South Park joke won't air in Sweden

Status
Not open for further replies.
You make me a headache. You just do not want to get the point.

Ok. You seem to like astronomy. You say you have a very very good knowledge in astronomy - better
then the ancients.

I saw an explanation in physics literature on why and how the earth orbits the sun. But could
you please answer me the following question:

Question: Why does the earth rotate around itself?

Did you ever see an answer for this question in any book? I think it is a good question
taking into account that all life on this earth depend on it.

After you solve this one - I have a few more others for you.

Lets leave the fancy words (quantum, chaos, and other latin stuff) aside for a while - ok?
 
You make me a headache. You just do not want to get the point.

We base our philosophies on different axioms - mine that thinking leads to useful ideas, yours, presumably, that the Quran is the Word of God. Those different axioms lead to different philosophies, and a variety of different conclusions. As long as our axioms differ, we will continue to disagree about a wide variety of things.


Ok. You seem to like astronomy. You say you have a very very good knowledge in astronomy - better
then the ancients.

Close enough. "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Newton.


I saw an explanation in physics literature on why and how the earth orbits the sun. But could
you please answer me the following question:

Question: Why does the earth rotate around itself?

Did you ever see an answer for this question in any book? I think it is a good question
taking into account that all life on this earth depend on it.

After you solve this one - I have a few more others for you.

Lets leave the fancy words (quantum, chaos, and other latin stuff) aside for a while - ok?

I'm not sure I /can/ avoid fancy words completely - but I can at least try to explain what they mean. After all, it's said that you don't truly understand something unless you're able to explain it even to your grandmother.

Q: Why does the Earth spin?

A: Fancy-word version: "Conservation of angular momentum".

Nonfancy-word version: Have you ever heard of that law of physics, "An object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force"? It doesn't just work for pushing things around, it also works for spinning things; in a closed system, one where you're not adding new pushes, this thing called "angular momentum" is a constant. If you ever have a chance to play with a gyroscope, you can learn a lot about how angular momentum works, hands-on. If you've ever seen a skater doing a spin, when they pull their arms in they spin faster, and when they spread their arms out they spin slower - using a bit of math, based on the principle of "conservation of angular momentum", it's possible to figure out how /much/ faster they will spin when they pull their arms in, and that when they stick their arms back out, they'll go back to the rate of spin they started with - their rate of spin has been 'conserved'.

What does all this have to do with the Earth? Well, a long, long time ago, around five billion years ago, what is now the solar system used to be more like a cloud of gas. The bit near the middle happened to pull itself together with gravity, and started turning into the sun. The rest of the bits of cloud hanging around started falling towards the forming star; those bits that hit it became part of it, but some happened to fall at an angle so that they fell towards the sun and /missed/. Because of the way gravity works, they kept on falling, circling around and around the sun. The bits going in circles bonked into each other, and eventually settled into something like a disk circling the newborn sun. Then, the same way that the sun formed by bits of stuff pulling towards each other with their gravity, some clumps and bumps formed in the disk, and once they started forming, they pulled in more and more of the stuff. Now here's the part that brings us to the answer to your question - the bits of stuff that fell into these new lumps did so by spiralling and circling in, and when they did, they added new "angular momentum" to the lump they joined, which just means that they gave it pushes and started it spinning. After a while, all the bits of stuff finished falling into the bumps; the bumps and lumps became the spinning planets and moons we know today, and they were spinning from the get-go. Now there wasn't anything else to give them any big pushes, to speed them up or slow them down, so they just kept /on/ spinning. And, aside from the occasional bonk that knocks one thing or another askew, they've been spinning steadily ever since.

(As an aside, there's one last little complication about the Earth's spin - it's been slowly slowing down for a while. This is because the Earth isn't quite a closed system, and there /is/ some pushing being done on the Earth... by the Moon, using gravity.)
 
So - in short you think that some long time ago somebody "spinned" earth and it
keeps on rotating? This sound very strange to me. In fact - it sound like a made
up answer for people who want to run to fancy things and do not care about details.

The reason is - you exclude the idea of friction.

You assume that space is a vacum.

But - how can that be true? If it is a vacum how does light travel to here
from the sun. If it is not a vacuum why doesn't the earth slow down?

