1) 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day depends on the frame of reference. You could define a million different frames and get a million different results!!! But 299792.458 km/sec is the speed of light in local inertial frames. So if you want to compare it with the speed of light in local inertial frames then you need to make the comparison in a local inertial frame.
Dr Naik has found these root words for sura 9:5- Say !(Oh Mohammad) "The Higgs mechanism is a process by which vector bosons can get a mass.The boson is massive, an essential feature is the incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons. The boson is also massless and decoupled from the massive states only in a lowest-order approximation, but is not subject to any constraint and it acquires mass at higher orders" and kill them wherever you find them using any stratagem of quantum physics.
No he didn't and he never will. His last failed attempt to define an inertial frame was at "bautforum showthread 122554 The speed of light 1,400 years ago?". Hundreds of his enthusiast friends rushed to speed-light.info however they all coward in silence. “bautforum” failed to help him define his missing local inertial frame.
Jazakallah armadillo! When I need to send things such as prayers really fast I send them by Neutrino post, the Neutrino Angels are far more efficient than the Light Angels. Allah has to answer my prayer before last which can be somewhat confusing and much like the Two Ronnies Mastermind scetch!
1) The answer to your stupid question depends on your frame of reference which you still refuse to define. In your video you used 29.5 Earth days for a lunar month which means you used the synodic system. The synodic system is a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun; however this frame is rotating with respect to stars. But rotating frames with respect to stars BY DEFINITION are non-inertial.
2) In rotating frames with respect to stars light DOES NOT travel in a straight line, and the measured this speed of light in these frames is UNDEFINED (the distance travelled in one hour gives a different speed than distance travelled in two hours...). You falsely claimed that the speed of light in this non-inertial frame is 299792.458 km/sec.
3) Einstein’s second postulate of Special Relativity says: ”The velocity c of light in vacuum is the same in all INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE in all directions and depend neither on the velocity of the source nor on the velocity of the observer”. So you need to define your frame of reference and prove that is inertial before claiming 299792.458 km/sec. However this was your answer:
“blah blah blah, frame of reference, blah blah blah.”
Nobody tells you to measure lightspeed in a non-inertial frame, in the 1st place.
There is only a comparision of distances to do: the one travelled in the Moon and the one travelled by light, hence, you're free to choose any frame you want for each of these motions.
"you're free to choose any frame you want for each of these motions."
False, you cannot compare measurements taken in different frames. Comparisons are only valid in the same frame. 299792.458 km/sec is the measured speed of light in local inertial frames. So if you want to make a comparison with 299792.458 km/sec then you have to define your frame and prove that it is a local inertial frame. So far ALL SKEPTICS failed to prove it.
'SO are you saying "1 light day" is not a measurement of distance ?'
One light day is distance indeed however the Quran said One Earth day. The angels travel 12000 lunar orbits in one Earth day. This is like me saying I drove at 240 km/hr. I didn't say that I drove for an hour. You cannot tell the distance from the rate of motion.
Unfortunately now it is obvious who is "debunking" the Quran: Idiots.
We have a rate of motion, and the time it took. GET IT!?"
No we only have the rate of motion (speed) = 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day. When I say that I drove at 240 km/hr that doesn't mean that I drove for one hour. Similarly the TIME in the Quran is part of the rate. I never claimed that I drove for one hour and neither did the Quran claim that angels traveled for one day. It is just a rate of motion. You are pathetic.
In a local frame non-rotating with respect to stars the length of the lunar orbit is 2πR, however this frame is non-inertial. If you know the time it takes to make a complete orbit in this frame (27.3 days) you can calculate the velocity
V=2πR/T.
But you are claiming that TIME is necessary to calculate L however that is false, time here cancels out:
L = V T= (2πR/T) T = 2πR(T/T) = 2πR(1)
So the length of the lunar orbit is a function of R, not T.
Ah, so you are able to prove your point by showing me a calculation which shows how far the Moon travels in 1000 years without ANY indication of time in it?
This is going to be impressive, please do continue :)
However this speed depends on the frame of reference. 299792.458 km/s is the speed of light in LOCAL INERTIAL FRAMES. But you insist on the synodic system which is a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun; however this frame is rotating with respect to stars so it is NON-INERTIAL by definition. You still claim that the speed of light in this rotating frame is 299792.458 km/s however you (and the idiots around you) never proved it.
"How long (in hours) do 12000 lunar orbits take?"
In speed-light.info forum they showed you how you are taking the Arabic out of context. And here I showed you how in a correctly defined frame of reference TIME cancels out. So our equation doesn't contain a variable for TIME (besides Earth day of course). So take your imaginary TIME and hang it over your bed.
@extra222love You avoiding my question is a clear sign that you think you have been caught. Your calculations are inconsistent therefore wrong. If you want to know why, answer my question
first step: "1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity
Where did the "1 day" come from ? I dare you to as I this can be easily debunked
>"V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference / 1 day" Is the same as ""1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity"
Ah!!! ... (12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference) is the distance the Moon travels per Year ... It's still a measure of velocity but you just can't simply call it the "Moon Velocity", Einestein, Your expressions shall be more accurate.
>"But anyways where did that "1 day" come from ? Is it referring to the "1 day" in verse 32:5 ?"
@extra222love I see a lotta numbers but no justification for any of them or the equations used, or perhaps it is bcuz I am bad at amath. Tell you what, let us start from the basics.
Are you saying that the "matter" which are angels that travel at the speed of light takes one 24 hour day to get from the heaven to the earth traveling at the speed of light?
Please don't dodge of fail to answer the questions
If the end result didn't justify itself, I'll be happy to clarify each input for you.
> "Are you saying that the "matter" which are angels that travel at the speed of light takes one 24 hour day to get from the heaven to the earth traveling at the speed of light?"
Quran verse 32:5 contained two basic components Special Relativity contained as well: 1) Motion. 2) Time Relativity. Such simulation did inspire the question, cont.
@extra222love I am very interested in this claim but since I am bad at math you will have to explain a lot of stuff. I told you to answer my question but you didnt.
Are you claiming that according to 32:5, the "matter" travels at the speed of light from the earth to the heavens in one 24 hour day ?
Please answer this one question before we get into anything else ? It is important that I understand how the verse is used to derive ther equation and that this ISNT just numerology garbage !
>"Are you claiming that according to 32:5, the "matter" travels at the speed of light from the earth to the heavens in one 24 hour day ?"
Your phrase isn't really accurate. I'm not claiming so. I said, if we'll assume the verse is urging us to calculate distances and velocities then Speed of Light would result from the time ratio 1 day X V = 1000 yr X Moon velocity.
In the abstract, the verse doesn't point to the distance between us & Allah! Coz Allah is everywhere!
@extra222love Could you explain why this isn't accurate ?
Your claim is that speed of the matter = speed of light. The verse says this matter ascends from earth to heavens in 1 day. The calculation you showed list a 24 hour day. Where exactly am I wrong or inaccurate.
Before we get to "1 day X V = 1000 yr X Moon velocity.", we need to understand how to get there. So please explain the inaccuracies of my question.
3.2) Nope, If you'll bring seconds, figures or calculations, then you're talking about my own “humble” assumption of distances/speeds, not necessarily what Allah wanted by the verse. Even the Prophet didn’t explain it. (I'm still insisting in this point).
So if you’ll refer to the abstract meaning without figures, then, Yes. It rises in ONE DAY of Allah's DAYS which no one knows how long/short it is.
It's physics and mathematics, no one can be honest or dishonest! It's either you're right or wrong.
I'll explain what's confusing:
We used the 1 day = 24 hr which worked as "a conversion value" to convert the sidereal month (27.321661 day/sidereal month) into hours.
But later on, we needed to divide the Actual Distance travelled by the moon (in km's) by the Actual seconds in a day that is 1 sidereal day = 86164.0906 sec's (not the coventional day = 24 hrs)
You need to specify what kind of year? Julian, Sidereal, tropical, anomalistic, Draconic, Full moon cycle, Lunar, Heliacal, Sothic, Gaussian, Besselian, Fiscal or "even" Academic!
You need to specify which day? Sidereal, Stellar or Solar!
Vague questions take nowhere.
