Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

posted on December 11th, 2008, 8:43 pm

Is that the best you can come up with as a response Serpicus?

Perhaps you could state what you think my "premise" is and then we can talk. Until you tell me, your so-called response is useless. Even for you, that was weak.

And above all, you base an argument on a premise, not the other way around - you do not base a premise on whatever this mysterious "ABC" is. I think you've finally resorted to grade A nonesense, rather than the dressed up nonesense you usually come up with.

I pity you, since you really can't refute any of the things I said about observing nature and the universe, so you're kicking your hind legs in desperation. This is unsurprising, since there is no refutation.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 8:51 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Dom

oh boy.

To rephrase -

Cosmological expansion is caused by ? centrifugal force as a prime factor together with gravity... drifting apart yet not flying asunder...
Gravity impacts the planet's movement in its orbit, while at the same time there is an interction between centrifugal and gravity keeping each from smashing into the other and onto itself.

A delicate dance as it were between different elements with the 2 important players being gravity and centrifugal force.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe%27s_expansion

That said, I hope you're not trying to argue at cross purposes yet again.. saying the same thing as i am albeit in differnt words, laying emphasis on different elements of the same theory and then claiming we're saying 2 different things:

The word "khunnas" in Surat at-Takwir 15 bears such meanings as shrinking and cowering, retracting and turning back.
gain in verse 16, the word "aljawari," the plural form of the word "jariya" which means one that moves and flows, is translated as "that ride their course."

Of these, the word "khunnas" refers to the planets' attraction towards their own centres and also their attraction towards the Sun, which is the centre of our Solar System.

The word "aljawari" in the following verse emphasises the orbital movements that arise as a result of the centrifugal force that opposes this attractive one.


In effect, this verse does not refer to gravity alone. the words used to both the gravirational and centrifugal forces as tehre are 2 words in use.

In effect, if you do indeed want to understand this verse and are not going in circles in a failed attempt to find fault, you will see that this verse is to apply to the interaction between the 2.

Read the article see what is being presented, and then look at the basic description given here. The imagery being called to mind does not differ all that much. You can try to split hairs, but it still doesn't substantiate anything except your desperation to says something on an already irrelevant train of argument.  

The translation of recede - which is derived from the meaning of these 2 words as used in the verse - would thereby imply an interaction between these 2 forces - ie the planets are receding or moving. the words used are specifically those words that apply to gravity and centrifugal forces in the original arabic.. in effect making the linguistic use in this verse more accurate still than the simple English structure of "movement", with the explanation around the word.
The fact that this verse was revealed 1400 years ago would preclude actual arabic terminology of "centrigfugal force and gravity" since there are merely English coinages of recent discovery. so when painting a picture for an ignorant arab, the words used here and the meaning they hold for the reader of the native tongue.

--These are clearly two different suppositions, both derived from the same passage. In fact, the only way that you would have thought to describe "universal expansion" using this passage would have been if you had already known that was the case through modern science.

When you thereafter mention "meaning and interpretation" of the word, your use of gravity is alos based on your interpretation... French gravité, heaviness, from Old French, from Latin gravits, from gravis, heavy; see gwer-1 in Indo-European roots

Do I then take it that you are merely confusing gravity with heaviness in your usage, and I am only assuming gravity since I have preexisting knowledge of the concept ?

If this is the extent of your argument - it;s neither here nor there... but the verse is still not being countered.

Now for the second part of your para:

Lastly, you base this premise (as does the article) on words that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This again goes against your "specific interpretation" hypothesis. To sumarize: the two systems cannot be described by one passage without using making a passage ridiculously vague and ambiguous (and thus I could interpret that it also is describing how a protostar develops into a solar system, or how multiple planets at lagrange break eachother apart).

--- The fact that despite the interpretation, the "other ways" as you put it do not even conform to the sentence structure with "planets" as subject... I would take your arguemnt at face value if the sentence were convoluted and could go one way or the other when applying the other translations -- yet it turns to gibberish when applying the other translations shows the clear context in which one can apply the imagery of the language. a rather interesting testament to the style and methodology with which the language has been used


In effect this example elucidates what we discussed about interpretation and where a person with proper reference to the context sees waht is being referred to, whereas a person who wants to argue for argument;'s sake ends up cutting off his train of thought at that point which suits his pre-existing aims...

Little I can actually do to help you with the "truth" aspect of your post. You kinda clearly demonstrate you;re interested in assuaging yourself with half-cocked and "stop where it suits you" arguments.

The rest becomes irrelevant for you then.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 8:52 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

well Laz, given the quality of your last few posts, I think that is all that you merit. 

What observation of nature are you referring to.. the observation that witout 1920's telescope led the scientific community to declare Pluto an element of Greco-roman myth and therefore non-existent.

we've been through this - no point in drudging it up again

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:14 pm

The quality of my last posts were high, my thoughts were clear, my words were concise. Of course, you will always say the opposite of what I say, because you are a dishonest apologist.

As for observations, I am referring to all observations, ever since people figured out that the world was comprehensible. I don't know why you're blabbering on about the discovery of pluto. All you've done is proved that the scientific method works. The idea that you test a hypothesis before you accept it means that while science may take one step back occasionally, it then takes two steps foward.

