I know those google ad's are full of ,

  • Thread starter whozum
  • Start date
2,208
1
I know those google ad's are full of ****,

But this one caught my attention. Does anyone have opinions to share?

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

I think its interesting that the qualitative analysis the guy provides seems believable enough, but I was interested in the numerical analysis even more, and since I'm no relativity buff, I wanted to introduce this thread.
 
2,208
1
Please note I'm not asking for any validation of any religion or its message, I'm not endorsing any particular religion or rejecting any other. This thread wasnt intended as a religious one, but as a factual (or infactual) review.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
lol i always thought that google had just really screwed up what it scanned in the special relativity forums... i didnt know there was an actual website behind the link..
 
2,208
1
Yeah, some of those links would really justify slaughter of those authors.
 
2,208
1
47 hits and no one gives a damn?
 
311
0
Well, one view is that it very easy to adjust something to a theory rather than comming up with it.

If it was so straight forward why did not muslims come up with theory of time dialation and other theories.

On the other hand its very interesting .......

sneez
 
2,208
1
Interesting point, I agree with you in your first line. It wouldn't be hard to shape words and shift meanings to fit einstein's conjectures.

I don't think the author was saying it was so straightforward rather he uses an argument similar to

It took us hundreds of years to discover relativity with all our technology
The Quran has evidence of discovering this effect without any technology
It is unreasonable to think a pauper without any education would think up of such a thing
Thus the logical conclusion is that it was written and sent to him by a higher diety (which obviously would be knowledgeable of such a thing).

I wonder if a logician could assess that argument. Its valid at a glance to me, but I've only taken elementary logic.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Well, since you didn't specify that you wanted a competent logician... :biggrin:
Logic can only assess the validity of an argument; Whether the premises are actually true is beyond logic. Oh, that's right- we went through the validity v. soundness thing before (here). Making up a valid argument is very easy, so that part isn't really a big deal. The tough part is figuring out- or convincing others- that the premises are actually true.
The first thing I would challenge is the interpretation itself. For instance, does the Koran ever say why time seems to pass slower in Paradise and Hell than on Earth? Does it say it's because Paradise and Hell are more massive than Earth? Does it even say that Paradise and Hell are more massive than Earth? Does it say how time is being measured (from whose perspective)?
I don't buy any of the rest either, for the same reason I wouldn't be amazed if a child said that her parents act like monkeys. The child isn't implying anything about the evolutionary history of humans; She's just commenting on her parent's behavior.
Look at the 2 days for Earth, 6 days for the universe part. 1) It doesn't say WHEN Earth was created. It only says how long it took to create Earth. That doesn't tell you how OLD Earth is; You'd need to know on which of the 6 days Earth was created. For instance, if Earth was created during the first 2 days, it would not be 1/3 the age of the universe. You can't even say which days would make Earth 1/3 the age of the universe because it doesn't say whether to count from when Earth was started or completed, which makes a huge difference. 2) It says that it took 2 days to CREATE Earth! Did it really take 4.5 billion years for Earth to form? Was Earth formed 4.5 billion years after the universe? Etc.

Also, relativity doesn't talk about angels, Heaven, Hell, supernatural beings, etc. So you can throw out all of the quotes including those things. For instance, what scientific theory says the Big Bang was Allah tearing apart the heavens and the Earth (which could be interpreted in many different ways anyway)? The Earth didn't even exist back then, so how does that interpretation even work? And what exactly are "the heavens"? Etc.

Also, the site claims that "Einstein's theory of relativity proves the Quran right". This isn't possible since a scientific theory can't itself be proven right. And since, hello, science can't study the supernatural, the most you can say is that they don't contradict each other (and I'm not saying that's even true).
 
2,208
1
So I've tried three times now to respond to this and it has failed to post for one reason or another. so I'm going to break it down and submit it piece by piece.

honestrosewater said:
The first thing I would challenge is the interpretation itself. For instance, does the Koran ever say why time seems to pass slower in Paradise and Hell than on Earth? Does it say it's because Paradise and Hell are more massive than Earth? Does it even say that Paradise and Hell are more massive than Earth? Does it say how time is being measured (from whose perspective)?
Website said:
Moslems believe that Paradise and Hell are both much bigger and much more massive than Earth (but still much smaller than God's Throne). The theory of general relativity says that time should pass slower near an object more massive than Earth (in a stronger gravitational field). So according to general relativity, time should pass in Paradise/Hell much slower than on Earth. Moslems say that this is what Allah says. It is stated in the Quran that 1 day in Paradise/Hell measures a 1000 years on Earth:

[Quran 22.47] They challenge you to bring forth that torture [in Hell] and Allah will not break His promise; a day of your Lord [Paradise/Hell promise] is like a thousand years of what you count.
The observers are in referenc frames "Hell/Paradise" and "Earth", and the quote from the Quran gives the supposed time dilation. I know something can be figured out using a time dilation factor, I just dont know what.
 