Specify what kind of Day & Year in your mind along with the reason behind choosing them, Pls.
@extra222love Now you are contradicting yourself, last week you said this "1 day" in the verse DOES NOT equal 86164 secs. BUT the SAME "1 day" in the calculation = 86164 secs
Please don't act confused ! I think you already have found your inconsistency..the "1 day" came directly from the verse if your follow the equations carefully and not just a conversion factor as you carelessly assert!
@extra222love Please just answer the questions, I am having to repeat this because you are afraid to be sincere enough to confront the blatant inconstancy in your calculation.
I am only talking about your calculations now.
1) Where did the "1 day" in the very first step of your equation come from ? Where did it come from ?
Well, as long as the whole story is about the Moon orbiting the Earth then the Year is no more than the Lunar Year which is simply: 1 Year = 12 Moon Cycles around the Earth.
Now; The Synodic Month represents the Moon Cycle - Phase wise.
And the Sidereal Month represents the Moon Cycle - Travel Time (and consequently) Distance wise.
So if we're looking for the Distance Travelled by the Moon, then:
= No. of Years X 12 Cycles per Year X Distance Travelled in Sidereal Month
DIY ... Draconitic Year = 346.62 days ... Syodic Year = 354.37 days ... Julian Year = 365.25 days
Little clue: Shift the decimal points 3 digits to the right!
However, Pls. remember that the verse mentioned "1000 years of what you count" ... where Muslims count with Lunar Year or 12 Moon cycles. And I already clarified to you that Synodic Month is Phases and Sidereal Month is Time/Distance.
So, the Correct question (if you would) is, How many Moon Cycles in 1000 years?
@TheRationalizer >"No, you are using units such as km/h and seconds in a day etc" Yes indeed, coz I'm calculating the Speed of Light in km/sec >"but you are not defining exactly how many days there are in a year." Simply I don't need it in my way to Rome. >"I want you define the year YOU are using in your claim" I did, but I'll repeat, Lunar Year = 12 Moon Cycles >"So, how many days are there in a year?" See para no. 2 >"Number please." See para no. 2
To exchange units such as seconds, hours, days you need a ratio. E.g. 24 hours in a day, 3600 seconds in an hour.
So, I repeat. In your mathematical formula, if I convert "1000 years" into days, how many days would I have? Surely you know enough about your claim to be able to convert 1000 years into days....don't you?
>"Why do you keep refusing to answer the question? In this formula, how many days are there in 1000 years?"
LOL, it looks like you're asking how many apples in this box of orange.
Pal, my forumal didn't need what's called "Days per Year". If you're proposing a different formula that utilizes "this term" then put it to me for discussion and to judge it's correctness to describe the physics of the problem in hand.
Perhaps you are not aware that the measurement of speed is distance/time. You are working with distances and time in your formula. So, please quantify 1000 years as any of the following globally recognised stand units of time.
Seconds
Hours
Days
If you cannot do this then it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, in which case it would be better for you just to admit it.
Sorry, ED, the verse suggested this school 6th grade question:
An object is moving a distance in 1 day that EQUALS to the distance the Moon moves in 1000 years.
What is the velocity of such object?
My calculations ended up with the SPEED OF LIGHT. You're video was debunked. However, it still contains nice graphics and your lovely voice but SORRY no scientific material.
I already proved you wrong once I ended up with V = 299,792.5 km/s.
We have spoken to each other and you were polite, so perhaps we can do this without resorting to insults?
Now back to the issue. To convert a velocity into distance you need to multiply it by a total amount of time. Please specify your total amount of time as either seconds, hours, or days.
Why are you so adamant that you will not reveal the total amount of time in hours? Why are you resisting scrutinising the details of this claim.
Sure the number at the end is the speed of light (or close), but is that all you require? Do you not have the urge to understand the details so that you KNOW it is not merely numerology?
If you are honest (which I suspect you are) and you have integrity (which I hope you have) then please answer.
>"So tell me, how many hours are there in 1000 years?"
LOL, if you had any point to emphasize you would've jumped to it 24 hours ago ... instead of being "helplessly" tighed up until answers come from others. C'mon, bring up your calculator, I'm calculating nothing for you, do your own homework.
I've already given the calculations which led to the Speed of Light. My contribution stops here, brother.
I can calculate it very easily, in fact it is possible that I did it before you ever saw this claim. However I want YOU to present me with the information because I want YOU to justify the values.
I don't have a calculation, YOU are the one presenting the calculation. I am asking you to quantify a constant in your formula.
Please tell me how many hours there are in 1000 years, and then once you have done that I will explain why your argument is wrong. Although I suspect you already know why it is wrong which is why you refuse to reply :)
My friend, I would agree in a method ... road map ... solution strategy.
You know what I mean. Just describe ... I'm doing this to get that ... then put here to come up with this ... bla bla bla.
However, to show you my respect for you being our "host" in this YouTube page ... Just pick what kind of "Year" in your mind (as I described yesterday) then I'll confirm how many hours are there.
I realy can't say yes or no ... and the "year" category isn't specified.
>"We aren't talking about years, we are talking about the entire number of hours in this calculation"
Back to square one! ... We don't have "an entire number of hours" but 12,000 Moon cycles around the earth which if each Moon cycle distance is calculated then the entire distance moved by the moon in 1000 years is ready. Then divide such total distance by 1 sidereal day (in seconds) ... To end up with Speed of Light.
Back to square one indeed. You are referencing the VELOCITY of the Moon. Velocity is distance/time, in order to determine the distance (which is what you are doing) you must multiply it BY AN AMOUNT OF TIME.
To do this you are multiplying (number of hours in a sidereal month) by (12 months in a year) to get the total number of hours in a year, and then multiplying that by 1000.
Stop pretending there is no amount of time, or don't you understand the maths?
>"To do this you are multiplying (number of hours in a sidereal month) by (12 months in a year) to get the total number of hours in a year, and then multiplying that by 1000."
No. Moon velocity (as given by NASA 3682.07 km/hr) multiplied by "cos" to get it's vector relative to earth then multiplied by the number of hours needed for a single moon cycle around the Earth (which is the sidreal month). This Distance then multiplied by 12 cycles/year by 1000 years. Get it?
To convert a velocity (distance/time) into a distance you must multiply it by a time. You have KM/H and YOU ARE multiplying it by a time, specifically a number of hours (7,868,638.4 hours to be precise.)
Now, can you please confirm this number, or at least be honest enough to admit that you have no idea what I am talking about?
>"To convert a velocity (distance/time) into a distance you must multiply it by a time. You have KM/H and YOU ARE multiplying it by a time, specifically a number of hours (7,868,638.4 hours to be precise.)"
To be precise the moon velocity vector is multimplied by (27.321661 day X 24 hrs/day = 655.719 hrs)
(7,868,638.4 hrs is a jobless. Is it that hard to digest?)
Thank you, why you wouldn't just admit that in the first place I do not know.
7,868,638.368 hours in 1000 years is 7,868.638386 hours in one year. Divide this by 24 (hours in a day) and what do we get? The number of days in a year.
The answer is 327.859932 days.
Now tell me, which calendar is it exactly which has 327.9 days in a year?
@extra222love If i can't hadle the truth why Am i the one sincerely asking you to verify the numbers?
It is because you are afraid that this whole thing is a lie that you refuse to answer the question. Again, I dare you to answer my questions! If you are honest you will realize your calculations are inconsistent
@extra222love I've already done that. I am only repeating to make you see the blatant error but since you are neither sincere nor honest, you can't be bothered to see the truth
But anyways, if you want to know why your miracle is wrong, answer my questions, if not then whatever
But as it stands, according to your calculations, the distance from Heaven to earth is MUCH LESS than that of the distance from earth to Proxima Centauri.
@extra222love Oh so now you are okay with agreeing that the distance from HEAVEN where the "matter" ascends to allah is only 2.58 x 10^10 Km away from Earth ! That is, the Heaven is only 1 light day away from earth.
