
That is NOT what you said. your exact words were, "Elnaby does not use pythagoras to find the VALUE of @, he uses the period T". No when I point out what you did wrong you want to claim it's a misquote. THEN you say it again above. And you DO use trig to find angle theta. It's the only way you CAN solve for theta.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
ok, you've misunderstood. here's what that sentence means:
Elnaby uses T to find @. not the other way around. and he does not use trig to find @.
@ is calculated as @=T/Y*360. not as @=a/b or b/c or c/a. this is very clear from Elnaby's own paper (read it!) and this is not up for dispute. but let me say it again in case you missed it: trig is not used to find the value of @
now T/Y*360 is not the same as E/P*S, because S is not 360 (although T=E and Y=P)
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
...furthermore, T/Y*360 is not even the same as Sm/P*360 (Sm/Y*360) because Sm (synodic) is not the same value as T (sidereal).
this is not up for dispute either
as for L=V*T, it CAN be that simple. and the reason would be obvious if you actually read through Elnaby's paper! as this qoute shows:
"V is the measured AVERAGE orbital velocity of the moon". so your objection is not valid.
also, out of interest: at what points does the earth moon system leave the solar system??
continues...
theansible 1 year ago
...so far you've not given a reason for why L=V*cos(@)*T should be used. which in turn means that there is no reason to use C=12000*V*cos(@)*T/t. which is my point
on top of that i've given you a reason why L=V*cos(@)*T is invalid. which is that it produces negative orbital lengths for objects further out than the moon. and the only way for this equation to be valid is if it produces consistent results for all possible conditions. that's why it's wrong
so what exactly is your counter argument?
theansible 1 year ago
@theansible
"so far you've not given a reason for why L=V*cos(@)*T should be used"
Watch the end of the video. I specifically talk about the displacement vector of the Earth-Moon system and so does Dr. Elnaby since you claim you read his paper you should know that. You should also know that this displacement is ALWAYS at a 90 degree angle with the rotational force around earth thus HYPOTENUSE AND ADJACENT. You remember those 2 don't you? So would use COS(@) because of the Pythagorean Therom.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
"on top of that i've given you a reason why L=V*cos(@)*T is invalid."
No all you've done is "proven" that the Cos can't be used to solve for EVERY angle which is EXACTLY what i told you DAYS AGO And it's what you already KNOW from your own reading and B.S about your satellites having hypotenuse and adjacent angles.The equation CAN produce consistent results IF YOU KNOW MATH AND SOLVE THE EQUATION CORRECTLY.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
"so what exactly is your counter argument?"
My counter argument is that you know NOTHING about math. You've claimed that you don't use Trig to solve for an angle. Which is wrong. That's like saying if have a+b = c you don't use Algebra to solve it. You've DELIBERATELY tried to manipulate equations to get the answer you needed (claiming hypotenuse an adjacent because you KNOW only they can use the Cos) and even if you DIDN'T an just 'randomly' picked them your STILL wrong.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
You've attempted to 'correct' me on Copernius theory even though you didn't even know what it WAS until i told you. So this is what i'm going to do. This is my last post to you and if you want to reply then do so but it will be deleted and you will be blocked. Your arguments are redundant and show no mathematical knowledge whatsoever. I have better things to do with my time. Assalamalaykum
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
"because Sm (synodic) is not the same value as T (sidereal)" I never said it was that was YOUR equation. i told you it's (E/P)S. You showed your lack of knowledge by attempting to claim that P & S were virtually the same. OF COURSE THEY ARE because P is a Sidereal year and S is a Synodic year an these 2 are virutally the same.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
"V is the measured AVERAGE orbital velocity of the moon". so your objection is not valid.
Vis IS the average velocity of the Moon but this is Science you can't simply SAY the average is this...YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. And that's what he does he solves for the average velocity. It's just like in your earlier post when you attempted to manipulate tell me the 'angles' formed were hypotenuse and adjacent. Why did you SPECIFICALLY say those 2.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
Because you KNEW from your reading that you HAVE TO have the hypotenuse an adjacent angles in order to use the Cos. You KNEW if you have used any other angles you would not be able to use the Cos and your entire idiotic 'satelitte' argument would have been over because you KNEW i would have pointed that out to you. But let me guess you just 'named 2 random angles' right?? And if that's what you did then that's even MORE stupid and shows you don't know what your talking about.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
@theansible
"he does not use trig to find @."
He DOES use Trig to find @. That's where Cos(@) comes from. You KNOW that already because you've already looked up how to solve for @ yet you sit there and CONTINUE to claim that it's wrong. So how do you solve for @ for any angle?? Since you claim that it's not Sin(@), Cos(@) or Tan(@) an please give some kind of reference but we both know you won't.
T=E and Y=P but it's not the same equation. LOL. So what is S? We know you won't answer that too.
TrueJihadiWarrior 1 year ago
Comment removed
theansible 1 year ago
@TrueJihadiWarrior
well, before you block me i'd like to point out something
first, YOU defined S some 20 posts ago: S = Synodic year = 365.242days, not 360. that means (E/P*S) has units of (Edays/Pdays*Sdays) which returns Xdays not an angle @
second, if V is defined as the average velocity, what's the problem? you can find V yourself with V=2*pi*R(avg)/T
third, you don't use trig to find @, you use @=T/Y*360. there's no trig in this equation. what you do with @ later doesn't matter
cont...
theansible 1 year ago
...fourth, look at these two sentences you wrote: "You showed your lack of knowledge by attempting to claim that P & S were virtually the same. OF COURSE THEY ARE because P is a Sidereal year and S is a Synodic year an these 2 are virutally the same."
are you seriously calling me stupid for saying P&S are nearly the same, when you in the very...next...sentence turn around and say exactly the same?? qoute: "well of course they are nearly the same"? that's... pretty unbelievable o_O
cont...
theansible 1 year ago
...now, my uni degree included astrodynamics and orbital mechanics. i'm not as ignorant as you may think. but i think college physics and some common sense should be more than adequate for this type of debate.
and i'm certainly not mainupalting any equations. i'm using Elnaby's equations. and nowhere in his paper does he calculate @ using @=acos(b/c). nowhere! if it did that would be solving for @ using trig. but it doesn't. L=V*cos(@)*T is NOT solving for @, it's calculating L
cont...
theansible 1 year ago
...i've seen the illustration of Elnaby's equations, and yes, you can make a triangle with vectors V and VCos(@), but so what? that's for illustration purposes, not for finding angle @. and the reason should be obvious: you don't know the value of Vcos(@) before you calculate @, not the other way around. which means you use cos(@)=b/c to find b, by rearranging to b=c*cos(@). you don't solve for @, which would be @=acos(b/c)
block me if you wish, but it's certainly no way to "win" an argument
theansible 1 year ago
...
c. the period of an object twice as far out as the moon in about 77days. which means a theta of 76deg
d. for an object three times as far out as the moon the period is around 142days. that's a theta of 140deg.
and that WOULD mean a negative orbital length. clearly an object 3 times further out than the moon (or any object!!) has a positive orbital length.
what about this is so confusing for you? case 3.d is a CLEAR demonstration that using cos(theta) to find orbital lengths does not work
theansible 1 year ago