You know that this isn't true about religion so you are attempting distraction. In fact, religion doesn't even have any founding principles to speak of, except for a fear-based, ignorant response system that is barely more sophisticated than the one which originated it, and hates knowledge. The fact that you know the bare facts about the universe and crippling parasites and the like, makes your error all the more grave. It also makes your apology making all the more disgusting, but since you've stopped doing that now, maybe you've decided to become like the general religious ignoramus, who can only attack by changing the subject.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:21 pm

ok ok Laz. 

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:23 pm

Religious text not ambiguous? They where written in a norther time that is alan to our own.

The bible was written in words that need to be translated and more so the time in witch they where made was at the fall of the roman empire one of the most decadent and bloody compared to the world we live in. I am pretty sheer the time in witch the people how made the book had a huge impact on the content of the book.

The book itself is made with the back round of different troubles and with no idea on what life was to be in 2008.

think this sums up your argument fairly concisely. The beauty (and horror) of the religious texts are that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways (Satanic Verses anyone?): they are not at all clear, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing "context" and you wouldn't have said that "people deliberately see to justify their own bigotry". Likewise, if religious texts were at all clear, we wouldn't have religious wars within a religion based on interpretation. You don't know my particular brand of beliefs and yet you refer to me as atheist. You don't know where I am from or what my raising has been and yet you refer to me as "western". You are the bigot who believes for the simple reason that if someone has different ideas from yours they must be a "western" atheist who also is named "Mr. Palin"

--- Religious texts are not ambiguous, but are not easy to glean from at the first go. I agree with you on that. This is why they require a wholistic and patient reading /understanding.
People do try to justify their points of view - whether bigoted or otherwise - for the sake of self-justification. Blaming religion is merely a convenient scapegoat.
However, as we can see in cases such as the Aryan brotherhood and KKK there is no theism being invoked just plain atheistic racism, which for some even delves into pure genetic theory.
So in conclusion to go one way or the other is neither here nor there.

Nationality, race, origin, even ethnicity can be used as we have seen in the Balkans, the World Wars, Ireland etc, just as religion can be in religious wars. So singling out religion when WW2 and WW1 as well as the Russian revolution had materialistic motivations isn't quite objective.

So as regards you and I, we seem now to be on common ground. Each ideology can be misused. Religion can be used to incense, whereas atheism when lacking in any code of conduct can leave the door open to rationales of convenience which spout the same wars and genocide that religion can.

In the end it is for the individual to feel with his heart and evaluate with his mind - together they go a long way in opening up someone to understanding the truth.
You pretty much can't go wrong there.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:26 pm

ok ok Laz. 

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:28 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 12th, 2008, 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

"Cosmological expansion is caused by  centrifugal force as a prime factor"
Really now? Caused by huh? Now if you were to state that the balancing of centrifugal force and gravitational forces is what keeps a galaxy together I might pat you on the back. However there is no center to the universe (every "point" is a center, as all "points" are simultaneously "expanding") and thus centrifugal force does not play a macro-role (only between local galaxies). Before the supposition of Dark Energy (and to an extent, dark matter), centrifugal force was considered to be "the cause" (by some hypothesis). However, that is now considered false. Heck, when describing planetary motion why not throw in a few more terms if you will, such as centripetal force etc. Keep extrapolating. Still, you haven't even resolved your own standing issue, which is what you meant by planets and cosmological expansion.

I guess you are arguing that because the words that describe these behaviors hadn't been invented it's ok to assign any modern meaning you can think of to these words in these suras then? Not to mention multiple meanings to the same word (also, why not just use new words "back then", afterall, when most people described something new, it was common to assign a new word and explain the meaning of that word. However, I digress)? Also, don't play coy please, you were born in this society, and not 600 CE Arabia. Ironically, by your own logic, you can't possibly explain what that sura meant, because you weren't born during that time and didn't have that special insider knowledge.

What's this nonsence about Pluto anyway? I'm not sure I understand your argument at all.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:31 pm

I was just lessening to the BBC three are massive black hole at the center of each galaxy that holds them to gather. Just cam out in the scientific world.

"Cosmological expansion is caused by  centrifugal force as a prime factor"
Really now? Caused by huh? Now if you were to state that the balancing of centrifugal force and gravitational forces is what keeps a galaxy together I might pat you on the back. However there is no center to the universe (every "point" is a center, as all "points" are simultaneously "expanding") and thus centrifugal force does not play a macro-role (only between local galaxies). Before the supposition of Dark Energy (and to an extent, dark matter), centrifugal force was considered to be "the cause". However, that is now considered false. Heck, when describing planetary motion why not throw in a few more terms if you will, such as centripetal force etc. Keep extrapolating. Still, you haven't even resolved your own standing issue, which is what you meant by planets and cosmological expansion.

I guess you are arguing that because the words that describe these behaviors hadn't been invented it's ok to assign any modern meaning you can think of to these words in these suras then? Not to mention multiple meanings to the same word (also, why not just use new words "back then", afterall, when most people described something new, it was common to assign a new word and explain the meaning of that word. However, I digress)? Also, don't play coy please, you were born in this society, and not 600 CE Arabia. Ironically, by your own logic, you can't possibly explain what that sura meant, because you weren't born during that time and didn't have that special insider knowledge.

What's this nonsence about Pluto anyway? I'm not sure I understand your argument at all. Pluto was never declared nonexistent, it just hadn't been observed yet (I'm waiting for you to make a comparison to a deity here).

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:38 pm

Not precisely Ewm 
That is definitely helping however. You may wish to look up dark matter and non-baryonic matter effects as well.

Essentially, the quasar (or supermassive black hole when inactive) is formed by "normal matter" (or even dark matter clumping), and the spin of the black hole forces it to become a thin "disc-like" gravity well that is partly responsible for the shape of the galaxy (flat). The attraction to and between dark matter is what keeps the galaxy a cohesive form. Thus, the supermassive black hole is more a result of galaxy formation, rather than a cause (although this is picky, as the supermassive blackhole would undoubtedly form when that much mass agregates which in turn helps form the galaxy etc...).

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Just for the record, the expansion of the universe is not caused by gravity, in fact gravity acts in opposition to it. This is just another of Serpicus's massive gaffes, and he's undoubtedly red faced about it.

I actually fail to see how anyone can try to pass comment on the origins of the universe if they haven't bothered to at least learn the basic facts. As for the pluto thing, that's simply ridiculous. Serpicus, you are fast losing what little credibility you had, which wasn't much.

And yes, black holes are just ordinary matter, in fact they pop out of the equations of general relativity.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:43 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yes EWM,

The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.
Ambiguousness does not mean incomprehensibility. It merely means one needs to dig into the context, meaning and underlying message to get what is being said.
These are the verses that deal with the supposed "escathology" and at times deal with descriptions of the universe. As you said they were received in an ancient time, where much of what we understand was alien.
So the descriptions which are used albeit when understood in a particular context are interpretive, and hence what you may call ambiguous.

However, when one deals with verses such as those dealing with commandments, thou shalt not steal for example - they are pretty clear

also, we need to be conscious of one fact - the words used in a book are used to describe in generic terms things that are of relevance to the overall integrity of the book. The reason for this is the book describes in the words of laymen what ends up referring to more complex structures as the one being dicussed above.

In the Book of Revelation one cannot decipher a single meaning since everything is allegorical.
But when compared to "let he who is without sin..." we see one verse being clear, and the other ambiguous.

The verses I was referring to were the verses that deal with one;s religion - meaning what people believe and accept as part of their religion which in turn affects their behaviour on various social issues... this was the initial context of my conversation with Dom and Laz, and it was this point that I was addressing. Those are the commandment type verses.

Dom did start to cite specifics such as the verse we were discussing above, and I was explaining to him in that example, that even a verse that one claims ambiguity, the imagery being invoked still gives one an approximate idea of what is trying to be said... but since the imagery itself is generic the application of verses sich as the one above become clear once contemplated in reference to what is being discovered.
That is why these verses are called "signs" while the others are called "commandments", and that is stated at the outset - the Quran itself says it is made up of verse that are mubeen or clear, and those that require deep understanding that most people will never fully understand.

What we also need to realize is that our opinion of ambiguous is purely driven by what we understand from associations we have based on our education. For example, a westerner may find it ambiguous if an Indian speaks of "the tragedy in Punjab of teh independence struggle"... yet for an India it is clear that the speaker is referring to the "Jalianwala Baug massacre"...
So when verses are intended to transcend the ages, the wording is going to be ambiguous when describing the big bang or planetary movement to audiences that are illiterate and educated over several ages.... while clear when describing deeds. Why? - because we as humans know and understand ourselves vis a vis our actions universally  - example robbery, murder etc are simply understood across cultures and races... yet the science we all know is varied with a myriad of levels of understanding and knowledge.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:45 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Laz - I didnt say it was caused bu gravity. i said gravity plays the role of stabilizing the expansion.. centrfugal causes it.. please read my postwith a little more attention before sounding off.. im not going to retype everything here.


I understand you're upset.. but calm down, compose yourself and then post man! 

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:51 pm

Serpicus: You are still wrong as centrifugal has really very little to do with cosmological expansion (i.e. no macro effect). And gravity isn't "stabilizing the expansion", as the expansion is accelerating. Please follow your own advice before posting a reply.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:56 pm

All matter bark or not is sucked by black holes With out the black holes non of that matter would be connected. every thing plays a role.

In Landmark one thing they say is a wheel with out a spoke dose not work. If a elmpic runner had no shows would he run as fast? If some thing is missing it no longer works as attended. This is used to explain way people need to be hole and complete to make there dreams come trow however it can be use on any thing a galaxy with out dark-matter would not work. every thing plays a role.

………

I was not complete with you when I said threes a is a black hole at the center of every galaxy that holes them to gather I was coming from a place of trying to dominate you. This will make you defensive and make it hard for use to come to solutions I wont to  promise That I will not do that agin.