To put this in perspective
Earth to Heavens HENCE Allah - 1 light day
Earth to Proxima Centauri - 4 light years
Earth to center of Milky Way - 27000 light years
In that case, please fund NASA so that you can get an image of Heaven and maybe Allah from the HUbble ! lolol
>"That is, the Heaven is only 1 light day away from earth"
It's the first station where objects get re-packed, given a 3-D barcode, stamped, QC inspected, given a Track-Number (which then posted on the web), then re-shipped to the second station. LOL
>"In that case, please fund NASA so that you can get an image of Heaven and maybe Allah from the HUbble"
You, I & Hubble are jailed inside the Space-Time Allah had created for us to exist in. Hubble sensors are less than that.
@extra222love 32:5 says "the matter ascends to HIM" where is HIM in the 7th heaven ? Where is the 7th heaven, according to you, it is in our neighborhood. Get some images of this heaven please. it is very close!
But then again, quran also says the lowest heaven is adorned with the stars, but now this heaven is only a light day away from our Sun and not even remotely close to the nearest extra-solar star. Which means your miracle (if it is true) actually contradicts the quran. Congratulations!
@extra222love regardless this so called heaven just outside our sun where Allah is receiving the matter must be a special place. Get some images please!
The contradiction is with another verse that says the LOWEST heaven is adorned with the stars, yet we have an even lower heaven just outside our sun and not even remotely close to the nearest extra solar star! A contradiction
Much like your convo with therationalizer, you have no idea what wonderfully blatant and blasphemous errors you make
@extra222love Truth is undefeatable as observed in your difficulty to prove this nonsense you call a miracle
The verse says "the matter of the heaven" ascends back to allah in a day. If as you say, this heaven starts a 1mm above my head, then it is actually incompetence that he makes it travel an entire day. Beside you are still contradicting the quran, the LOWEST heaven is adorned with stars, there can't be a heaven lower than it. Good try though! It is only sad now that miracle claim is false
>"observed in your difficulty to prove this nonsense you call a miracle"
Not after putting the entire calculations that ended up with Speed of Light within the UTube 500 chars comment box.
>"then it is actually incompetence that he makes it travel an entire day"
Allah stated in Quran that he created 7 heavens where the earth is contained within the first one. So the term "heaven" isn't the far limit only but the space that stretches from here all the way there.
The Moon Velocity given by NASA (3682 km/h) is measured relative to far fixed-location stars which represent a valid inertial frame of reference. However, the moon motion (as if seen from these stars) is not purely circular but mixed with a lateral motion running after the earth orbiting the sun. The end result is a spiral track. So to eliminate such lateral movement (as if the Earth is not orbiting the sun) the COS must be multiplied to NASA's Spiral track Velocity.
I presume the spiral motion you refer to is Moon's path relative to the heliocentric frame, mind you, it's almost circular with small ripples... and being spiral would imply a Moon faster than Earth.
Besides, in 1 sidereal month, the Moon travels in that "spiral track" roughly the same distance as Earth's (over 50 millions km), hence Moon's mean speed, in that frame, cannot be 3682km/h.
Had NASA say the velocity 3682 km/h is the Moon's Velocity relative to the Earth then, YES, it would resemble the net circular motion and there would be no need to multiply it by the COS. But this is not the case. The velocity 3682 km/h is declared relative to far stars which implies the helical/spiral track. So the COS has to be utilized in order to eliminate the lateral motion around the Sun.
In fact, the Earth-Moon motion is more "Binary Motion System" than a "Planetary Motion System" due to the large Moon mass relative to Earth's (1:81) which makes the Earth also affected by the Moon's gravity.
"Precisely" both Earth & Moon are orbiting around their common Center of Mass which is offset from the Earth's geometrical center.
Such "Binary Motion System" is the reason behind the Moon's Velocity being sinusoidally variable. Anyway, we always deal with the Mean Velocity.
That's simple you may calculate Moon's mean velocity around the Earth since their centre of mass doesn't leave Earth's body. You just have to include in the formula of velocity a reduced mass of the system by replacing M by (M+m), where M and m are respectively Earth's and Moon's mass.
>"That's simple you may calculate Moon's mean velocity around the Earth since their centre of mass doesn't leave Earth's body. You just have to include in the formula of velocity a reduced mass of the system by replacing M by (M+m), where M and m are respectively Earth's and Moon's mass.
Which value do you find?"
Pal, why would you calculate the Moon's mean orbiting velocity while it's already given by NASA?
"why would you calculate the Moon's mean orbiting velocity while it's already given by NASA?"
In order to show you that the velocity indicated by Nasa is that of Moon's motion relative to geocentric frame of reference and not heliocentric frame.
How? By calculating the distance Earth's travels on its orbit for such a duration, knowing that our planet completes roughly 26.9° in 27.3 days (assuming it's a circular orbit).
"It's about 2.414 million km (in the helical path)"
No, what you gave is nothing but the circumference of its geocentric orbit.
What astronomers measured is merely the mean velocity of Moon's motion in the background of stars as seen from the Earth's frame, knowing Earth-Moon distance...... which solved this reltaive motion problem.
In other simpler words; the moon is running in two courses at the same time. The first is around the Earth which is noticed by us. The second is around the Sun (following the Earth) which is not seen by us.
The verse is referring to 1000 Years relative to us which are basically 12000 Moon cycles around the Earth.
If you're on board of an air plane you'll walk 5 mtrs to the Toilet but to an observer on the ground you walked 20 km's! But what matters you is what relative to you.
@extra222love "Allah stated in Quran that he created 7 heavens where the earth is contained within the first one. So the term "heaven" isn't the far limit only but the space that stretches from here all the way there."
Does this mean that you disagree with the muslims who use the "7 heavens are the 7 layers of atmosphere" miracle? Discrediting one "miracle" by creating a new miracle. Allah(SWT) sure keeps us on our toes!
In Islam the 7 superimposed heavens cannot be the 7 layers of atmosphere because they are not superimposed. Angles are in the 7th heaven and we are in the lowest heaven and Jinn are in one heaven in-between however there are two angels on your shoulders right now. Today we know that the superimposed heavens in the Quran are the extra spatial dimensions in modern physics. So angels and Jinn are mass in extra dimensions: speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/seven_heavens
No. The Quran put it as Distance/Time=Speed. Speed is rate of motion, not distance. If I tell you that yesterday I drove at 240km/hr you cannot deduce the distance I drove from that. I could have drove at that speed for 20 kms or 150 kms. Rate of motion (speed) is not distance.
This is EXACTLY what I said to you. Your calculation has a velocity in it (the velocity of the Moon in KM/H) which you need to convert into a distance. Therefore you need to multiply it by a time.
So, now that we have established there is an amount of hours in it tell us all how many hours there are in total; you are just embarrassing yourself with your contradictory statements and your evasiveness.
the neutrinos are not faster than light,anyway the Islam remains a bloody religion for underdeveloped human being....
nokingnolies 2 days ago
1) 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day depends on the frame of reference. You could define a million different frames and get a million different results!!! But 299792.458 km/sec is the speed of light in local inertial frames. So if you want to compare it with the speed of light in local inertial frames then you need to make the comparison in a local inertial frame.
wormhole199 3 weeks ago
2) So for TheRationalizer to correctly make a comparison he has to do three things. He has to:
a) Define his frame of reference.
b) Prove that his frame of reference is inertial.
c) In this frame compare 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day with 299792.458 km/sec.
The Rationalizer never defined his frame of reference. A comparison in an undefined frame is invalid.
wormhole199 3 weeks ago
You seem quite clever. How do I know if you are lying?
pendelum5 1 month ago
@pendelum5 You'll have to learn more.
NotQuiteLucid 1 month ago
Whats the name of the song at 5:13
[Sorry for being a tool for asking this question]
MegaSuperMang 1 month ago
@MegaSuperMang It's the Sylvia ballet suite plucked in a pizzicato fashion and the music is by Léo Delibes I think.
dhimmiwit 1 month ago
Dr Naik has found these root words for sura 9:5- Say !(Oh Mohammad) "The Higgs mechanism is a process by which vector bosons can get a mass.The boson is massive, an essential feature is the incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons. The boson is also massless and decoupled from the massive states only in a lowest-order approximation, but is not subject to any constraint and it acquires mass at higher orders" and kill them wherever you find them using any stratagem of quantum physics.
dhimmiwit 2 months ago
@dhimmiwit Therefore- Allah-hu-Akbar, suckers!
dhimmiwit 2 months ago
@dhimmiwit lol
NotQuiteLucid 1 month ago
LOL ???!!!! You didn't define your local inertial frame ...