Give me a better answer please. One you actually checked and not abstract
formulas from a physics text.
 
So - in short you think that some long time ago somebody "spinned" earth and it
keeps on rotating?

Take away the 'somebody', and make it the result of impersonal and mindless natural processes, and yes.

This sound very strange to me. In fact - it sound like a made
up answer for people who want to run to fancy things and do not care about details.

Whether something sounds strange to you has little-to-no bearing on whether it is true or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum is worth skimming through, as are the references and links, if you wish to learn more about it.

The reason is - you exclude the idea of friction.

The force imposed on something by friction counts as an 'external force', and if it is present, then that something is no longer a closed system, and the angular momentum may no longer be a constant.

You assume that space is a vacum.

I don't /assume/ it; I /conclude/ it, based on the evidence, such as the various spacecraft we've sent up into Earth orbit, and past it, which have measured the local air pressure.

But - how can that be true? If it is a vacum how does light travel to here
from the sun. If it is not a vacuum why doesn't the earth slow down?

Give me a better answer please. One you actually checked and not abstract
formulas from a physics text.

Q: If space is a vacuum, how does light travel through it?

A: Ignoring a lot of quantum mechanics which doesn't apply, light is made of little particles called 'photons' rather than waves. It's basically a lot of tiny little balls shooting through space. Most of the light in our Solar system was shot out straight from the sun; some of the light happened to hit a planet or moon and bounce off of it, going in a new direction instead of straight away from the sun; some of the bounced light happens to be aimed straight at Earth, which is how we can see them in the night sky.
 
1. It doesn't sound strange - it sounds stupid.

2. The fact that something is written in wikipedia does not mean it is true.

3. Vacum is something that nothing can travel through because it is a vacum.
If your little tiny balls of light can travel through it then they are there (if they
even exist) - and thats the end of it. It is no longer a vacum.

4. Anyway, if the light travels all the way from the sum - why don't I see it all
the way in the middle? Why is space so dark? That's a good question - Isn't it.
And don't give me this little balls explanation because I find it like a nice way
of saying that you do not know. I can invent any explanation I want and say
that it is because of little balls that make up everything.

5. Nature around me is simple. I do not believe that you have to sacrafice your life to science in order to understand it. Bless Allah he has given us eyes to look and look for the information by ourselves without relying on silly theories made by other people. If you would go out a bit you would see that nature is really quite natural (and is not dissected to little non existing balls)
 
Last edited:
By the way - the idea of a "closed system" is a stupid blasphemy!

What is a closed system??

Show me one .

Can you show me something in Allah's universe which is not connected to other
things?

A closed system is not even dead - it is non existing.

This is why you need to put so much gas in your car - because as much as you think your calculations are accurate it is just one wasteful stupid mistake
 
1. It doesn't sound strange - it sounds stupid.

Whether something sounds stupid to you has little-to-no bearing on whether it is true or not.

2. The fact that something is written in wikipedia does not mean it is true.

Of course not. If you think that "conservation of angular momentum" is false, then you are free to make the attempt to prove otherwise.

3. Vacum is something that nothing can travel through because it is a vacum.

Um... no. A vacuum (note, two u's) is vacuum because there's little-to-no matter in it. "Empty space" just about sums it up. The absence of any matter in a region of space has nothing to do with whether or not matter can travel through it. In fact, if you look at things a certain way, the fact that two bits of matter can't occupy the same space at the same time means that matter can /only/ travel through empty space.

If your little tiny balls of light can travel through it then they are there (if they
even exist) - and thats the end of it. It is no longer a vacum.

Not quite. Photons do not have mass, and thus are not "matter" in that sense. A vacuum is still a vacuum no matter how much light is going through it.

4. Anyway, if the light travels all the way from the sum - why don't I see it all
the way in the middle? Why is space so dark?