2,208
1
honestrosewater said:
I don't buy any of the rest either, for the same reason I wouldn't be amazed if a child said that her parents act like monkeys. The child isn't implying anything about the evolutionary history of humans; She's just commenting on her parent's behavior.
I dont tihnk this is a fair comparison, because a monkey's actions is within a child's intellectual ability. If your five year old came to you and said "that looks like a monkey did it" you wouldn't be too surprised. However if you went to an amazon tribe who still hunt with javelins and start fires with sticks and got an explanation for einstein's theory of relativity, I think its justified that you would be surprised, as there is no direct logical connection between their lack of advancement and their ability to discover such a phenomenon.
 
2,208
1
honestrosewater said:
Look at the 2 days for Earth, 6 days for the universe part. 1) It doesn't say WHEN Earth was created. It only says how long it took to create Earth. That doesn't tell you how OLD Earth is; You'd need to know on which of the 6 days Earth was created. For instance, if Earth was created during the first 2 days, it would not be 1/3 the age of the universe. You can't even say which days would make Earth 1/3 the age of the universe because it doesn't say whether to count from when Earth was started or completed, which makes a huge difference. 2) It says that it took 2 days to CREATE Earth! Did it really take 4.5 billion years for Earth to form? Was Earth formed 4.5 billion years after the universe? Etc.
Website said:
Science says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. This places the age of Earth at one third the age of the universe.
You make an interesting point as to which 'third' of the 6 days the earth was created in. I didn't catch that when I first read it.
 
2,208
1
Why can't someone come in here and crunch numbers and tell us what they imply :cry: .
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Okay, the monkey thing first. That wasn't the idea I was getting at. When the child says her parents act like monkeys, that's ALL she says. What reason does one have to think that she had the idea that humans have descended from monkeys (or apes or whatever)? That isn't what she said. She said her parents act like monkeys. There's no reason to think that she meant or had the idea that humans descended from monkeys. She doesn't even suggest that there is any connection whatsoever between her parents' behavior and anything else. The conclusion that the child knew and was talking about the origins and evolution of humans is completely unsupported. And so are many of the site's author's conclusions. They're taking a statement like
They challenge you to bring forth that torture [in Hell] and Allah will not break His promise; a day of your Lord [Paradise/Hell promise] is like a thousand years of what you count.
and concluding that the author of the quote knew and was talking about time dilation! The quote says nothing at all about time dilation! Since the quote is a translation, it's hard to really analyze the original meaning, but it sounds to me like it's talking about subjective time: A day in heaven or hell will seem like a thousand "Earth years". People say this kind of thing all the time, that some boring task seemed to take forever, hours were like days, time was dragging or flying by, etc. I get this from the overall meaning of the quote and specifically from "is like". Who knows how good the translation is, but "is like" suggests a subjective comparison. Why not just "is" or "equals" or something else suggesting an objective comparison? Do you at least see the kind of things I'm looking at?

What makes you think the author knew and was talking about time dilation? The quote doesn't suggest any connection between the time differences and relative masses. The site's author also doesn't provide any other quote saying that heaven and hell are more massive than Earth. They only say that Muslims believe heaven and hell are more massive than Earth. But what Muslims believe is irrelevant; All that matters is what the Koran says.

Not only does saying that it took 2 days to create Earth and 6 days to create the universe not tell you how old either are or their relative ages, saying it took 2 days to create Earth and 6 days for the universe is a big problem. First, how are you to interpret this? When was Earth started and completed? Was Earth started when the universe was started? When Earth's "parent" star exploded? When the chunks started massing together? When Earth stopped growing? Or is that when Earth was completed? Or when the atmosphere formed? When humans showed up? Etc. So it isn't clear how you are even to interpret "the creation of Earth". But does any interpretation saying that the Earth's creation took 4.5 billion years work with current theories? What start and completion dates can you use to make that work? And still leave the Earth 1/3 the age of the universe?
Also, when was the universe completed? Presumably, Earth is part of the universe, so the universe was completed after Earth was completed. Whoa, wait, the universe is completed?! This agrees with current theories? Does this even agree with the rest of the interpretation? The author claims the Koran talks about the Big Bang and expansion, from these quotes:
Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together but We have torn them apart? And then We have made of water everything living? Would they still not believe?