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani
No he didn't and he never will. His last failed attempt to define an inertial frame was at "bautforum showthread 122554 The speed of light 1,400 years ago?". Hundreds of his enthusiast friends rushed to speed-light.info however they all coward in silence. “bautforum” failed to help him define his missing local inertial frame.
wormhole199 2 months ago
@wormhole199 I see so there is something wrong in the video.
Without even mentioning the other errors... This guy is good at making videos, but suck at physics LOL
babkrani 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just check out this video:
"Who is Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh"
youtube.com / watch?v=P-3iSi2V3UE
karlmall 2 months ago
Jazakallah armadillo! When I need to send things such as prayers really fast I send them by Neutrino post, the Neutrino Angels are far more efficient than the Light Angels. Allah has to answer my prayer before last which can be somewhat confusing and much like the Two Ronnies Mastermind scetch!
dhimmiwit 2 months ago
@wormhole199 is that speed-light.info website you keep refering to your own site? Have you contributed to it in any way?
gtb393 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
1) The answer to your stupid question depends on your frame of reference which you still refuse to define. In your video you used 29.5 Earth days for a lunar month which means you used the synodic system. The synodic system is a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun; however this frame is rotating with respect to stars. But rotating frames with respect to stars BY DEFINITION are non-inertial.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
2) In rotating frames with respect to stars light DOES NOT travel in a straight line, and the measured this speed of light in these frames is UNDEFINED (the distance travelled in one hour gives a different speed than distance travelled in two hours...). You falsely claimed that the speed of light in this non-inertial frame is 299792.458 km/sec.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
3) Einstein’s second postulate of Special Relativity says: ”The velocity c of light in vacuum is the same in all INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE in all directions and depend neither on the velocity of the source nor on the velocity of the observer”. So you need to define your frame of reference and prove that is inertial before claiming 299792.458 km/sec. However this was your answer:
“blah blah blah, frame of reference, blah blah blah.”
This just shows what an ignorant you are.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
Nobody tells you to measure lightspeed in a non-inertial frame, in the 1st place.
There is only a comparision of distances to do: the one travelled in the Moon and the one travelled by light, hence, you're free to choose any frame you want for each of these motions.
silveren777 3 months ago
@silveren777
"you're free to choose any frame you want for each of these motions."
False, you cannot compare measurements taken in different frames. Comparisons are only valid in the same frame. 299792.458 km/sec is the measured speed of light in local inertial frames. So if you want to make a comparison with 299792.458 km/sec then you have to define your frame and prove that it is a local inertial frame. So far ALL SKEPTICS failed to prove it.
In short your comparison is invalid.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
I repeat, how many days does it take for the Moon to do a 360 degree orbit around the Earth 12000 times?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@wormhole199
"False, you cannot compare measurements taken in different frames. "
According to which principle?
silveren777 3 months ago
just found your site very impressive looking forward to seeing your archive
MrAntithiest 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
'SO are you saying "1 light day" is not a measurement of distance ?'
One light day is distance indeed however the Quran said One Earth day. The angels travel 12000 lunar orbits in one Earth day. This is like me saying I drove at 240 km/hr. I didn't say that I drove for an hour. You cannot tell the distance from the rate of motion.
Unfortunately now it is obvious who is "debunking" the Quran: Idiots.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199 Okay I will try one last time so that your primitive brain can understand.
According to verse 32:5
1) this matter/angels ascends FROM earth TO heaven.
2) In one day.
According to your calculations,
1) this one day = 86164 secs
2) speed of this matter/angels = speed of light.
So, we have this matter/angels traveling FROM earth TO heaven in 86164 secs at the speed of light.
Elementary Physics: Distance = Speed x Time
We have a rate of motion, and the time it took. GET IT!?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
"Distance = Speed x Time
We have a rate of motion, and the time it took. GET IT!?"
No we only have the rate of motion (speed) = 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day. When I say that I drove at 240 km/hr that doesn't mean that I drove for one hour. Similarly the TIME in the Quran is part of the rate. I never claimed that I drove for one hour and neither did the Quran claim that angels traveled for one day. It is just a rate of motion. You are pathetic.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199 Thanks for assuring us that you really are a moron. I guess you can't even read!
32:5 "He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in A DAY"
The matter ascends from earth to heaven in ONE DAY. that is the TIME
According to your calculations AKA wishful thinking, the VELOCITY is the speed of light and the above ONE DAY is 86164 secs.
Distance = Velocity x Time
So you fail at comprehension and elementary physics. How pathetic?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
In a local frame non-rotating with respect to stars the length of the lunar orbit is 2πR, however this frame is non-inertial. If you know the time it takes to make a complete orbit in this frame (27.3 days) you can calculate the velocity
V=2πR/T.
But you are claiming that TIME is necessary to calculate L however that is false, time here cancels out:
L = V T= (2πR/T) T = 2πR(T/T) = 2πR(1)
So the length of the lunar orbit is a function of R, not T.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
T only cancels out to give you the result, AFTER you have defined it.
Define T in hours.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
"T only cancels out to give you the result, AFTER you have defined it."
In a local frame non-rotating with respect to stars the length of the lunar orbit is 2πR whether you like it or not.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
Ah, so you are able to prove your point by showing me a calculation which shows how far the Moon travels in 1000 years without ANY indication of time in it?
This is going to be impressive, please do continue :)
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Speed = 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day
However this speed depends on the frame of reference. 299792.458 km/s is the speed of light in LOCAL INERTIAL FRAMES. But you insist on the synodic system which is a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun; however this frame is rotating with respect to stars so it is NON-INERTIAL by definition. You still claim that the speed of light in this rotating frame is 299792.458 km/s however you (and the idiots around you) never proved it.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
How long (in hours) do 12000 lunar orbits take?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRationalizer
"How long (in hours) do 12000 lunar orbits take?"
In speed-light.info forum they showed you how you are taking the Arabic out of context. And here I showed you how in a correctly defined frame of reference TIME cancels out. So our equation doesn't contain a variable for TIME (besides Earth day of course). So take your imaginary TIME and hang it over your bed.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
How long does it take for the Moon to orbit the Earth 12000 times?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
How about a game of rock-paper-scissors to decide who says it first?
aby1ism 3 months ago
@aby1ism
HAHAHAHAHAHA ... It's really wiered!
But I think the one proposing it ... is the one obligated to say it.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Give TheRationalizer some sadaqah. It's just past midnight for him and he probably wants to go bed.
aby1ism 3 months ago
@aby1ism
Hi aby1ism ... It's long before hearing from you.
How are you? I wish everything is OK.
BTW, are u an Arabic speaker?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Fine thanks, and yourself? I am not an arabic speaker.
aby1ism 3 months ago
@aby1ism
I'm gr8 thanks, ... This "sadaqah" thing just blew me up! LOL
Take care, pal.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I was being serious
aby1ism 3 months ago
You just can't compete with Quran:
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference / 1 day
Lunar Circumference = Lunar velocity * cos [360 * (Sidereal Month / Sidereal Year)] * Sidereal Month
= 3682.07 (km/hr) * cos [360 * (27.321661 / 365.25636)] * 27.321661 (day/month) * 24 (hr/day)
> Lunar Circumference = 2,152,612.348 km
Knowing that: 1 sidereal day = 86164.0906 sec
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * 2,152,612.348 (km) / 86164.0906 (s) = 299,792.5 km/s
V = Speed of Light!!!!!!
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love You avoiding my question is a clear sign that you think you have been caught. Your calculations are inconsistent therefore wrong. If you want to know why, answer my question
first step: "1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity
Where did the "1 day" come from ? I dare you to as I this can be easily debunked
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"first step: "1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity"
From where did you come with this equation?
My equation is: V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference / 1 day
Which is basically the mathematical representation of this physical question:
An object is moving a distance in 1 day that is EQUAL to the distance the Moon moves in 1000 years. What is the velocity of such object?