Because photons are directional - that is, they travel in a particular direction, from A to B, and don't really change their minds and suddenly change directions in the middle. Light travels in straight lines. Sunlight travels straight outwards from the sun, most streaming out into space, but some until it hits our eyes; or until it hits a planet, and bounces, and some of that then hits our eyes; or until it hits the upper atmosphere, bumps into some of the atoms there, changes direction, and some of that hits our eyes; or until it hits something else on Earth, reflects from it, and then some of that hits our eyes, letting us see things. Light from other sources also travels in straight lines - the light from other suns travels for light-years until it reaches your eyes and lets you see a star; the light from your computer screen's phosphors travels in straight lines until it reaches your eyes; and so on.
 
A bunch of worthless superstition used in order to rule you by making you feel smart.

I just proved you that it is false - if it was true then the earth would have stopped rotating a long time ago and that is a fact.

Rotate a spinning top and after a while it would stop rotating. That is the way it works on my table there is no reason it won't work like that in any other place.
 
Last edited:
By the way - the idea of a "closed system" is a stupid blasphemy!

What is a closed system??

Show me one .

Can you show me something in Allah's universe which is not connected to other
things?

A closed system is not even dead - it is non existing.

This is why you need to put so much gas in your car - because as much as you think your calculations are accurate it is just one wasteful stupid mistake

Gabriel Ibn Yus... I am getting the distinct impression that no matter what answers I give, you are going to refuse to accept them.

If you are asking me your questions because you truly have a desire to learn the answers, then I will be happy to do what I can to figure out how to express the answers in a way such that you can understand them. However, if you are simply challenging even the most basic principles of physics, such as the existence of photons, for the sake of denigrating science, then I see little point in my continuing here.

So: Do you wish to learn?
 
You are the one who does not wish to learn.

Your physics is wrong. It does not matter how many formulas and long words you put into it.

It leads you to develop defected wasteful technology which spoils the planet and the life of all of us.

We are enslaved to the technology based on your mistakes which you justify by wrong confused theories.

Could you please explain to me how a river streams? Why do I need to put pressure into the pipes that
bring water to my sink but the river outside my window seems to flow naturally?

Or do you view this as an unimportant question?

Why do you so eagerly want to go against nature?
 
Last edited:
Your physics is wrong. It does not matter how many formulas and long words you put into it.

Since you do not seem to actually wish to understand what I am trying to say, all that I have left to say is that you might want to re-read your own holy text and apply some of its lessons:

"Increase me in knowledge. " -- 20:114
"follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge." -- 17:36
"Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge?" -- 3:66
"a guess can never take the place of the truth." -- 53:28
"Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful." -- 2:111
 
Gabriel Ibn Yus... I am getting the distinct impression that no matter what answers I give, you are going to refuse to accept them.

I get the impression that it is not you that giving me the answers but rather wikipedia - I want answers that I can personally verify. Your (wikipedias) balls thing is not something I can verify I do not say that I know it I say that I believe it - and it would be better also in your case that you would admit that you do not know but rather believe.

Personally - I do not believe in these explanations. They are filled with ridiculous gaps which if you would dedicate a moment to look for you would also for sure come to see.

Simply because these explanations do not empower me.

If man is truly capable of building spaceships - we are we not taught how to do that?
 
Since you do not seem to actually wish to understand what I am trying to say, all that I have left to say is that you might want to re-read your own holy text and apply some of its lessons:

"Increase me in knowledge. " -- 20:114
"follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge." -- 17:36
"Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge?" -- 3:66
"a guess can never take the place of the truth." -- 53:28
"Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful." -- 2:111

I am sorry, I can not continue this discussion - the Quran is not for the use in artificial arguments. It is a Holy Text.

I can just conclude by offering to you to read it and extract the valuable lessons you can take from it for the sake of your soul.
 
Last edited:
I get the impression that it is not you that giving me the answers but rather wikipedia - I want answers that I can personally verify. Your (wikipedias) balls thing is not something I can verify I do not say that I know it I say that I believe it - and it would be better also in your case that you would admit that you do not know but rather believe.

I can offer lists of experiments to verify any of the answers I've given. To prove light is made of photons, the definitive experiment is demonstrating the photoelectric effect, as demonstrated http://library.thinkquest.org/C008537/quantum/PhotoelectricEffect.html among other places.

Personally - I do not believe in these explanations. They are filled with ridiculous gaps which if you would dedicate a moment to look for you would also for sure come to see.