And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding.
So is the universe completed or not? Was the universe completed when the bang ended (?surely theories mark such a time) and is now just expanding? But the bang wasn't 6 days, so that throws off the ages. For the ages to work, the universe needs to have been completed NOW. But if Tom is 3 years old and Harry is 1 year old now, then next year Tom will be 4 years old and Harry will be 2 years old. The 1/3 ratio doesn't last anyway!!
If I'm rambling, it's just because I can't keep up with all of the problems.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Oh, just for an example, what do you think can reasonably be inferred about the girl's knowledge from the fact that she said, "My parents are acting like monkeys"? Do you think she must know something about monkey behavior, perhaps seen a show about them or read a book about them? She must at least know what a monkey is, right? Nope. She could have heard someone say that her aunt and uncle were "acting like monkeys", seen her parents behaving the same way as her aunt and uncle were behaving, and just applied the same label. She doesn't need to know everything that "acting like monkeys" means, just that the label is appropriate in the situation. So inferring what someone knows from what they say is not a simple a matter as the site makes it seem.
 
2,208
1
honestrosewater said:
Okay, the monkey thing first. That wasn't the idea I was getting at. When the child says her parents act like monkeys, that's ALL she says. What reason does one have to think that she had the idea that humans have descended from monkeys (or apes or whatever)? That isn't what she said. She said her parents act like monkeys. There's no reason to think that she meant or had the idea that humans descended from monkeys. She doesn't even suggest that there is any connection whatsoever between her parents' behavior and anything else. The conclusion that the child knew and was talking about the origins and evolution of humans is completely unsupported. And so are many of the site's author's conclusions. They're taking a statement like
and concluding that the author of the quote knew and was talking about time dilation! The quote says nothing at all about time dilation! Since the quote is a translation, it's hard to really analyze the original meaning, but it sounds to me like it's talking about subjective time: A day in heaven or hell will seem like a thousand "Earth years". People say this kind of thing all the time, that some boring task seemed to take forever, hours were like days, time was dragging or flying by, etc. I get this from the overall meaning of the quote and specifically from "is like". Who knows how good the translation is, but "is like" suggests a subjective comparison. Why not just "is" or "equals" or something else suggesting an objective comparison? Do you at least see the kind of things I'm looking at?
I get what you are saying. The boredom/time flies thing is a good point. I have the original text in Arabic, I'll look it up tomorrow and see what it literally says.

What makes you think the author knew and was talking about time dilation? The quote doesn't suggest any connection between the time differences and relative masses. The site's author also doesn't provide any other quote saying that heaven and hell are more massive than Earth. They only say that Muslims believe heaven and hell are more massive than Earth. But what Muslims believe is irrelevant; All that matters is what the Koran says.
I'm pretty sure its in the Quran also, I'll check tomorrow.

Not only does saying that it took 2 days to create Earth and 6 days to create the universe not tell you how old either are or their relative ages, saying it took 2 days to create Earth and 6 days for the universe is a big problem. First, how are you to interpret this? When was Earth started and completed? Was Earth started when the universe was started? When Earth's "parent" star exploded? When the chunks started massing together? When Earth stopped growing? Or is that when Earth was completed? Or when the atmosphere formed? When humans showed up? Etc. So it isn't clear how you are even to interpret "the creation of Earth". But does any interpretation saying that the Earth's creation took 4.5 billion years work with current theories? What start and completion dates can you use to make that work? And still leave the Earth 1/3 the age of the universe?
Also, when was the universe completed? Presumably, Earth is part of the universe, so the universe was completed after Earth was completed. Whoa, wait, the universe is completed?! This agrees with current theories? Does this even agree with the rest of the interpretation? The author claims the Koran talks about the Big Bang and expansion, from these quotes:
So is the universe completed or not? Was the universe completed when the bang ended (?surely theories mark such a time) and is now just expanding? But the bang wasn't 6 days, so that throws off the ages. For the ages to work, the universe needs to have been completed NOW. But if Tom is 3 years old and Harry is 1 year old now, then next year Tom will be 4 years old and Harry will be 2 years old. The 1/3 ratio doesn't last anyway!!
If I'm rambling, it's just because I can't keep up with all of the problems.
You make a good argument. It does imply that the universe is completed, and that is a very incomplete statement.
 
2,208
1
honestrosewater said:
Oh, just for an example, what do you think can reasonably be inferred about the girl's knowledge from the fact that she said, "My parents are acting like monkeys"? Do you think she must know something about monkey behavior, perhaps seen a show about them or read a book about them? She must at least know what a monkey is, right? Nope. She could have heard someone say that her aunt and uncle were "acting like monkeys", seen her parents behaving the same way as her aunt and uncle were behaving, and just applied the same label. She doesn't need to know everything that "acting like monkeys" means, just that the label is appropriate in the situation. So inferring what someone knows from what they say is not a simple a matter as the site makes it seem.
Ok, this is what I'm asking and getting:

Child claims that parents act like monkeys
Biology claims people were once monkeys long ago
False conclusion: Child is referring to evolution


Quran states there are some differences in timespans.
ToR claims that time is relative to mass/speed.
false conclusion: Quran's author was referring to ToR
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Let us look at one of the "significant" quotes:

[Quran 32.5] (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.
This has no relationship whatsoever with relativity and the speed of light.
It is mere wishful thinking of a religious fanatic which can construe any such relastionship at all.

By itself, we see the quote as what it is: meaningless babble.
.
 
Last edited:
2,208
1
arildno said:
Let us look at one of the "significant" quotes:



This has no relationship whatsoever with relativity and the speed of light.
It is mere wishful thinking of a religious fanatic which can construe any such relastionship at all.

By itself, we see the quote as what it is: meaningless babble.
.
A particle travels a distance X in 86400sec in its frame of reference, but an observer in a different frame measures 31536000000 seconds. Find the (I think) velocity of one frame with respect to the other.

Isnt that what it boils down to? I'm not lookin for his claims, I'm looking for the solution to that problem.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Did you get that the ratio of the age of Earth to the age of the universe isn't constant? If you could somehow make the 2 days to 6 days thing work, the ratio isn't always 1/3. I've seen you in the math forums- you probably know more about this than I do. The ratio as a function of the age of Earth is f:R to R, f(x) = x/(x + c), with c constant > 0 (about 9 billion years). Right? Or maybe you want to restrict f to an interval, but f is still not a constant function.
whozum said:
Ok, this is what I'm asking and getting:

Child claims that parents act like monkeys
Biology claims people were once monkeys long ago
False conclusion: Child is referring to evolution


Quran states there are some differences in timespans.
ToR claims that time is relative to mass/speed.
false conclusion: Quran's author was referring to ToR
Sure, but to be clear, the conclusion isn't necessarily false. The problem is with the argument, not with the conclusion. An argument can only prove that its conclusion is true. If the argument fails, the argument just fails to prove the conclusion is true. A failed argument doesn't prove that its conclusion is false; A failed argument doesn't prove anything.
BTW, you can't directly prove that a statement is false. You can only indirectly prove that a statement is false by 1) proving that its negation is true, or 2) using it to prove a contradiction.

Anywho, I see two arguments that need to be made here:
1) The Koran means x. That is, you need to argue that your interpretation is correct. How difficult this is depends on how ambiguous the actual text is and whether you know if the author actually meant what they said.
For instance, consider a math textbook, a secret message, a foreign speaker, and a poem. Most math textbooks are very precise, and the authors usually mean exactly what they say; They aren't trying to be cryptic. So interpreting a math textbook is pretty easy. A secret message (i.e. written in code) would usually be precise but not mean what it says. So even if the words have one clear meaning, it doesn't tell you what the message actually means. A foreign speaker may not communicate clearly but isn't trying to be cryptic. So you can use their sincerity to figure out if they're trying to say that they were bitten by a dog or they bit a dog. The wording and intended meaning of a poem are usually both ambiguous, so it's hard to argue for any single interpretation.
I don't know where the Koran falls in this. Do you have an idea?

2) The author of the Koran believed (or whatever you want to prove about the author) x. I think you would need to consider the author's motives, the context, human behavior in general, and probably some other things I can't think of now.
Note the difference between what the author meant and what the author believed. Consider Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The wording is clear, his intended meaning is (almost certainly) clear, but he (almost certainly) knew he was lying. Heh, I guess Clinton also shows you how to exploit the problems with interpretation: "It depends on what you mean by 'alone'." :rofl:

BTW, if you already know this, just let me know.
 
Last edited:
2,208
1
1) The Koran means x. That is, you need to argue that your interpretation is correct. How difficult this is depends on how ambiguous the actual text is and whether you know if the author actually meant what they said.
For instance, consider a math textbook, a secret message, a foreign speaker, and a poem. Most math textbooks are very precise, and the authors usually mean exactly what they say; They aren't trying to be cryptic. So interpreting a math textbook is pretty easy. A secret message (i.e. written in code) would usually be precise but not mean what it says. So even if the words have one clear meaning, it doesn't tell you what the message actually means. A foreign speaker may not communicate clearly but isn't trying to be cryptic. So you can use their sincerity to figure out if they're trying to say that they were bitten by a dog or they bit a dog. The wording and intended meaning of a poem are usually both ambiguous, so it's hard to argue for any single interpretation.
I don't know where the Koran falls in this. Do you have an idea?
The Koran is a very similar text to the bible. Along with the Torah they represent hte three religions of the books. I told you I'd check today, but I've been gone all day and just got home. I'll see what I can find tomorrow.
 
2,208
1
honestrosewater said:
2) The author of the Koran believed (or whatever you want to prove about the author) x. I think you would need to consider the author's motives, the context, human behavior in general, and probably some other things I can't think of now.
Note the difference between what the author meant and what the author believed. Consider Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The wording is clear, his intended meaning is (almost certainly) clear, but he (almost certainly) knew he was lying. Heh, I guess Clinton also shows you how to exploit the problems with interpretation: "It depends on what you mean by 'alone'." :rofl:

BTW, if you already know this, just let me know.
I understand all that you're saying. The Koran is supposedly descended from God by his angels to a prophet, and the site is attacking the idea that non-muslims claim that Mohamed himself wrote the quran and made it all up. That is where the "how could an illiterate 1400 years ago come up with this?" stuff comes from on the site.
 
32
0
whozum said:
A particle travels a distance X in 86400sec in its frame of reference, but an observer in a different frame measures 31536000000 seconds. Find the (I think) velocity of one frame with respect to the other.

Isnt that what it boils down to? I'm not lookin for his claims, I'm looking for the solution to that problem.
I originally came to this forum a few days ago looking to see if anyone here had done any debunking of this as a board member in another forum had posted the link in #1. I had the sneaking suspicion that someone had probably already done a debunking online and I found a couple of sites. Here is a pretty good one concerning the "speed of light" calculations:

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/c_in_quran.txt

which I found referenced here:

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/alam_light.htm [Broken]

It's more complicated than simply the velocity of one frame with respect to the other, the concept is that supposedly, from that verse one can find the value of the speed of light by comparing the distance light travels in a day with the distance the moon travels in a year. Several assumptions have to be made to end up with the correct value of the speed of light. Although some are in various states of validity, from plausible to questionable, the critical assumption, 'linked' to the theory of relativity, is completely invalid as noted and explained in both links.

As a side note I realize the second linked site is not exactly impartial but I do think the basic scientific criticisms seem valid from what I have examined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Welcome to PF, goavs4!! :biggrin:
 
2,208
1
goavs4 said:
I originally came to this forum a few days ago looking to see if anyone here had done any debunking of this as a board member in another forum had posted the link in #1. I had the sneaking suspicion that someone had probably already done a debunking online and I found a couple of sites. Here is a pretty good one concerning the "speed of light" calculations:

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/c_in_quran.txt

which I found referenced here:

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/alam_light.htm [Broken]

It's more complicated than simply the velocity of one frame with respect to the other, the concept is that supposedly, from that verse one can find the value of the speed of light by comparing the distance light travels in a day with the distance the moon travels in a year. Several assumptions have to be made to end up with the correct value of the speed of light. Although some are in various states of validity, from plausible to questionable, the critical assumption, 'linked' to the theory of relativity, is completely invalid as noted and explained in both links.

As a side note I realize the second linked site is not exactly impartial but I do think the basic scientific criticisms seem valid from what I have examined.
This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks alot. Welcome to the boards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
32
0
honestrosewater said:
Welcome to PF, goavs4!! :biggrin:
Thanks honestrosewater. You're welcome whozum, and thank you for the greeting as well. I hope to learn some more about Physics while here (well, at least re-learn some of the college physics I have forgotten :redface: ) and I also hope to contribute where I can as well.
 

Related Threads for: I know those google ad's are full of ,

  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
851
  • Posted
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
13K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top