Now, either you prove my equation wrong, come with your own method or take rest.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Didn't think you were such a professional dodger
"V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference / 1 day" Is the same as ""1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity"
But anyways where did that "1 day" come from ? Is it referring to the "1 day" in verse 32:5 ?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference / 1 day" Is the same as ""1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity"
Ah!!! ... (12 * Lunar Orbit Circumference) is the distance the Moon travels per Year ... It's still a measure of velocity but you just can't simply call it the "Moon Velocity", Einestein, Your expressions shall be more accurate.
>"But anyways where did that "1 day" come from ? Is it referring to the "1 day" in verse 32:5 ?"
Yes.
extra222love 3 months ago
Comment removed
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I see a lotta numbers but no justification for any of them or the equations used, or perhaps it is bcuz I am bad at amath. Tell you what, let us start from the basics.
Are you saying that the "matter" which are angels that travel at the speed of light takes one 24 hour day to get from the heaven to the earth traveling at the speed of light?
Please don't dodge of fail to answer the questions
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
> "I see a lotta numbers but no justification"
If the end result didn't justify itself, I'll be happy to clarify each input for you.
> "Are you saying that the "matter" which are angels that travel at the speed of light takes one 24 hour day to get from the heaven to the earth traveling at the speed of light?"
Quran verse 32:5 contained two basic components Special Relativity contained as well: 1) Motion. 2) Time Relativity. Such simulation did inspire the question, cont.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I am very interested in this claim but since I am bad at math you will have to explain a lot of stuff. I told you to answer my question but you didnt.
Are you claiming that according to 32:5, the "matter" travels at the speed of light from the earth to the heavens in one 24 hour day ?
Please answer this one question before we get into anything else ? It is important that I understand how the verse is used to derive ther equation and that this ISNT just numerology garbage !
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"Are you claiming that according to 32:5, the "matter" travels at the speed of light from the earth to the heavens in one 24 hour day ?"
Your phrase isn't really accurate. I'm not claiming so. I said, if we'll assume the verse is urging us to calculate distances and velocities then Speed of Light would result from the time ratio 1 day X V = 1000 yr X Moon velocity.
In the abstract, the verse doesn't point to the distance between us & Allah! Coz Allah is everywhere!
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Could you explain why this isn't accurate ?
Your claim is that speed of the matter = speed of light. The verse says this matter ascends from earth to heavens in 1 day. The calculation you showed list a 24 hour day. Where exactly am I wrong or inaccurate.
Before we get to "1 day X V = 1000 yr X Moon velocity.", we need to understand how to get there. So please explain the inaccuracies of my question.
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
Coz simply, no one knows where is that “heaven” meant in the verse?
Is it one meter above our heads? 1 mile? 500 miles? 8 light years above?
The verse did tell a trip from Earth to somewhere "up". No more no less. We just can't assume any more info without evidence.
I put "24 hrs" to convert the Sidereal Month (27.321661 Days) to hours as dictated by the "suggested" formula. That's all.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra I have to assume that you r evading the question. But my question is based PURELY on your miracle claim. I know u dnt knw whr heaven is
Let me break it down further
1) You are claiming that the the speed of the matter = the speed of light, RIGHT ?
2) IN your last step, you convert 1 day into "86164.0906 (s)"...How is this NOT a 24 hour day (give or take a few minutes) ?
3) Based PURELY on this claim, you are stating this matter travels at C for 86164.0906 s from earth to heaven. Right ?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>1) You are claiming that the the speed of the matter = the speed of light, RIGHT?
That's what been proven by the calculations, if we take the verse as a "ciphered" request to calculate distances & velocities.
>2) IN your last step, you convert 1 day into "86164.0906 (s)" How is this NOT a 24 hour day (give or take a few minutes)?
1 day isn't 24 hrs! It is about 23 hrs, 56 mins, 4.0906 secs (The sidereal day) which sums up to (86164.0906 secs)
3) No destinations, but speeds.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra BTW you don't have to copy my questions. just use the number system to answer more thoroughly
1) K i was right
2) so 1 day = 86164 seconds..i will work that, im still right abt tht
3) You are now blatantly evading this issue.
Please answer these question related to #3
The verse says "He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day".
3.1) does this matter ascend From earth to Heaven ?
3.2) Does this matter take 86164 secs to ascend to heaven?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
3.1) Yes, that's what the verse says.
3.2) Nope, If you'll bring seconds, figures or calculations, then you're talking about my own “humble” assumption of distances/speeds, not necessarily what Allah wanted by the verse. Even the Prophet didn’t explain it. (I'm still insisting in this point).
So if you’ll refer to the abstract meaning without figures, then, Yes. It rises in ONE DAY of Allah's DAYS which no one knows how long/short it is.
I hope this made things clearer 2 U.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love 3.2) Okay, so the "1 day" referred to in the verse DOES NOT equal 86164 secs. Fine
In that case, you will have to go back and do your calculations again since according to your calculation the "1 day" DOES equal 86164 secs
QUOTE (check the ones inside * *)
" **1 day** X V = 1000 yr X Moon velocity
V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Circumference / **1 day**
...
V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * 2,156,612.348 (km) / **86164.0906 (s)** "
Please come bk with the right calculation
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
Thanks.
I do appologize, It's no more than a typing error, Pls. refer to my first calculations.
When I came up with the Lunar Circumference:
Lunar Circumference = 2,152,612.348 km
I shifted it with a typing error (typing 6 instead of 2 in the digit of thousands!):
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * 2,156,612.348 (km) / 86164.0906 (s) = 299,792.5 km/s
Anyway, the end result is still the speed of light:
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * 2,152,612.348 (km) / 86164.0906 (s) = 299,792.5 km/s
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I am still waiting for a reply or acknowledgement
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
What else than my last comment?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I guess you have given up!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
Given up of what? It's speed of Light.
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * Lunar Circumference / 1 day
Lunar Circumference = Lunar velocity * cos [360 * (Sidereal Month / Sidereal Year)] * Sidereal Month
= 3682.07 (km/hr) * cos [360 * (27.321661 / 365.25636)] * 27.321661 (day/month) * 24 (hr/day)
> Lunar Circumference = 2,152,612.348 km
Knowing that: 1 sidereal day = 86164.0906 sec
> V (km/s) = 1000 * 12 * 2,152,612.348 (km) / 86164.0906 (s) = 299,792.5 km/s
V = Speed of Light!!!!!!
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Okay, let me point out the problem as simply as I can.
How many days are there in a year?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
It's even simpler. Object's Velocity:
V = Distance travelled by the moon around the earth in 1000 yrs (in km) / Number of seconds in one day (in sec's)
Moon travels 12 cycles around the Earth every year, so the mathematical form is:
V = 1000 x 12 x Length of each Moon Cycle / sidereal Day (in seconds)
> Asking "How many days are there in a year" isn't a part of the mathematical representation of what's in quest. and will just take you to no where.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love That was very dishonest of you to ignore the very conversation we had before!
Let me repeat, and i hope you wont run away
You said "1 day" used in the verse DOES NOT equal 86164 secs.
But then you are inconsistent since in your calculations "1 day = 86164 secs"
So which IS IT ? Please don't pretend like the conversation before did not exist. That would be very dishonest of you to make me repeat it all!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
It's physics and mathematics, no one can be honest or dishonest! It's either you're right or wrong.
I'll explain what's confusing:
We used the 1 day = 24 hr which worked as "a conversion value" to convert the sidereal month (27.321661 day/sidereal month) into hours.
But later on, we needed to divide the Actual Distance travelled by the moon (in km's) by the Actual seconds in a day that is 1 sidereal day = 86164.0906 sec's (not the coventional day = 24 hrs)
I wish you got it.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
How many days are there in a thousand years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"How many days are there in a thousand years?"
You need to specify what kind of year? Julian, Sidereal, tropical, anomalistic, Draconic, Full moon cycle, Lunar, Heliacal, Sothic, Gaussian, Besselian, Fiscal or "even" Academic!
You need to specify which day? Sidereal, Stellar or Solar!
Vague questions take nowhere.
Specify what kind of Day & Year in your mind along with the reason behind choosing them, Pls.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Pls clarify the inconsistencies in your calculation. At this point I feel like you are trying to avoid the blatant error
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
Is it an interrogation or a scientific discussion?!