If you know of an /actual/ gap in physics, instead of merely a gap in your own understanding of physics, I would be quite interested. However, in order to find such a true gap, you would first need to demonstrate that you understand what a given physics theory /does/ explain, and you have yet to demonstrate any such understanding.

Simply because these explanations do not empower me.

If man is truly capable of building spaceships - we are we not taught how to do that?

What makes you think we aren't? A number of private companies are building spaceflight-worthy rockets, and several of them intend to make a business out of space tourism. Here's a site where you could learn a lot about rocketry, both fictional stories about it and the real thing: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/.
 
I am sorry, I can not continue this discussion - the Quran is not for the use in artificial arguments. It is a Holy Text.

If you do not wish to continue discussing any of this with me, that is your choice.

I can just conclude by offering to you to read it and extract the valuable lessons you can take from it for the sake of your soul.

I have already read it, in a variety of translations. Those five lines I quoted happen to be my favorites.
 
The end of this thread was a good case study in Science vs Religion. Science asks questions, holds nothing off limits, and constantly self corrects. The answer to bad science is good science. The gaps science leaves, and it does leave them, is filled by future scientists. Religion is exactly the opposite. It doesn't ask questions, it assigns answers. It has no self correction mechanism - correcting it is blasphemy. The gaps religion leaves is left ominously unfilled and it is taboo to showcase them. Science is logic. Religion is emotion. Science is harsh reality. Religion is comfort. The two speak to different aspects of the psyche and all of this is shown in the posts above, where the science fellow is presenting many ideas and thought experiments and inviting correction and counter-point, and the religion fellow is sensing blasphemy and putting his fingers in his hears and shutting his eyes tight (once realizing the science fellow isn't going to accept the religion fellow's viewpoint on mere authority).
 
You are kidding right?

Sometimes I do not know what is wrong with people.

Psygoscelis - I know a few scientists.

Most of the scientists I know are broke %$#@ which have no dime on their
back and nobody cares about what they do (including themselves). Most of them had some fantasy of becoming noble prize winers but it never happens.

This shows me that science is a worthless crap because it was useful they won't be so broke and people would care about what they do.

Rather - all the science that you can read from wikipedia is a bunch of unproved propoganda which you can read but not truly understand (and don't tell me otherwise ) and even more so verify.

This is no harsh reality - it is simply a deception. Utter stupidity that applies to your ego.

I asked a few very scientific questions and received no answer from your learned friend aside from wikipedia quotations which I am well capable to read by myself.

In fact - with all due respect to science - most of the people I know (not only scientists) are broke $$#$%% if science is so great why do we not live in true abundance and have to be slaves to our work place? Do you not care about that?
 
Last edited:
The end of this thread was a good case study in Science vs Religion. Science asks questions, holds nothing off limits, and constantly self corrects. The answer to bad science is good science. The gaps science leaves, and it does leave them, is filled by future scientists. Religion is exactly the opposite. It doesn't ask questions, it assigns answers. It has no self correction mechanism - correcting it is blasphemy. The gaps religion leaves is left ominously unfilled and it is taboo to showcase them. Science is logic. Religion is emotion. Science is harsh reality. Religion is comfort. The two speak to different aspects of the psyche and all of this is shown in the posts above, where the science fellow is presenting many ideas and thought experiments and inviting correction and counter-point, and the religion fellow is sensing blasphemy and putting his fingers in his hears and shutting his eyes tight (once realizing the science fellow isn't going to accept the religion fellow's viewpoint on mere authority).

Your own views on science are nothing but a long tale of emotion.. Every science and art is but a branch of the same tree, where one fails the other picks up and fills in the gap. Since they are a gift of the same originator they shouldn't be at odds, but harmonious. I think with your often too sweep a brush and perhaps simply out of sheer laziness of making minimal effort, you decide that christianity is a prototype for religion and then sweep the rest under the same umbrella and believe that you've made a good point.

In fact the centuries upon centuries of Muslim empires governing under Islamic rule should be the best highlight of what can happen when science and religion are combined.. do contrast that to the dark ages of christianity and try to separate the two if you want your points to have any weightiness!

all the best
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top