If you think of any "error" exists in my calculations then highlight it explicitly with reason.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I have shown the inconsistency 3 times already. Let me repeat for the 4th time.
According to your calculation " 1 day x V(km/s) = 1000 years x moon's velocity
The "1 day" is then equaled to 86164 secs in your own calculation. Is This not right ? Does your calculation say 1 day = 86164 secs ??????
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"Does your calculation say 1 day = 86164 secs ??????"
Yes it does. 1 sidereal Day = 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0906 seconds = 86164.0906 secs
What's wrong with this?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Now you are contradicting yourself, last week you said this "1 day" in the verse DOES NOT equal 86164 secs. BUT the SAME "1 day" in the calculation = 86164 secs
Please don't act confused ! I think you already have found your inconsistency..the "1 day" came directly from the verse if your follow the equations carefully and not just a conversion factor as you carelessly assert!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
I'm copy/pasting our conversation last week:
(You) IN your last step, you convert 1 day into "86164.0906 (s)" How is this NOT a 24 hour day (give or take a few minutes)?
(Me) 1 day isn't 24 hrs! It is about 23 hrs, 56 mins, 4.0906 secs (The sidereal day) which sums up to 86164.0906 secs.
I think I'm the consistent part and you're the one needs some refreshment.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Nope, you really have no idea where the numbers from your equations came from ! Pretty sad!
Let me break it down, yet again!
How did you derive the equation ? The first step is
i) "1 day" * V(km/s) = 1000 years * moon's velocity
1) Where did the "1 day" in the very first step come from ?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
Buddy, going back to square one!
There is a verse in the Quran that with a "certain mindset" suggests an object.
Such object is moving a distance in 1 day that EQUALS to the distance the Moon moves in 1000 years.
From here we started the mathematics.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Please just answer the questions, I am having to repeat this because you are afraid to be sincere enough to confront the blatant inconstancy in your calculation.
I am only talking about your calculations now.
1) Where did the "1 day" in the very first step of your equation come from ? Where did it come from ?
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"1) Where did the "1 day" in the very first step of your equation come from ? Where did it come from ?"
From this school 6th grade question:
An object is moving a distance in 1 day that EQUALS to the distance the Moon moves in 1000 years.
What is the velocity of such object?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I don't need to specify what type of year, you do. You said
"It's even simpler. Object's Velocity: V = Distance travelled by the moon around the earth in 1000 yrs (in km)"
You are using the term "1000 years" so it is up to you to define it. So I repeat, how many days are there in 1000 years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Well, as long as the whole story is about the Moon orbiting the Earth then the Year is no more than the Lunar Year which is simply: 1 Year = 12 Moon Cycles around the Earth.
Now; The Synodic Month represents the Moon Cycle - Phase wise.
And the Sidereal Month represents the Moon Cycle - Travel Time (and consequently) Distance wise.
So if we're looking for the Distance Travelled by the Moon, then:
= No. of Years X 12 Cycles per Year X Distance Travelled in Sidereal Month
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Again you have not answered my question. How many days are there in 1000 years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
DIY ... Draconitic Year = 346.62 days ... Syodic Year = 354.37 days ... Julian Year = 365.25 days
Little clue: Shift the decimal points 3 digits to the right!
However, Pls. remember that the verse mentioned "1000 years of what you count" ... where Muslims count with Lunar Year or 12 Moon cycles. And I already clarified to you that Synodic Month is Phases and Sidereal Month is Time/Distance.
So, the Correct question (if you would) is, How many Moon Cycles in 1000 years?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
No, you are using units such as km/h and seconds in a day etc but you are not defining exactly how many days there are in a year.
I don't want you to define lots of different years, I want you define the year YOU are using in your claim. So, how many days are there in a year?
Number please.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
To exchange units such as seconds, hours, days you need a ratio. E.g. 24 hours in a day, 3600 seconds in an hour.
So, I repeat. In your mathematical formula, if I convert "1000 years" into days, how many days would I have? Surely you know enough about your claim to be able to convert 1000 years into days....don't you?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Units exchange perfectly:
V (km/s) = 1000 (Year) X 12 (MoonCycle / Year) X Oribt Length (km / MoonCycle) / 1 Day (in sec's)
Again, the term "how many days in a year" is jobless.
I wonder why you're insisting to find a job for it?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Why do you keep refusing to answer the question? In this formula, how many days are there in 1000 years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"Why do you keep refusing to answer the question? In this formula, how many days are there in 1000 years?"
LOL, it looks like you're asking how many apples in this box of orange.
Pal, my forumal didn't need what's called "Days per Year". If you're proposing a different formula that utilizes "this term" then put it to me for discussion and to judge it's correctness to describe the physics of the problem in hand.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Okay, let me put it another way then. Your formula says
"V (km/s) = 1000 (Year) X 12 (MoonCycle / Year) X Oribt Length (km / MoonCycle) / 1 Day (in sec's)"
The time element is 1000 (years) x 12 (moon cycles per year) / (number of seconds in a day)
How many seconds is "1000 (years) x 12 (moon cycles per year)"
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"The time element is 1000 (years) x 12 (moon cycles per year) / (number of seconds in a day)"
In fact, it's NOT the time element. It's another representation of the verse:
That instead of saying:
The distance moved by the "object" in 1 day = what the Moon moves in 1000 years.
Is to say: The distance moved by the "object" in 1 day = what the Moon moves in 12000 Cycles.
However, The denominator (number of seconds in a day) is the sidereal day = 86164.0906 secs
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Perhaps you are not aware that the measurement of speed is distance/time. You are working with distances and time in your formula. So, please quantify 1000 years as any of the following globally recognised stand units of time.
Seconds
Hours
Days
If you cannot do this then it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, in which case it would be better for you just to admit it.
Please, prove me wrong.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Sorry, ED, the verse suggested this school 6th grade question:
An object is moving a distance in 1 day that EQUALS to the distance the Moon moves in 1000 years.
What is the velocity of such object?
My calculations ended up with the SPEED OF LIGHT. You're video was debunked. However, it still contains nice graphics and your lovely voice but SORRY no scientific material.
I already proved you wrong once I ended up with V = 299,792.5 km/s.
Prove me wrong or pick the next video.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
>6th grade
We have spoken to each other and you were polite, so perhaps we can do this without resorting to insults?
Now back to the issue. To convert a velocity into distance you need to multiply it by a total amount of time. Please specify your total amount of time as either seconds, hours, or days.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Nothing personal, it's a reflection on how basic/simple is the physical problem.
> "To convert a velocity into distance you need to multiply it by a total amount of time."
This appeared in calculating the length of the Lunar Orbit Circumeference.
= Moon Velocity Vector (Relative to Earth, km/hr) X Time of single cycle (Sidereal Month in hours)
So, it's not "Days in a Year", but the hours the Moon needs to complete a ful turn around the earth. (27.321661 day X 24 hrs/day)
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
>So, it's not "Days in a Year", but the hours the Moon needs to complete a ful turn around the earth. (27.321661 day X 24 hrs/day)
And, in "1000 years" how many hours is that in total?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"And, in "1000 years" how many hours is that in total?"
Assume it "X" ... Then what?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Then we move onto the next stage of rationalising the formula. So, what is the answer?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Buddy, move on the way you "wish".
After my calculations ended up with V = Speed of Light, you only have 3 choices:
1) Honest Choice: Reproduce the video incorporating my method to show the verse did inspire the Speed of Light.
2) Passive Choice: Remove the video from YouTube network, and stay silent.
3) Dishonest Choice: Keep this full of rubbish video, but you'll need to call yourself a liar.
Thanks.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Why are you so adamant that you will not reveal the total amount of time in hours? Why are you resisting scrutinising the details of this claim.
Sure the number at the end is the speed of light (or close), but is that all you require? Do you not have the urge to understand the details so that you KNOW it is not merely numerology?
If you are honest (which I suspect you are) and you have integrity (which I hope you have) then please answer.
How many hours are there in 1000 years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Nothing new! There are unlimited number of methods in order to end up with a wrong result!
Correct result proves the correct method that led to it.
Intellectual Honesty dictates on you to try falsify the method which showed you the "correct result" not to pull people to different "wrong" ways.
Prove my calculations wrong, or you're debunked (as usual).
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
>Prove my calculations wrong, or you're debunked (as usual).
That is exactly what I am doing, but you are deliberately stalling :)
So tell me, how many hours are there in 1000 years?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"So tell me, how many hours are there in 1000 years?"
LOL, if you had any point to emphasize you would've jumped to it 24 hours ago ... instead of being "helplessly" tighed up until answers come from others. C'mon, bring up your calculator, I'm calculating nothing for you, do your own homework.
I've already given the calculations which led to the Speed of Light. My contribution stops here, brother.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I can calculate it very easily, in fact it is possible that I did it before you ever saw this claim. However I want YOU to present me with the information because I want YOU to justify the values.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
Put all of your calcualtions in one piece then send to me, either here or in my private, for my evaluation and response.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I don't have a calculation, YOU are the one presenting the calculation. I am asking you to quantify a constant in your formula.
Please tell me how many hours there are in 1000 years, and then once you have done that I will explain why your argument is wrong. Although I suspect you already know why it is wrong which is why you refuse to reply :)
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"Although I suspect you already know why it is wrong which is why you refuse to reply"
If you don't have calculations, then thanks for confessing the video was based on delusions.
Anyway, nobody is stopping you to proceed in proving me wrong. Go ahead.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
No, I used the original calculations, they were not MY calculations. That's what I meant.
Anyway, according to your calculation there are 7,868,638.4 hours in 1000 years - do you agree?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"Anyway, according to your calculation there are 7,868,638.4 hours in 1000 years - do you agree?"
Ed, you're lowering the standard of our discussion by such questions.
Pls. go straight to the point without taking my opinion in every station. Go ahead.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I need you to confirm you are in agreement with the figures before I continue, otherwise there is no point in me continuing.
Do you agree with this figure, yes or no?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
My friend, I would agree in a method ... road map ... solution strategy.
You know what I mean. Just describe ... I'm doing this to get that ... then put here to come up with this ... bla bla bla.
However, to show you my respect for you being our "host" in this YouTube page ... Just pick what kind of "Year" in your mind (as I described yesterday) then I'll confirm how many hours are there.
I realy can't say yes or no ... and the "year" category isn't specified.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
We aren't talking about years, we are talking about the entire number of hours in this calculation.
Are there 7,868,638.4 hours in this calculation, or do you not know?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"We aren't talking about years, we are talking about the entire number of hours in this calculation"
Back to square one! ... We don't have "an entire number of hours" but 12,000 Moon cycles around the earth which if each Moon cycle distance is calculated then the entire distance moved by the moon in 1000 years is ready. Then divide such total distance by 1 sidereal day (in seconds) ... To end up with Speed of Light.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Back to square one indeed. You are referencing the VELOCITY of the Moon. Velocity is distance/time, in order to determine the distance (which is what you are doing) you must multiply it BY AN AMOUNT OF TIME.
To do this you are multiplying (number of hours in a sidereal month) by (12 months in a year) to get the total number of hours in a year, and then multiplying that by 1000.
Stop pretending there is no amount of time, or don't you understand the maths?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"To do this you are multiplying (number of hours in a sidereal month) by (12 months in a year) to get the total number of hours in a year, and then multiplying that by 1000."
No. Moon velocity (as given by NASA 3682.07 km/hr) multiplied by "cos" to get it's vector relative to earth then multiplied by the number of hours needed for a single moon cycle around the Earth (which is the sidreal month). This Distance then multiplied by 12 cycles/year by 1000 years. Get it?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I understand it fully, I just don't think you do.
To convert a velocity (distance/time) into a distance you must multiply it by a time. You have KM/H and YOU ARE multiplying it by a time, specifically a number of hours (7,868,638.4 hours to be precise.)
Now, can you please confirm this number, or at least be honest enough to admit that you have no idea what I am talking about?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
>"To convert a velocity (distance/time) into a distance you must multiply it by a time. You have KM/H and YOU ARE multiplying it by a time, specifically a number of hours (7,868,638.4 hours to be precise.)"
To be precise the moon velocity vector is multimplied by (27.321661 day X 24 hrs/day = 655.719 hrs)
(7,868,638.4 hrs is a jobless. Is it that hard to digest?)
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
That is not ALL you are multiplying the hours by. In total you are multiplying the following
27.321661 (days in a sidereal month) x 24 (hours in a day) x 12000 (months in 1000 years)
Which is 7,868,638.4 - THAT is the total number of hours your are using in your calculation? Are you actually unable to see that?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer
OK ... If you'd like to gather all time components in a single number ... then YES.
The moon would take 7,868,638.368 hrs during his 1,000 Lunar Years trip. Good hint, Ed.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Thank you, why you wouldn't just admit that in the first place I do not know.
7,868,638.368 hours in 1000 years is 7,868.638386 hours in one year. Divide this by 24 (hours in a day) and what do we get? The number of days in a year.
The answer is 327.859932 days.
Now tell me, which calendar is it exactly which has 327.9 days in a year?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRationalizer
>"Thank you, why you wouldn't just admit that in the first place I do not know."
Once you conveyed the message correctly I received it correctly.
>"Now tell me, which calendar is it exactly which has 327.9 days in a year?"
Sure, you'll never find it in any calendar, coz simply, no calendar uses the Sidereal Month.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Avoiding it again, i guess you can't be bothered to be honest or sincere ? Your miracle is absolutely wrong!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
It's you who can't handle the truth.
Formulas and numbers ended up with the Speed of Light!
Deal with it.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love If i can't hadle the truth why Am i the one sincerely asking you to verify the numbers?
It is because you are afraid that this whole thing is a lie that you refuse to answer the question. Again, I dare you to answer my questions! If you are honest you will realize your calculations are inconsistent
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"your calculations are inconsistent"
Prove me wrong.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love I've already done that. I am only repeating to make you see the blatant error but since you are neither sincere nor honest, you can't be bothered to see the truth
But anyways, if you want to know why your miracle is wrong, answer my questions, if not then whatever
But as it stands, according to your calculations, the distance from Heaven to earth is MUCH LESS than that of the distance from earth to Proxima Centauri.
Maybe the hubble will get a picture of Allah!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"the distance from Heaven to earth is MUCH LESS than that of the distance from earth to Proxima Centauri."
Did the verse mention something further than that? Did the verse mention the observable universe? Or the beyond than that? ... Nope.
Don't load the words more than it can carry!
Anyway, you've just made a smart conculsion.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Oh so now you are okay with agreeing that the distance from HEAVEN where the "matter" ascends to allah is only 2.58 x 10^10 Km away from Earth ! That is, the Heaven is only 1 light day away from earth.
To put this in perspective
Earth to Heavens HENCE Allah - 1 light day
Earth to Proxima Centauri - 4 light years
Earth to center of Milky Way - 27000 light years
In that case, please fund NASA so that you can get an image of Heaven and maybe Allah from the HUbble ! lolol
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"That is, the Heaven is only 1 light day away from earth"
It's the first station where objects get re-packed, given a 3-D barcode, stamped, QC inspected, given a Track-Number (which then posted on the web), then re-shipped to the second station. LOL
>"In that case, please fund NASA so that you can get an image of Heaven and maybe Allah from the HUbble"
You, I & Hubble are jailed inside the Space-Time Allah had created for us to exist in. Hubble sensors are less than that.
extra222love 3 months ago
Comment removed
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@extra222love 32:5 says "the matter ascends to HIM" where is HIM in the 7th heaven ? Where is the 7th heaven, according to you, it is in our neighborhood. Get some images of this heaven please. it is very close!
But then again, quran also says the lowest heaven is adorned with the stars, but now this heaven is only a light day away from our Sun and not even remotely close to the nearest extra-solar star. Which means your miracle (if it is true) actually contradicts the quran. Congratulations!
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"Which means your miracle (if it is true) actually contradicts the quran."
Oops! I shall quit Islam immediately! Thanks for catching such severe contradiction!
Hey, Allah isn't defined by the spatial dimensions XYZ, this makes him everywhere!
He isn't defined by the temporal dimension, time (t), this makes him eternal with no need of a start nor an end!
He's nearer to you than your keyboard.
But he picked the location which would result the Speed of Light miracle. Get it?
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Is he actually in my keyboard?
aby1ism 3 months ago
@extra222love regardless this so called heaven just outside our sun where Allah is receiving the matter must be a special place. Get some images please!
The contradiction is with another verse that says the LOWEST heaven is adorned with the stars, yet we have an even lower heaven just outside our sun and not even remotely close to the nearest extra solar star! A contradiction
Much like your convo with therationalizer, you have no idea what wonderfully blatant and blasphemous errors you make
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"yet we have an even lower heaven just outside our sun and not even remotely close to the nearest extra solar star"
Did the verse mention "heaven borders" or "heaven" in general? BTW, it starts 1mm above your head.
>"Much like your convo with therationalizer, you have no idea what wonderfully blatant and blasphemous errors you make"
Accusations without proof don't worth the time saying/writing them.
Pal, keep struggling. Many did along 1400 yrs. Truth is undefeatable.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love Truth is undefeatable as observed in your difficulty to prove this nonsense you call a miracle
The verse says "the matter of the heaven" ascends back to allah in a day. If as you say, this heaven starts a 1mm above my head, then it is actually incompetence that he makes it travel an entire day. Beside you are still contradicting the quran, the LOWEST heaven is adorned with stars, there can't be a heaven lower than it. Good try though! It is only sad now that miracle claim is false
dfhDevilFromHeaven 3 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
>"observed in your difficulty to prove this nonsense you call a miracle"
Not after putting the entire calculations that ended up with Speed of Light within the UTube 500 chars comment box.
>"then it is actually incompetence that he makes it travel an entire day"
Allah stated in Quran that he created 7 heavens where the earth is contained within the first one. So the term "heaven" isn't the far limit only but the space that stretches from here all the way there.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
"Moon velocity (as given by NASA 3682.07 km/hr) multiplied by "cos" to get it's vector relative to earth..."
Obviously, 3682km/h is already the magnitude of Moon's velocity vector relative to the Earth. Why do you need that cosine 26° stuff here?
silveren777 3 months ago
@silveren777
Good question.
The Moon Velocity given by NASA (3682 km/h) is measured relative to far fixed-location stars which represent a valid inertial frame of reference. However, the moon motion (as if seen from these stars) is not purely circular but mixed with a lateral motion running after the earth orbiting the sun. The end result is a spiral track. So to eliminate such lateral movement (as if the Earth is not orbiting the sun) the COS must be multiplied to NASA's Spiral track Velocity.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
I presume the spiral motion you refer to is Moon's path relative to the heliocentric frame, mind you, it's almost circular with small ripples... and being spiral would imply a Moon faster than Earth.
Besides, in 1 sidereal month, the Moon travels in that "spiral track" roughly the same distance as Earth's (over 50 millions km), hence Moon's mean speed, in that frame, cannot be 3682km/h.
silveren777 3 months ago
@silveren777
Had NASA say the velocity 3682 km/h is the Moon's Velocity relative to the Earth then, YES, it would resemble the net circular motion and there would be no need to multiply it by the COS. But this is not the case. The velocity 3682 km/h is declared relative to far stars which implies the helical/spiral track. So the COS has to be utilized in order to eliminate the lateral motion around the Sun.
Pls. Wikipedia "Orbit of the Moon".
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
Remember high school exercises where you used Newton's Law of gravitation to determine orbital velocity of a satellite according to its height ?
What is their velocity relative to? To the geocentric frame, isn't it?
Then apply the same formula to the Moon.... tell me what you found about its velocity.
silveren777 3 months ago
@silveren777
In fact, the Earth-Moon motion is more "Binary Motion System" than a "Planetary Motion System" due to the large Moon mass relative to Earth's (1:81) which makes the Earth also affected by the Moon's gravity.
"Precisely" both Earth & Moon are orbiting around their common Center of Mass which is offset from the Earth's geometrical center.
Such "Binary Motion System" is the reason behind the Moon's Velocity being sinusoidally variable. Anyway, we always deal with the Mean Velocity.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love
That's simple you may calculate Moon's mean velocity around the Earth since their centre of mass doesn't leave Earth's body. You just have to include in the formula of velocity a reduced mass of the system by replacing M by (M+m), where M and m are respectively Earth's and Moon's mass.
Which value do you find?
silveren777 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777
>"That's simple you may calculate Moon's mean velocity around the Earth since their centre of mass doesn't leave Earth's body. You just have to include in the formula of velocity a reduced mass of the system by replacing M by (M+m), where M and m are respectively Earth's and Moon's mass.
Which value do you find?"
Pal, why would you calculate the Moon's mean orbiting velocity while it's already given by NASA?
extra222love 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@extra222love
"why would you calculate the Moon's mean orbiting velocity while it's already given by NASA?"
In order to show you that the velocity indicated by Nasa is that of Moon's motion relative to geocentric frame of reference and not heliocentric frame.
silveren777 3 months ago
@extra222love
"The velocity 3682 km/h is declared relative to far stars which implies the helical/spiral track."
Travelling 50 millions km in 27.3 days with 3682km/h only? Definitely our Moon is under some magic spells...
silveren777 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777
>"Besides, in 1 sidereal month, the Moon travels in that "spiral track" roughly the same distance as Earth's (over 50 millions km)"
How did you find/calculate the Moon's travelled distance within a sidereal month to be "over 50 millions km"?
It's about 2.414 million km (in the helical path).
extra222love 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@extra222love
How? By calculating the distance Earth's travels on its orbit for such a duration, knowing that our planet completes roughly 26.9° in 27.3 days (assuming it's a circular orbit).
"It's about 2.414 million km (in the helical path)"
No, what you gave is nothing but the circumference of its geocentric orbit.
silveren777 3 months ago
@extra222love
What astronomers measured is merely the mean velocity of Moon's motion in the background of stars as seen from the Earth's frame, knowing Earth-Moon distance...... which solved this reltaive motion problem.
silveren777 3 months ago
@silveren777
In other simpler words; the moon is running in two courses at the same time. The first is around the Earth which is noticed by us. The second is around the Sun (following the Earth) which is not seen by us.
The verse is referring to 1000 Years relative to us which are basically 12000 Moon cycles around the Earth.
If you're on board of an air plane you'll walk 5 mtrs to the Toilet but to an observer on the ground you walked 20 km's! But what matters you is what relative to you.
extra222love 3 months ago
@extra222love "Allah stated in Quran that he created 7 heavens where the earth is contained within the first one. So the term "heaven" isn't the far limit only but the space that stretches from here all the way there."
Does this mean that you disagree with the muslims who use the "7 heavens are the 7 layers of atmosphere" miracle? Discrediting one "miracle" by creating a new miracle. Allah(SWT) sure keeps us on our toes!
dhimmiwit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dhimmiwit
>"Does this mean that you disagree with the muslims who use the "7 heavens are the 7 layers of atmosphere" miracle?"
It'll be great if you'll provide a/the link that shows any reputed Islamic scientific firm claiming so!
I thought atmospheric layers were 5 only!
extra222love 2 months ago
@dhimmiwit @extra222love
In Islam the 7 superimposed heavens cannot be the 7 layers of atmosphere because they are not superimposed. Angles are in the 7th heaven and we are in the lowest heaven and Jinn are in one heaven in-between however there are two angels on your shoulders right now. Today we know that the superimposed heavens in the Quran are the extra spatial dimensions in modern physics. So angels and Jinn are mass in extra dimensions: speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/seven_heavens
wormhole199 2 months ago
@dfhDevilFromHeaven
"The Heaven is only 1 light day away from earth"
No. The Quran put it as Distance/Time=Speed. Speed is rate of motion, not distance. If I tell you that yesterday I drove at 240km/hr you cannot deduce the distance I drove from that. I could have drove at that speed for 20 kms or 150 kms. Rate of motion (speed) is not distance.
wormhole199 3 months ago
@wormhole199
>Rate of motion (speed) is not distance.
This is EXACTLY what I said to you. Your calculation has a velocity in it (the velocity of the Moon in KM/H) which you need to convert into a distance. Therefore you need to multiply it by a time.
So, now that we have established there is an amount of hours in it tell us all how many hours there are in total; you are just embarrassing yourself with your contradictory statements and your evasiveness.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago