FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Sun Rise from the West





jipmerite
I am not trying to start a religious topic here. This is purely scientific and anyone who wishes to bring religion into this, please don't.

According to some teachings in Islam, the Sun will rise from the West before the end of the world. It is one of the biggest signs foretold in it's scriptures.

My question is, what can possibly be the scientific phenomenon that would lead to it? My first guess is that a huge meteor will barely miss the earth, but it's gravitational pull will have so much pull on the earth that it will reverse the earth's rotation and the Sun will seem to rise from the West. (kind of like in the old Superman movie)

Is this possible? Or what else is possible?
Gagnar The Unruly
It's hard for me to imagine the rotation of the Earth changing without a huge cataclysm, so I don't think we'd live to see the sun rise in the West. A nuclear bomb, maybe...
ptolomeo
The magnetic field of the earth will reverse, so the north in a compass will point to what now is the south. In this way the north will be the south and the south will be north. As simple as that.
Liambaby
Isn't our rotation speeding up, anyway?
Bikerman
Near one of the poles in spring the Sun rises from the west, since the earth's motion round the sun is then more significant than its rotation.

Let T be the angle of tilt of the earth's axis (about 0.4 radians), and let R be its radius (about 6.4^6 m). Suppose for the moment that the earth isn't rotating on its axis, and consider a small region around one of the poles. As the earth moves round the sun then in spring the night-day terminator will move across this region with speed 2 pi R sin T / year, and if we stand in the appropriate part of the region we will call the direction in which the sun appears to be rising west.

Now suppose the earth is rotating on its axis. Then we will be carried from west to east, ie in the same direction as the terminator. However, suppose we are so close to the pole that we are moving slower than the terminator - then the terminator will pass us in the same direction as before, and we will still see the sun rise (slowly) in the west. If our latitude is pi/2 - L then our speed due to the rotation is 2 pi R sin L / day. Thus - assuming that L is small relative to T so that the terminator's speed is constant throughout the region - we must have
2 pi R sin L / day < 2 pi R sin T / year, ie sin L < sin T day/year.
Our distance from the pole is RL. With the above values of T and R we can therefore be up to 6.9 km from the pole.

http://www.thomasbending.co.uk/puzzles/geometry/sunrise.htm
ptolomeo
Quote:
Isn't our rotation speeding up, anyway?

What? Are you saying that the earth is spining faster and faster each day? Could you be more clear on that?
newolder
ptolomeo wrote:
Quote:
Isn't our rotation speeding up, anyway?

What? Are you saying that the earth is spining faster and faster each day? Could you be more clear on that?


The planet's orientation in space-time is covered here :: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/EOP.html

Smile
SonLight
Interesting hypothesis. It's hard to keep religion out of this, but I'll try to by not asking more details about the prediction, nor mentioning other cataclysmic events predicted by other groups.

The Earth's rotation is definitely not speeding up, in fact it is slowing down slightly. The rate of slowing is on the order of half a second per year per century. That's based on the rate at which leap seconds are currently added to the clock. The rate is very erratic, and we've recently gone several years without a correction. However, there is little chance that the rotation rate will ever increase for a period of more than a few years.

The magnetic field will indeed eventually reverse, possibly within a few centuries. Although this would not cause a sudden cataclysm, the period when the magnetic field is near zero would expose us to a lot more radiation from space, and some think it might destroy nearly all life on the
Earth.

As for actual changes to reverse rotation, it is difficult to imagine how that could happen without completely destroying all life. If an asteroid caused the shift, it would probably start by causing a wobble, which would lead to flipping somehow. It is hard to imagine a process which could leave the Earth rotating in a similar but opposite direction. Perhaps if there were a series of smaller encounters lined up just right, the poles could be moved in stages with a slightly less devastating result.
ptolomeo
One physical reason for the rotation of the eath to reverse would be that its total angular momentum already points to the south. Imagine that the superdense inner core of the earth spin in opposite direction than the surface of the earth. That could be possible because we have liquid layers of molten roks inside. In this way when the earth cools down and the interior of the earth solidifies, the conservation of the total angular momentun (a basic physics law) would imply that, if the opposite angular momentum of the core is greater than the external angular momentum of the external layers, when everything solidifies the sense of rotation should reverse. Thats all. Bye
nappa
One thing I know if that really can happen. There will be very big earth quake, big flooding, and much more. Changing the way how the earth spinning will cause a serious problem to every living things on this planet.

There will be the time that we don't have any food. Also the air will be very polluted.

We are not ready for this change, if it could really happen. And if it will happen then it surely be the end of the world. So hope it will never happen.
jipmerite
I liked BikerMan's Theory. But that's just for the Pole right. What about a more global change...

I don't think simply reversal of the poles can lead to the change we are talking about. I mean, would the reversal of poles necessarily lead to reversal of the direction of earth's rotation?

But I agree, such a change would be really cataclysmic.
Bikerman
jipmerite wrote:
I liked BikerMan's Theory. But that's just for the Pole right. What about a more global change...

I don't think simply reversal of the poles can lead to the change we are talking about. I mean, would the reversal of poles necessarily lead to reversal of the direction of earth's rotation?

But I agree, such a change would be really cataclysmic.


I cannot lay claim to the theory I presented (I thought my link acknowledged that, but I should be clear in case it didn't) - it comes from a maths puzzle website. I just thought it was interesting and the math looks right to me.
In answer to the last bit no, reversal of the poles would have little or no effect on angle, speed or direction of spin (certainly no effect on the latter). The magnetic poles have shifted many times over history and the only real evidence that these left is geological (orientation of metallic particles in rock formed during the event in question). There is no correlation with significant upheaval or catastrophe in the fossil record that I know of - something which would certainly result after any significant change in speed of rotation, let alone change in direction. I cannot imagine how any such change in rotation would be driven or caused (barring, perhaps, impact with a body sufficiently massive - a planetoid sized mass) and I am certain that any such change in spin direction would have massive (if not completely fatal) implications for all life on the planet, certainly for all 'higher' lifeforms such as mammals.
khalidyong
Dearest readers,

In fact Al-Quran had explained very clearly in chapter Al-Hijr 15:73-76 about ‘how the sun rises from the west.’

Al-Quran said (the meaning) “So As-Saîhah (torment - awful cry) overtook them at the time of sunrise; (73) And We turned (the earth) upside down and rained down on them stones of baked clay. (74) Surely! In this are signs, for those who see (or understand or learn the lessons from the Signs of Allâh). (75) And verily! They (the earth and other planets) were right on the highroad (back to normal path/condition) (76)

It’s quite a straightforward explanation. Quran said that during the sunrise the earth is turned upside down, therefore we got the phenomenum of the sun rises from the west! the earth is rotating at the same direction, at the same speed, and orbiting the sun as normal, nothing changed except now the north pole is becoming south pole and the south pole is now the north pole, therefore we will see the sun is rising from the west!

Please ponder.

May Allah bless all of us.
Bikerman
khalidyong wrote:
It’s quite a straightforward explanation. Quran said that during the sunrise the earth is turned upside down, therefore we got the phenomenum of the sun rises from the west! the earth is rotating at the same direction, at the same speed, and orbiting the sun as normal, nothing changed except now the north pole is becoming south pole and the south pole is now the north pole, therefore we will see the sun is rising from the west!

I've pondered - it is nonsense of the highest order.
Exactly how do you propose to flip the earth around its axis? It is laughable.
Stubru Freak
Another thing to think about: if the poles would just switch, would we actually stop calling the North the North? Would we call the Arabian peninsula the Middle West? I don't think we would.
The North pole is the magnetic South pole of the Earth anyway. The North pole of magnets was defined as the side of the magnet pointing to the North. But the North pole of magnets always points to another magnet's South pole. So it's called North pole for historical reasons only. If the magnetic North pole would suddenly be in the North, it would be more correct, and we could keep calling the West the West.
I believe the Quran that anything causing the Sun to rise from the West means the end of the world.
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
Another thing to think about: if the poles would just switch, would we actually stop calling the North the North? Would we call the Arabian peninsula the Middle West? I don't think we would.
The North pole is the magnetic South pole of the Earth anyway. The North pole of magnets was defined as the side of the magnet pointing to the North. But the North pole of magnets always points to another magnet's South pole. So it's called North pole for historical reasons only. If the magnetic North pole would suddenly be in the North, it would be more correct, and we could keep calling the West the West.
I believe the Quran that anything causing the Sun to rise from the West means the end of the world.


Perhaps this will not be a sudden switch, but gradually by degrees? Think in another thread elsewhere there was a discussion about the gradual switching of the poles. Probably will take a few centuries perhaps? By that time we will not be around anymore. Very Happy
Xrave
the only way you'd get the inner core to rotate the outer core of the earth is , as said above , the molten mantle solidifies. But that's way too impossible as Earth is a huge nuke reactor with a reactor wall kilometers thick that doesn't leak much heat (otherwise we'll be roasted humans).

however, if you disrupt the flow of iron around the earth with multiple nuclear warheads, there's a possibility that you will get Earth to rotate a little randomly for a few seconds/weeks/years/millennia. But then the ground will shake so much that everyone dies. ^^
BigGeek
Bikerman,

You kind of answered your question about how the earth could flip on it's poles in your previous post. A large celestial body, comet or asteroid of sufficent size could cause such an effect. But of course the Koran does not mention it.

As far as the earth solidifying it's core or mantle I can't see it. For years physicists were unable to determine how the earth could remain molten inside over billions of years, they were unable to determine where the energy came from to keep it in that state. Back in the 80's when they figured out that the Aurora was the grounding out of trillions of watts of electricity per second at the poles of the earth due to the ionization of the solar particles/wind with the earth's magnetic field, they were then able to solve the equation as they had a source for the energy needed to keep it molten. So if you consider this into the equation, you might conclude that the only way for the mantle or core to solidify would be that the sun dies out........hummm? I'm thinking that might not be a real consideration in our lifetime.

As far as a pole reversal goes, there exists an ash layer that occurs globally throughout the geologic column, it is present about every 12 to 25,000 years. Since geologists are at a loss to explain it, a number of theories have come up in an attempt to explain these ash layers. Global catasrophies are one of them. Which gives to theories to plate techtonics and the driving mechanism behind the shifting contenents. First is the slow moving theory, that everything gradually moves over billliions of years, driven by small catastrphies localized to active areas. The second theroy is the catastrophic view, in which things move slowly, and then a huge global catastrophy occurs, causing pole shifts, or reversals, causing massive upheval and movement of the contenents, and then things restrun to the slow moving stage. Which is correct I cannot say, I'm only presenting the two theories. Also there is evidence that some of the magentism shifts recorded in the geologic record are due to physical shifts of the poles while others are due to the magnetic shifts of the poles.

You see the problem with Geology, and geophysics is that samples of earth and rocks, ice, etc. can only be looked at locally and represent less than 1% observation points, for the area of the earth, extrapolation is used extensively, and sometimes it is limited or misleading in it's conclusions.

I still pretty much lean to the idea that the end of the world will be a huge celestial body entering the solar system and causing havoc and planetary destruction. However, I'm not worried about that happening in my lifetime. Possible, but not probable.

And yes a physical pole reversal would spell the end of the world as we know it. The sun rising in the west, well I guess that depends on which pole is north, and the direction of the rotation after a cataclysm of that nature. I guess if your ass is still alive you would live to see it, but it would reduce the survivors to a very primitve existence. But look at the bright side, if you survivied you wouldn't have to worry about gong to work the next day Very Happy
Bikerman
BigGeek wrote:
Bikerman,

You kind of answered your question about how the earth could flip on it's poles in your previous post. A large celestial body, comet or asteroid of sufficent size could cause such an effect. But of course the Koran does not mention it.
It would also melt the crust & change the orbit. The chances of an exact 'flip' are minuscule and the length of the day would be significantly altered.
Apart from that it makes perfect sense Smile
Quote:
As far as a pole reversal goes, there exists an ash layer that occurs globally throughout the geologic column, it is present about every 12 to 25,000 years. Since geologists are at a loss to explain it, a number of theories have come up in an attempt to explain these ash layers. Global catasrophies are one of them. Which gives to theories to plate techtonics and the driving mechanism behind the shifting contenents. First is the slow moving theory, that everything gradually moves over billliions of years, driven by small catastrphies localized to active areas. The second theroy is the catastrophic view, in which things move slowly, and then a huge global catastrophy occurs, causing pole shifts, or reversals, causing massive upheval and movement of the contenents, and then things restrun to the slow moving stage. Which is correct I cannot say, I'm only presenting the two theories. Also there is evidence that some of the magentism shifts recorded in the geologic record are due to physical shifts of the poles while others are due to the magnetic shifts of the poles.
There is also the much simpler and much more likely hypothesis that the ash layers are the result of large volcanic eruptions. I have seen no evidence for a physical shift of the poles..have you got a source for this? I think it is unlikely, to the point of almost impossible. There is no evidence in the fossil record to tie pole reversals to extinction events, for example.
BigGeek
Bikerman wrote:
BigGeek wrote:
Bikerman,

You kind of answered your question about how the earth could flip on it's poles in your previous post. A large celestial body, comet or asteroid of sufficent size could cause such an effect. But of course the Koran does not mention it.
It would also melt the crust & change the orbit. The chances of an exact 'flip' are minuscule and the length of the day would be significantly altered.
Apart from that it makes perfect sense Smile
Quote:
As far as a pole reversal goes, there exists an ash layer that occurs globally throughout the geologic column, it is present about every 12 to 25,000 years. Since geologists are at a loss to explain it, a number of theories have come up in an attempt to explain these ash layers. Global catasrophies are one of them. Which gives to theories to plate techtonics and the driving mechanism behind the shifting contenents. First is the slow moving theory, that everything gradually moves over billliions of years, driven by small catastrphies localized to active areas. The second theroy is the catastrophic view, in which things move slowly, and then a huge global catastrophy occurs, causing pole shifts, or reversals, causing massive upheval and movement of the contenents, and then things restrun to the slow moving stage. Which is correct I cannot say, I'm only presenting the two theories. Also there is evidence that some of the magentism shifts recorded in the geologic record are due to physical shifts of the poles while others are due to the magnetic shifts of the poles.
There is also the much simpler and much more likely hypothesis that the ash layers are the result of large volcanic eruptions. I have seen no evidence for a physical shift of the poles..have you got a source for this? I think it is unlikely, to the point of almost impossible. There is no evidence in the fossil record to tie pole reversals to extinction events, for example.


You are correct about the probability of an exact flip being pretty low, but if it was not an exact flip it would be termed a pole shift, if I recall correctly. A pole reversal is an exact flip, a pole shift is a change to any other position if I recall it right!

No unfortunately I'm writing off the top of my head and it has been years ago since I read articles on the subject. If I'm able to pull this out of my ass here, I believe the evedince sited for pole reversal was arguments for the FUBAR nature of the pre-cambrian portion of the column. But there were a lot of others that argued against this theory stating exactly as you did, that there were no extinctions identifiable in that portion of the column, or for the other events younger than precambrian. As far as the ash layer goes, the arguments for it not being a global catasrophy went something like it was due to volcaninc activity, and was explainable, which I never really got that argument as well since they never were able to explain what would cause a global volcanic phenomenon. Supporters of the catastrophic view argued that the vulcanism would have been local and that it was a global phenomenon in the column. Which again I've never understood their claims in that area, because like I pointed out else where, problem with drilling samples in the ground to look at the geologic column is that they are only able to observe less than 1% of the area. I understand that they look at the same ash layer in different parts of the world in observable places, and drilling samples and conclude that certain events are global while others are local, but again only in a few areas (if I recall) were they able to point to extinctions due to the ash layer, other areas there was no such correlation. So what's the answer? I couldn't say, like I said I'm only presenting the two theories, I never claimed that I have any idea which one is right!
Bikerman
Hmm...I'm very sceptical. As far as I know there are a few 'universal' ash layers, but certainly not anything like every few tens of thousands of years.
The big ones would be the Precambrian (650 million years ago) and the KT (55 million years ago). We are pretty sure that the KT ash layer is from the asteroid that hit the gulf of Mexico (Chicxulub).
There is also a strong hypothesis that a similar strike occurred and caused the Precambrian extinction.
Aside from that, there are several ash layers associated with the eruption of supervolcanos dotted throughout the column.
BigGeek
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...I'm very sceptical. As far as I know there are a few 'universal' ash layers, but certainly not anything like every few tens of thousands of years.
The big ones would be the Precambrian (650 million years ago) and the KT (55 million years ago). We are pretty sure that the KT ash layer is from the asteroid that hit the gulf of Mexico (Chicxulub).
There is also a strong hypothesis that a similar strike occurred and caused the Precambrian extinction.
Aside from that, there are several ash layers associated with the eruption of supervolcanos dotted throughout the column.


I must admit that my recollection could be flawed, I was reading about this back around 1985 shortly after I graduated from college, so my aging brain could be flawed in it's memory about the frequency of the global ash layers. I thought that the catasrophists were pointing to it's frequency as every 12 to 25K years, but like I said I could be mistaken in this.

One thing I can tell you is that I had read numerous articles arguing one view to the other, no one seeming to come to any sort of agreement on it, and not too long ago I was reading a recent article on livescience.com I think it was, where they were arguing the two points of view. All I could think of when I read the article was, holy crap this argument has been going on for 25 years now, give it a rest. Laughing
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...I'm very sceptical. As far as I know there are a few 'universal' ash layers, but certainly not anything like every few tens of thousands of years.

... And just because vulcanism is local, doesn't mean the ash from it will stay local. Look at the ash spread from Mt. St. Helens, and think how far the ash might spread from a supervolcano, like the one I hear is under Yellowstone...

A single extremely huge eruption could possibly create an ash layer all over the world.
BigGeek
Ocalhoun, those are very good points about eruptions covering much larger areas than the volcano itself.

Bikerman I've been pretty busy as of late here, but if I get a chance I'll see if I can dig up the book from 25 years ago, probably a bit dated, and give reference to what I'm babling about here, or if necessary correct my eroneous memory. I'll keep you posted on what I come up with.

As of late, I had to have custom parking brake cables made for the rear of my truck to work with the disc brake calipers, and I got fooled by the incorrect intermediate cable on the truck, so now I have to send the cables back and have them resized......URRRGGGHHH!! It's been a difficult conversion to say the least.

Oh and today being the 31st it's my 50th birthday........see I told you I was old, and now it's official Laughing
Bikerman
You are not old - merely mature (and I speak as a 47 yr old mature youth) Smile
Mustknow
You should all know that the rotation of the earth along its axis is slowing down NOT speeding up. Check out the link from NASA.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm
Therefore, if the earth is slowing down on its axis then it will eventually come to a halt. But the forces that bring it to a halt will in turn begin to spin it the other way; once it begins to spin the other way, the sun will then rise from the west.
Only by using current technology has it been shown (i.e. proven, so it is now an established scientific fact) that the earth is slowing down, something they could not have known in the middle of the dessert over 1000 years ago.
I read some comments above that said how ridiculous the idea of the earth changing its rotation is. People love to jump to conclusions. Now, only a complete fool would deny the fact that the earth's rotation around its axis is slowing down and that one day the sun will rise from the west.
Stubru Freak
Mustknow wrote:
You should all know that the rotation of the earth along its axis is slowing down NOT speeding up. Check out the link from NASA.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm
Therefore, if the earth is slowing down on its axis then it will eventually come to a halt. But the forces that bring it to a halt will in turn begin to spin it the other way; once it begins to spin the other way, the sun will then rise from the west.
Only by using current technology has it been shown (i.e. proven, so it is now an established scientific fact) that the earth is slowing down, something they could not have known in the middle of the dessert over 1000 years ago.
I read some comments above that said how ridiculous the idea of the earth changing its rotation is. People love to jump to conclusions. Now, only a complete fool would deny the fact that the earth's rotation around its axis is slowing down and that one day the sun will rise from the west.


Read what your own link says:
Quote:
As this process continues, it is predicted that in billions of years the lunar month will increase to about 47 days from its current 27.3 days. But by that time, the Sun itself will have begun to evolve into a red giant, which will upset the Earth-Moon system somewhat; especially if they are both engulfed by the Sun's expanding atmosphere!


So the earth will burn sooner than it will reverse. I'm not saying I'm sure it won't reverse, I'm just saying your own link seems to contradict you.

Also, as far as I understand, the forces that are bringing the earth to a halt have to do with some kind of gravity-related pseudo-friction, so they will just halt the earth, not start to spin it the other way.
jwellsy
If the earth did wobble enough to roll over, the momentum in it's mass should keep it spinning in the same direction. The sun would still rise over Florida first and then set over California.

If you lay on your back in the Northern hemisphere with your head oriented to the North, the sun rises from your left (East). The Earth has to be rotating counter-clockwise when looking at the North pole. and clockwise if you look at the South pole. If the Earth Earth wobbled and flipped over the old North pole would still be rotating counter-clockwise and the sun would still rise over Florida before California. Technically the sun would rise in the West but realistically it would still rise from the same geographical direction.

The weather pattern seasons would be all screwed up which would really impact the natural plant and animal cycles. It would be a semantics or conversion thing like switching between metrics and SAE.

Seabed crystalline structure analyses at plate tectonic growth locations has proven there have been previous magnetic flux pole swaps. That indicates to me that the Earths crust and core become uncoupled allowing the core to maintain it's orientation to the sun but reverses it's direction of spin due to friction with the crust. The initiating event would probably originate in the crust like a meteor strike or whatever.

I wish we could measure the actual rotation of the Earth's core.
rehman
As the concept of Sun rise in west is first derived from Islam so we can't ignore the Islam. Islam says that the night before sunrise in the west will be equal to 3 nights and at the morning the sun will rise in the west and will come up to the half day sun and then will go back. so it means that it will be sudden change not gradual.
slashnburn99
If it rises from the west its going to have to tip over itself - fall off its axis.

what keep it spinning in the atmousphere?

What happens if it just falls from the sky?

Something new to worry about Laughing
SplitMoon
As an orchestra led by composer John Williams invoked the initial strains of the theme of "2001," "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," a small but familiar sight began to rise from behind the Lincoln Memorial ...


Just to make it unmistakable, the small light began rising with the first beams of the morning sun as the only part lit up. (Note also the similarity to the Horus engraving on the chair mentioned above.) As it slowly rose into view, these rays of "morning sun" became overwhelmed as the light grew in size and brilliance, until it virtually turned night into day!

As we have pointed out many times, the "rising sun" motif is a direct reference to the Egyptian god Horus, son of Isis (Sirius) and Osiris (Orion). However, the infant Horus was also associated with the one star that seems to have been at the center of all these celebrations.


Sirius.

Horus was a "magical child," born to Isis after her husband and brother Osiris was murdered by their evil brother Seth (Taurus). Seth had Osiris dismembered, and Isis eventually recovered all the pieces except the phallus, which she fashioned from her magical powers. Impregnating herself in a union with the resurrected Osiris, she carried Horus to term while hiding from Seth among the reeds in the marshes of Egypt. These events are described in the pyramid texts thusly:

"Your sister Isis comes to you rejoicing for love of you. You have placed her on your phallus and your seed issues in her, she being ready as Sirius, and Horus Sopd (a star) has come forth from you as Horus who is in Sirius…" [Pyr. Text line 632]

Horus was viewed as a savior who would deliver the Egyptian people from the evil god Seth by avenging his father Osiris/Orion. Since Sirius was viewed as the soul/womb of Isis, the rising sun would seem to be a reference to the gestation of "Horus who is in Sirius." The legends tell us that Horus did battle with Seth and despite losing an eye in the process, was victorious. Interestingly, the "Eye of Horus" is featured in the cartouche of Osiris and also made several appearances on the TV coverage of the events on the Mall (CBS, the network of the eye, was given exclusive rights to cover the show) and even, on the person of the otherwise plainly clothed "President of the Westerner
SplitMoon


Yet there were even more oddities in this ceremony. The Mall in Washington runs precisely East/West, on a line that runs from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial. From the viewers perspective, this "Rising Sun of Horus" was in the wrong place, rising on the Western side of this dividing line. Now, as everybody knows, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, not the other way around. So, was this just a silly mistake or product of poor logistics?





Of course not.

This meticulously planned "Sirius/Masonic" ceremony had a point to make. If you were to have looked directly into the "Rising Sun of Horus," on the Western side of the Lincoln Memorial, you could have gazed beyond the spectacle to see a very significant astronomical alignment taking place on the distant horizon. None other than our old pal, EQ Pegasi!



For those of you who may not remember, EQ Peg. became famous for the flap caused in the fall of 1998, when a supposed "SETI signal" was received from the vicinity of this star and a subsequent web site appeared from someone claiming to have made the discovery. The site turned out to be a hoax (possibly propagated by intelligence agencies), but SETI's own data showed that -- for awhile -- there was a strong radio signal emanating from the direction of the star. Ultimately, the whole affair degenerated into a series of false accusations against Enterprise, which eventually turned out have been financed by a wealthy, private "friend of NASA." That the supposed "signal from EQ Peg" was NEVER to be taken literally, but was another "arcane message" -- in keeping with this entire series of secret Egyptian rituals we have been following -- was given away by the celestial location of the supposed "whispering star" ... 19.5 degrees North!

What was important to draw from this was not the source of the signal or the name of the persons behind the hoax, but the significance of the idea of "a message from Pegasus" ... at 19.5. Pegasus' name comes from a spring at Abydos, the site of the oldest known shrine to Osiris (and, according to most Egyptologists, his burial site). In the mythology, Pegasus is the winged horse that carries the souls of men to the West, where they will meet Osiris and be judged. Of course, in order to be on this journey, a soul has to experience death first. Pegasus therefore became synonymous with death in many cultures. And ... "19.5" is nothing less than a geometric shorthand signifying a literal "Hyperdimensional" transfer between dimensions ... accomplished by most people in the simple act of dying!

So -- one possible interpretation of this eerie and compelling combination is the strong suggestion that those watching both on the Mall and over TV are "soon to be carried away on the wings of Pegasus to be judged by Osiris." Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of symbolism we were hoping would not rear it's ugly head that night.

Incidentally, some of you might have noticed that the old guy himself -- Osiris -- is making "new news" in the mainstream media of late: Zahi Hawass, our old guardian-of-the-secrets friend from Egypt, has resurrected his supposed "discovery" of Osiris' tomb, deep underneath Giza itself. Only problem with this latest Reuters "scoop": it's a rerun of the same story which aired on the Fox telecast ("Opening the Lost Tombs of Egypt: Live!") just about two years ago. This show also featured Richard Hoagland detailing his analysis of the infamous "high-tech" glyphs found at Abydos, -- the real location of the burial site of Osiris. So, what gives? Since the latest repetition of the Hawass' discovery of "Osiris' Tomb" at Giza is NOT real "news," it can only be more, increasingly frantic "coded messages" to the in-crowd. To what end? How about, "the era of Osiris is at hand ... stay tuned?"

Yet there is still more.

If in fact the Earth were to experience a pole shift, as is now publicly acknowledged to have happened in the past, one of the likely effects would be the temporary cessation of the planet's rotation. If this were to happen, the possibility is fairly high that the Sun could seem to rise in the West on that fateful day. Most of the inhabitants of the planet would have other things to worry about, but this strange event would likely never be forgotten by those that witnessed it.

[mod - image removed, too big]

So, does the rising of "Horus" in the West -- aligning with EQ Pegasi -- mean that somebody is telling us that we will experience death by pole-shift and be judged by Osiris?

Yes.
SplitMoon
same time during that year
He (the Mahdi) will not come unless a sign emerges out of the Sun. (Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi `Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 47)

The Mahdi will not emerge unless the Sun rises as a sign. (Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p. 33)





This portent from the Sun may be the great explosion that took place in the twentieth century. On the left of the picture to the side is an image of the Sun taken in 1996. The image on the right was taken in 2000, and shows its latest appearance, after the explosion.


The large explosions detected on the Sun during the twentieth century may well be this sign.

Also, the August 11, 1999 solar eclipse was the last of the century. It was the first time that so many people had been able to watch and study an eclipse for so long.

[B]
REMEMBER THE RISING OF "SUN GOD" ANCIENT "EGYPTIANS SUN GOD"

THAT THE WESTERN CULTS WORSHIP AND SECRET SOCIETIES IN AMERICA AND THAT HAPPENED IN 2000 AND LATER USA DID 9-11 RITUAL WHEN MOON AND SATURN ECLIPSED ON THE SAME DAY SEP 11-2001
[/B]
SplitMoon


picture was taken by the cellphone cam in a car driving by on highway

all these things were prophecised by the Prophet muhammad (pbuh)

o A hand will be extended from the sky, and people will look and see it. (Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 53)

The sign of that day is a hand extended in the sky and people stopping to look at it. (Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p. 69)




Disorder, corruption, and fear will emerge in the West... Corruption will proliferate. (Mukhtasar Tazkirah Qurtubi)

we all know that western goveronments are corrupted and starting wars killing innocent people specialy after 9-11-200 as above hadith says media is 24/7 creating fear in public with there lies
mshafiq
ptolomeo wrote:
The magnetic field of the earth will reverse, so the north in a compass will point to what now is the south. In this way the north will be the south and the south will be north. As simple as that.


I guess you could be right.

But I have a different aspect as well.
The poles will going to change their position with respect to the universe.
The north side of the world will move to south
however north will remain North for the people
Not only that all East, West, North and South will be same for people living on the earth but
If you see from the space the position of North will not be on North side.
So effectively, in this sense, magnetic field will going to be same but Sun will rise from West.

I tried to explain but sorry if I could not ...
Comments are welcome!!!
Bikerman
Quote:
If in fact the Earth were to experience a pole shift, as is now publicly acknowledged to have happened in the past, one of the likely effects would be the temporary cessation of the planet's rotation.
Complete and utter nonsense. This doesn't belong on a science forum - it possibly belongs in the 'plots for bad novels' forum or perhaps 'I'm making it up as I go along...badly' forum.

Pole reversal is geomagnetic, not geography. The magnetic field flips, not the earth. As for 'cessation of the planet's rotation' - that is just idiotic.

Quote:
But I have a different aspect as well.
The poles will going to change their position with respect to the universe.
The north side of the world will move to south
however north will remain North for the people
More of the same. The only thing that 'moves' is the magnetic field lines of flux. The 'poles' stay where they are - actually it is more accurate to say they carry on wandering as normal. The 'north side' of the world stays where it is in relation to the universe, as does the rest of the earth. Actually, I would be interested to see if you could actually tell me why you think the phrase 'position with respect to the universe' has any meaning. Which bit of the universe do you mean? The Sun? Alpha Centuri? Alpha-Proxima? You seem to think that 'the universe' has a direction...I'd like to see you explain that one...

I'll leave this open for a while longer to see if there are any sensible contibutions, otherwise I'll lock it in a couple of days, because this is beginning to offend against every scientific principle I can imagine, not to mention basic sense.
mshafiq
Quote:
.... Which bit of the universe do you mean? The Sun? Alpha Centuri? Alpha-Proxima? You seem to think that 'the universe' has a direction...I'd like to see you explain that one...


As ‘sun will rise from the west …’ is under discussion, the directions are with respect to Sun.

So in my point of view apparently/physically everything on the Earth will remain as is.
Even Earth will spin as is.
But the polarity may cause the slow or sudden shift of Erath’s position with respect to Sun making the people observing ‘Sun rising from the West’.



Thanks[/img]
yagnyavalkya
I think if the rotation of the earth reversed then the sun will rise from the west
Bikerman
You still don't get it. The earth does not flip over, only the magnetic field. Rotation carries on as normal, it doesn't reverse. Do you seriously think the earth tipx over 180 degrees every few hundred thousand years - like your diiagram suggests ? It doesn't. The notion is bonkers.
yagnyavalkya
No I mean that If the rotation of the earth was reversed (I am not talking about how it is done!) then that would make the Sun appear to rise from the West.
mshafiq
By the way, do you believe if sun will rise from west. Please mention why .. due to religion, scientific and/or some other reason.
Ankhanu
mshafiq wrote:
By the way, do you believe if sun will rise from west. Please mention why .. due to religion, scientific and/or some other reason.


Preferrably for a scientific reason... given that this is a science forum.
Man, I'm sorry, but I can't help myself... that looks like celestial goatse Razz
ahrazathar
GUYS WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN THE PERSPECTIVE OF ISLAM.OTHER INCIDENTS WHICH ARE RELATED SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED.SUN CAN RISE FROM WEST IF THE EARTH CHANGES IT DIRECTION OF ROTATION FROM COUNTER-CLOCKWISE TO CLOCKWISE.NOW THIS CHANGE CAN OCCUR ONLY IF LARGE AMOUNT OF TANGENTIAL FORCE IS APPLIED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF ITS ROTATION.THIS FORCE CAN COME FROM SIMULTANEOUS EARTHQUAKES, NUCLEAR WARFARE(HEAVY) E.T.C.IN FACT IT IS PREDICTED THAT NEAR END TIMES THERE WILL BE LARGE NUMBER OF HEAVY EARTHQUAKES.PREDICTION OF A HUGE WAR IS ALSO THERE.AS FAR AS HITTING OF A HUGE METEORITE IS CONCERNED IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT WILL DESTROY LIFE INSTANTANEOUSLY .AND HENCE END TIME WILL COME WITHOUT THE SUN RISING FROM WEST WHICH JUST CAN'T HAPPEN.
[post edited - this is a SCIENCE forum and I will not allow discussion to be sidetracked by religious mumbo-jumbo - Bikerman]
Bikerman
Absolute nonsense.

You have one sentence in that posting which makes sense, physically speaking.
Quote:
THIS CHANGE CAN OCCUR ONLY IF LARGE AMOUNT OF TANGENTIAL FORCE IS APPLIED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF ITS ROTATION.

The rest is just wrong. There is no possible pattern of earthquakes or nuclear explosions that could reverse the earth's rotation. Any force sufficient to do it would smash the earth like an egg.
It is impossible for an earthquake (or any combination of earthquakes) to reverse the earth's rotation. The only way earthquakes can effect rotation is by changing the centre of mass of the earth. Whilst that may have a slight effect on the speed of rotation, it cannot reverse the direction - physically impossible.
Nor can any conceiavable nuclear exchange do it. Even if it were possible to explode a nuke such that all the force were acting against rotation (which, of course, it isn't), then the force generated would be comparatively tiny.

Let me see if I can work up a rough calc to show the absurdity:


Known data:

Mass of earth: approx 10^38kg.
Angular velocity of earth: approx 2*pi/86400 rads/sec.
Angular momentum = I (moment of inertia) * omega (angular velocity).

Let's say that one could use nukes to chuck mass into escape velocity eastwards, against rotation. (I'll round EV down to 10km/s).

For each kg chucked, we get : 1kg * 10 km/s = 64x10^9 kg m^2
To do the chucking we would need 1/2mv^2 = .5*100 = 50 Megajoules per kilo.


To cancel rotation you would need to chuck N=I*omega/h (ie the angular momentum of earth) such kg blocks.
That gives about 10^23.

1 nuclear plant can typically generate 1GJ/s, so if we harnessed ALL that energy into chucking mass against the rotation, we could therefore chuck about 20 1kg masses per second into escape velocity.

10^23 / 20 /3600 /24/365.25 gives you the number of years that would take 1 powerstation to do this.
*(Obviously you can use the same base figure to calculate how many stations you would need to do it in time T, by simply putting in the required time instead).

I make it 158,440,439,070,144 years (call it 150 quadrillion years). That is about 10,000 times the age of the universe.

I trust that these back of the envelope figures show you the absurdity of the proposal....
I could work it up into a more precise figure....but frankly it isn't worth it.

PS - please don't use all caps...looks like SHOUTING.

PPS - Mike Kelsey or any other scientist looking on - please do a sanity check on my basic maths....I think the result is in the ballpark, but the result surprised me by the magnitude - and I was expecting a long time....I can't see any obvious errors in the logic or calcs....
ahrazathar
Your calculation is wrong.
explain the process.
ahrazathar
also tell me why can't earthquakes change the direction of rotation.
ahrazathar
Please tell me in which time zone you live.iam from india.
kelseymh
ahrazathar wrote:
Your calculation is wrong.
explain the process.


Show where it's wrong. Bikerman's physics is quite correct. If you don't understand angular momentum, then you shouldn't be trying to have a scientific discussion about it.
Bikerman
ahrazathar wrote:
Your calculation is wrong.
explain the process.

Explain WHAT process? I posited the most generous interpretation of your hypothesis that I could - I assumed a powerplant rather than a nuclear explosion because I could then hypothesise that ALL the energy would go in precisely the correct direction to do the most retardation of orbit possible. If you assume a nuclear explosion then the effect is going to be tiny in comparison because most of the energy cancels out with regard to resolving the force component in the direction of rotation....
kelseymh
ahrazathar wrote:
also tell me why can't earthquakes change the direction of rotation.


Here is your homework assignment, due in one week. I expect it to be posted here for grading upon completion.

Please go to your local library, or a science teacher at your school, and do research on the following terms.

Angular momentum
Conservation of angular momentum
Moment of inertia
Torque

Write a one paragraph summary defining each of the four terms above (do not copy from Wikipedia or from any other online source), and explain how each one applies to the nonsense you posted previously.
ahrazathar
hey angular momentum's basic definition is.R CROSS MV ABOUT A GIVEN POINT O.THAT IS RMVSINTHETA.WHERE THETA IS THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE R VECTOR AND THE MOMENTUM VECTOR.fro torque replace mv by force vector.moment of inertia of any particle about a given axis is mr2 where r is the distance between the particle and the axis.m is the mass of the particle.IN YOUR SOLUTION IN WHICH YOU CHUCKED YOU USED THE M.I OF EARTH YOU SHOULD HAVE USED THE M.I OF EACH ONE KG PARTICLE ABOUT EARTH'S AXIS
ahrazathar
conservation of angular momentum says that if there is no NET ext torque on the system then its initial a.m would be equal to its final a.m
ahrazathar
I DON'T NEED YOUR GRADING.(IAM TYPING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE I WANT TO SHOUT AT YOU).IAM A SCIENCE STUDENT .I LOVE PHYSICS.
ahrazathar
by conservation of angular momentum.we can find how much mass we need to chuck so as to get the earth's angular momentum to zero.Me mass of earth , M' mass to be chucked, initial angular velocity same for both, moment of inertia of earth 2/5 times MeRe2 moment of inertia of M' ABOT the same axis M'R2.BOTH OF THERE SUM SHOULD BE EQUATED TO ZERO PLUS M'V(ESCAPE)Re
Bikerman
ahrazathar wrote:
conservation of angular momentum says that if there is no NET ext torque on the system then its initial a.m would be equal to its final a.m

Good...now for the marks, explain how an internal earthquake can generate a net external torque.
Bikerman
ahrazathar wrote:
hey angular momentum's basic definition is.R CROSS MV ABOUT A GIVEN POINT O.THAT IS RMVSINTHETA.WHERE THETA IS THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE R VECTOR AND THE MOMENTUM VECTOR.fro torque replace mv by force vector.moment of inertia of any particle about a given axis is mr2 where r is the distance between the particle and the axis.m is the mass of the particle.IN YOUR SOLUTION IN WHICH YOU CHUCKED YOU USED THE M.I OF EARTH YOU SHOULD HAVE USED THE M.I OF EACH ONE KG PARTICLE ABOUT EARTH'S AXIS

What are you talking about? The angular velocity of earth is known. Angular momentum for a rigid body rotating around a fixed axis is equal to moment of inertia times angular velocity.
Quote:
initial angular velocity same for both
Yes I know.
Quote:
moment of inertia of earth 2/5 times MeRe2
Yes I know.
Quote:
moment of inertia of M' ABOT the same axis M'R2.
Irrelevant. A tangent to a sphere is a straight line. not a curve. The tangential force acts (by definition) along a line - as I calculated.
Quote:
BOTH OF THERE SUM SHOULD BE EQUATED TO ZERO PLUS M'V(ESCAPE)Re
What are you talking about? How can the angular momentum of earth be 0+mv? m-1kg and v-10km/s. Talk sense. Why should the angular momentum of the earth be the same as the linear momentum of the small 1kg mass? You seem to have forgotten the initial angular momentum of the Earth.....You really don't seem to understand this.

Look, I'll make this as simple as I can.
The angular momentum of earth is given by L=Me*w*Re^2 (where Me = mass of earth, Re = radius of Earth and w = angular velocity in rads/sec.) Do the sums - it is basic.
Me = 6*10^24 kg
w = 2*pi/86400 rads/sec
Re = 6 378km
Multiple out and you get 2782927492304958510404824
I think that is within a nads crotchet of the rounded estimate I used earlier - certainly for the purposes of this calc.


Please write out your sum rather than using words - just express the problem algebraically in whetever terms you like and then I can see where the confusion is.

Alternatively: if this approach is too confusing, another approach would be to simply work with energies.
Rotational K.E. of earth = 0.5.I.w^2 (where w is moment of inertia which is approx 0.4*Me*Re^2).
Do the sums. You should get about 2*10^29 Joules (give or take 10%).

1 Megaton is 4*10^15 joules.
So you would need 5 x 10^14 megatons* to stop rotation (making the ridiculously generous assumption that you could direct ALL that energy at an exact and instantaneous tangent to rotation).

* That is about 100 million times the total nuclear arsenal of the world.

Different method, same result.

Quote:
I DON'T NEED YOUR GRADING.(IAM TYPING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE I WANT TO SHOUT AT YOU).IAM A SCIENCE STUDENT .I LOVE PHYSICS.

Well, I will avoid shouting back that you are talking to a professional physicist (Mike) and a Lecturer in IT who is not impressed by 'science students', especially those who 'love physics', but can't do a simple angular momentum sum.....
ahrazathar
earth's angular momentum is surely not equal to linear momentum of a small body .THE M' MUST BE VERY LARGE .ALSO WE HAVE TO TAKE M'VR.NOT M'V.I SAID 0+M'VR.
ahrazathar
i have calculated.you make sense.also if there is not enough energy how can it be done.THINK SOME EXTERNAL THING WILL DO IT.
Bikerman
Ah yes, I missed your Re for some reason. So you have momentum as linear momentum multiplied by Radius? I think you have confused the cross product with a agebraic product.

The only conceivable way it could happen is by impact, but, as I said earlier, that would almost certainly either smash or melt the earth (probably both).
Look how much energy needs to be transferred - 2*10^29 joules.
400,000 Joules will melt 1kg of rock. 2*10^29 could therefore melt the earth many times over......
ahrazathar
hey i know that CROSS product is different from algebraic multiplication.but when theta =90 degrees then RxMV's value (magnitude) is the same as in algebraic multiplication.
malaysia
According to my research,this phenomenon is a basic natural rules.
The theory name as The Life Cycle Principles.
Just simple example, Man is begin from a weak baby become an adults than back to a week old man.
Water begin from cumulus cloud down to Earth become reservoir than absorbed back to clouds.
So, the phenomenon is happen when it come to end of cycles.
This is my theory.
Bikerman
Complete nonsense.
Water does not 'begin' in clouds, and there is no known 'cycle' involving planetary switch of rotation.
morfeus
Umm... where to begin, sorry I gave up reading about half-way through the last 3 pages (before registering, no pages were showing).

Why do so many people presenting their case put it across as if IT IS LAW; as if they know it to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE?! If its what YOU think it is, then please, say as such!

As far as I remember, the Noble Koran says that the Sun will rise from the West/ west (does it mean the magnetic (which of course is arbitrarily named) direction or the notion of the 'Western civilisation'? I have only read the English translation, I'm afraid Sad around the time of the End Times. This rising of the Sun from the (W)west will be one of the (many, I think) signs that the End. (Sorry, my knowledge is not complete and I am writing this from memory, so please correct me if you know better).

My understanding, based on this is that the 'Armageddon' (from Christianity) won't arrive until at least some period of time (ie perhaps years or even centuries, and not seconds) after this event. In other words, the simple(!) concept of the sun rising from the opposite side won't be the End. Therefore, its unlikely that the Earth will start to SPIN in the opposite direction physically (since its most likely that life as we know it would end if the Earth stopped spinning, and then started to spin in the opposite direction, or even if the Earth PHYSICALLY (with respect to the SUN, say, for you pedants!) turned upside down!)

So, the only TWO explanations for what the Noble Koran says, in my opinion, are the magnetic poles reversing (I'm of the opinion that physically, humans would not feel any ill effects (don't get me started on computers and their magnetic storage or other tech relying on magnets, for example!) or what bikerman said "Near one of the poles in spring the Sun rises from the west, since the earth's motion round the sun is then more significant than its rotation."

Of course the second explanation indicates that the Sun has ALWAYS risen from the west at those points... so how can the 'End Times' be near? Well, WE have not ALWAYS known about this phenomenon, so perhaps when we have gained such an understanding, the End Times draw near... Hmm...

I prefer that the End Times will be near (and of course this could be measured in centuries) when the Sun rises from the west due to the magnetic poles 'flipping'. So the Sun will only APPEAR to be rising from the west because of 'convention'; the Earth will continue in its normal spin; just our compasses will point in the opposite direction and they will show that the sun is rising from the 'west' (until they're relabelled!).

This makes sense to me from a scientific point of view as well as religious; the fact that the Noble Koran was written about 1400+ years ago and we (scientists) have only discovered details about the flipping of the poles during the last few (I don't know, but it wasn't common knowledge 1400 years ago) hundred years.... well YOU make up your own mind about that ("there is no compulsion in Religion.")

Umm... well thanks!
Bikerman
Oh please stop with this 'the holy book predicted .. x,y,z' nonsense.
What we actually have is a figure of speech being interpreted literally and yielding nonsense. This nonsense is then redefined so that it can be 'explained' in some manner. What you then do is take the explanation of the nonsense to mean that the purveyor of nonsense predicted the explanation.

It isn't even worthy of the tag 'intellectually dishonest'.
morfeus
Bikerman wrote:
Oh please stop with this 'the holy book predicted .. x,y,z' nonsense.
What we actually have is a figure of speech being interpreted literally and yielding nonsense. This nonsense is then redefined so that it can be 'explained' in some manner. What you then do is take the explanation of the nonsense to mean that the purveyor of nonsense predicted the explanation.

It isn't even worthy of the tag 'intellectually dishonest'.


Fair enough. Although, I should say that I don't agree with the 'figure of speech' part of your reasoning; its mentioned in different ways in many different sayings of The Prophet(pbuh) (Hadiths). At the same time, *I* don't know which parts of The Koran and/ or Hadiths to take literally and which to look at symbolically.

I'm trying to see things from a scientific point of view (ok ok, I failed Physics, but hey... sue me! Neutral and apply/ relate them to The Koran (Bible and anything else that I remember). As an aside, I find it unreasonable to think the Universe came about by random chance (yes yes, mayhap there have been any number of 'Universes' in the 'past' where no life existed perhaps...), especially considering the 3 'coincidences' which were essential for life to exist (on Earth and/ or elsewhere).

But, hey, thats MY opinion and you is entitled to yours (even if you are wrong! - Only kidding! Wink

Like I said, fair dos.
Bikerman
Quote:
As an aside, I find it unreasonable to think the Universe came about by random chance (yes yes, mayhap there have been any number of 'Universes' in the 'past' where no life existed perhaps...), especially considering the 3 'coincidences' which were essential for life to exist (on Earth and/ or elsewhere).

Why people think that their sense of what is 'reasonable' is a useful, or even valid, metric when considering questions of deep physics is completely beyond me.

Tell me, do you find it reasonable that an 11-dimensional spacetime can model the behaviour of gravity at the microscopic level? Perhaps you would hesitate to comment, not being familiar with supersymmetric string theory and the accompanying mathematics? That would be wise methinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just say 'nah...that doesn't seem reasonable to me' - and even if you did, why do you think that would matter?
kelseymh
morfeus wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Oh please stop with this 'the holy book predicted .. x,y,z' nonsense.
What we actually have is a figure of speech being interpreted literally and yielding nonsense. This nonsense is then redefined so that it can be 'explained' in some manner. What you then do is take the explanation of the nonsense to mean that the purveyor of nonsense predicted the explanation.

It isn't even worthy of the tag 'intellectually dishonest'.


Fair enough. Although, I should say that I don't agree with the 'figure of speech' part of your reasoning; its mentioned in different ways in many different sayings of The Prophet(pbuh) (Hadiths). At the same time, *I* don't know which parts of The Koran and/ or Hadiths to take literally and which to look at symbolically.


If you don't know what is real and what is metaphorical, then why do you believe that you are competent to make any statement regarding truth vs. falsehood?

Quote:
I'm trying to see things from a scientific point of view (ok ok, I failed Physics, but hey... sue me! Neutral


We don't have to sue you. We can tell you that you are not competent to have a scientific opinion. The part that people like you seem utterly unable to comprehend is that what you "believe" is irrelevant. Reality is what it is. Just because you don't like it, or can't understand it, or think that some medieval blowhard said something contradictory to reality is also irrelevant. If you can't get over that, then you really should be posting your fantasy elsewhere.

Quote:
But, hey, thats MY opinion and you is entitled to yours (even if you are wrong!


Reality isn't about opinion. It's about data and about evidence. Your opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it (actually, it's probably worth less than whatever you paid for that book of medieval fantasy). When you have some actual, objective data to back up your opinion, then it's worth a lot more.
morfeus
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
As an aside, I find it unreasonable to think the Universe came about by random chance (yes yes, mayhap there have been any number of 'Universes' in the 'past' where no life existed perhaps...), especially considering the 3 'coincidences' which were essential for life to exist (on Earth and/ or elsewhere).

Why people think that their sense of what is 'reasonable' is a useful, or even valid, metric when considering questions of deep physics is completely beyond me.

Tell me, do you find it reasonable that an 11-dimensional spacetime can model the behaviour of gravity at the microscopic level? Perhaps you would hesitate to comment, not being familiar with supersymmetric string theory and the accompanying mathematics? That would be wise methinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just say 'nah...that doesn't seem reasonable to me' - and even if you did, why do you think that would matter?



Clearly you are either definitely more learned than I am or at least are able to portray yourself as such - I'm not going to argue with that; I agree, I will (for now at least), hesitate to comment on the reasonableness of 'an 11-dimensional spacetime...' since I am not entirely familiar with string theory and certainly wasn't aware that it modelled the behaviour of gravity perfectly at microscopic level... (pls forgive my ignorance but is supersymmetric string theory another name or is this a refinement?)

But I will say that many things that humans do tend to be based on what they BELIEVE TO BE TRUE or REASONABLE and *then* perhaps PROVE the theory/ies via empirical data (sure, there are exceptions...).

Still, I was trying to have a friendly and light-hearted discussion (I stumbled upon this forum and this post) but you and certainly the poster after seem to have taken a rather more serious/ defensive attitude; apologies if I might have offended your 'beliefs', that certainly *WAS* not my intention. We are free to believe what we want to (don't even get me started on political freedom! Smile
Bikerman
No, I'm happy to discuss metaphysics, religion and para-science, but not here. In the science forums we try to keep it 'on track'.

We don't know if M theory predicts the behaviour of gravity in the quantum world because we don't know what that behaviour is - measuring gravity is tricky because it is so weak.
M theory (at least one interpretation) predicts that gravity will not obey the inverse square law at very snall scales. This is actually where some of the news headlines about 'micro black holes at the LHC' came from. If micro black holes DID form then they could only do so if gravity is much stronger than it should be under classical theory - which would offer support for M-theory.
morfeus
kelseymh wrote:
morfeus wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Oh please stop with this 'the holy book predicted .. x,y,z' nonsense.
What we actually have is a figure of speech being interpreted literally and yielding nonsense. This nonsense is then redefined so that it can be 'explained' in some manner. What you then do is take the explanation of the nonsense to mean that the purveyor of nonsense predicted the explanation.

It isn't even worthy of the tag 'intellectually dishonest'.


Fair enough. Although, I should say that I don't agree with the 'figure of speech' part of your reasoning; its mentioned in different ways in many different sayings of The Prophet(pbuh) (Hadiths). At the same time, *I* don't know which parts of The Koran and/ or Hadiths to take literally and which to look at symbolically.


If you don't know what is real and what is metaphorical, then why do you believe that you are competent to make any statement regarding truth vs. falsehood?


Errr... Do *YOU* know for *CERTAIN* the difference between *EVERYTHING* that is REAL and METAPHORICAL? Really? Ok... Congratulations, you are a better person than I am.
Quote:

Quote:
I'm trying to see things from a scientific point of view (ok ok, I failed Physics, but hey... sue me! Neutral


We don't have to sue you. We can tell you that you are not competent to have a scientific opinion. The part that people like you seem utterly unable to comprehend is that what you "believe" is irrelevant. Reality is what it is. Just because you don't like it, or can't understand it, or think that some medieval blowhard said something contradictory to reality is also irrelevant. If you can't get over that, then you really should be posting your fantasy elsewhere.

Hmmm.. You clearly have a handle on reality. Please explain what it is. Is it what *YOU* perceive? Is there *ANY* possibility that someone *ELSE* might perceive it differently? Just a thought...

(btw, not being funny, but what is 'medieval blowhard'? And, please clarify what this 'medieval blowhard' said that is contradictory to 'reality' (from the posts above)).
Quote:

Quote:
But, hey, thats MY opinion and you is entitled to yours (even if you are wrong!


Reality isn't about opinion. It's about data and about evidence. Your opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it (actually, it's probably worth less than whatever you paid for that book of medieval fantasy). When you have some actual, objective data to back up your opinion, then it's worth a lot more.


I might be wrong, but I think *YOU* are the one to mention reality and opinion. *I* never said that MY opinion is about REALITY (whatever YOU perceive that to be). Data and Evidence are what science is indeed about (not necessarily REALITY; although science maybe an APPROXIMATION of it (think about Newtonian physics...)).

With regards to 'actual, objective data' to back up your opinion, well, you have provided just as much if not more hot air than my post, except that I never tried to dress it up as anything other my OPINION. Clearly 'that book of medieval fantasy' seems to get your back up for one reason or other.... I wonder why...?

[MOD (Intervention)]
Fixed quote tag sequence
Bikerman
[END MOD]
morfeus
Bikerman wrote:
No, I'm happy to discuss metaphysics, religion and para-science, but not here. In the science forums we try to keep it 'on track'.

We don't know if M theory predicts the behaviour of gravity in the quantum world because we don't know what that behaviour is - measuring gravity is tricky because it is so weak.
M theory (at least one interpretation) predicts that gravity will not obey the inverse square law at very snall scales. This is actually where some of the news headlines about 'micro black holes at the LHC' came from. If micro black holes DID form then they could only do so if gravity is much stronger than it should be under classical theory - which would offer support for M-theory.


That's understandable. Soz I wasn't aware (and perhaps had I read the original post fully I might have known).

Unfortunately M-theory (and strings! and even quantum physics; yer, go ahead laugh, but I admit I dropped out at uni Sad ) boggles my mind; still it IS interesting (and I remember the headlines about the LHC and blackhole(s)... lol!)

Thank you for the brief explanation and hopefully we can discuss more another time/ in the other forums Smile
moataz-sh
khalidyong wrote:
Dearest readers,

In fact Al-Quran had explained very clearly in chapter Al-Hijr 15:73-76 about ‘how the sun rises from the west.’

Al-Quran said (the meaning) “So As-Saîhah (torment - awful cry) overtook them at the time of sunrise; (73) And We turned (the earth) upside down and rained down on them stones of baked clay. (74) Surely! In this are signs, for those who see (or understand or learn the lessons from the Signs of Allâh). (75) And verily! They (the earth and other planets) were right on the highroad (back to normal path/condition) (76)

It’s quite a straightforward explanation. Quran said that during the sunrise the earth is turned upside down, therefore we got the phenomenum of the sun rises from the west! the earth is rotating at the same direction, at the same speed, and orbiting the sun as normal, nothing changed except now the north pole is becoming south pole and the south pole is now the north pole, therefore we will see the sun is rising from the west!

Please ponder.

May Allah bless all of us.


The verses you quoted are talking about "the people of Lot" and the chapter begins talking about them in verse 51, the verses you've mentioned are explaining how they were seized (overtook) and what is turned upside down is really (the city) where they were. please read carefully and don't post explanation of your own, or cut verses and always put a reference when you quote or explain any verse in Al-Quran.

Here is the Full Chapter in both English and Arabic: http://quran.com/15

I hope this opened an eye for you in the future my friend.

May God bless you Smile)
Bikerman
It doesn't refer to upside down cities at all.
It reads:
Quote:
Preserve (constantly) (i.e., observe strictly) the prayers, and the middle prayer, and rise up devoutly to Allah! Allah causes the sun to rise from the east; then cause it you to rise from the west." So the years) thereafter He made him rise again. He Allah) said, "How ...Those who swallow usury cannot rise up save as he ariseth ...

Please explain how this is interpreted as referring to a city?
And, even supposing this explanation is correct, how does turning a city upside down change east to west? East and west are not locii and do not depend on any particular reference point or landmark for their value. Turning a city upside down would have no effect on the compass directions. In any case, how are the upside-down inhabitants supposed to be functioning? Standing on their heads?
SonLight
Bikerman wrote:
It doesn't refer to upside down cities at all.
It reads:
Quote:
Preserve (constantly) (i.e., observe strictly) the prayers, and the middle prayer, and rise up devoutly to Allah! Allah causes the sun to rise from the east; then cause it you to rise from the west." So the years) thereafter He made him rise again. He Allah) said, "How ...Those who swallow usury cannot rise up save as he ariseth ...

Please explain how this is interpreted as referring to a city?
And, even supposing this explanation is correct, how does turning a city upside down change east to west? East and west are not locii and do not depend on any particular reference point or landmark for their value. Turning a city upside down would have no effect on the compass directions. In any case, how are the upside-down inhabitants supposed to be functioning? Standing on their heads?


Your reference please? I can't match this up with either of the other two versions recently posted; perhaps it is from a different sura but is assumed by some to be related?

It seems very presumptuous to deny a possible interpretation of someone's document with only a single English translation as evidence. As near as I can tell, none of the terms 'city' nor 'Earth' nor 'East' nor 'West' is in the original text in a form that would encourage interpreting it literally. One version quoted here seems to interpret it as "East to West" and the other one as "upside down" -- very plausible if it's intended to be metaphorical, although I admit to no knowledge of the texts involved. Either City or Earth seem plausible candidates for the place involved; perhaps an equivalent English expression is "their world was turned upside down". And if a city had been turned around, whether vertically or horizontally, it follows that the formerly Eastern part (of the city) would become the Western part (of the inverted, or rotated, city).


A common saying among Bible interpreters is that "a text without a context is a pretext". Clearly people in the city where Lot lived are being talked about a few verses above, and the story is well-known from the Bible, referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I did see one interesting interpretation here. Christians (and Jews too, I presume) often wonder why Lot would offer his daughters to be raped by the evildoers. This version suggests that the offer was conditional upon marriage.
Bikerman
'Your postings have been removed since they were stolen m another site without quotation or citation.
You used the Wahhabi Quran used by the person you copied. Use the standards which are all on my Website in electronic searchable format - because I took the time to create a database. I have (as well as the literal) - Yussaf Ali, Pikthall, Mohammed Assad and Shari in original and unedited versions.

I will take no lessons iin honesty from a thief of words; and no lessons in the quran from someone who uses the Wahhabi edited version.

The site you used is most likwly http://prophetofdoom.net/quotes.aspx (there are several with word for word copies of what you posted).

My site is www.bikermab,co,uk abd the e-qurans are in the faith section.
Related topics
10 Greatest inventions...
Want to know if LOVE is real?
How do you want to die
Will the Sun rise tomorrow?
A Wave from England
Do You Know the Sun Will Rise Tommorrow?
What kinds of magic do you know to be false?
Do the pyramids of Giza astound you?
Sunrise from West. "Retrograde Motion"
Are you an early riser? What time do you usually wake up?
A Universal Philosophical Refutation
Sylindrical
Happy Winter Solstice Day!
what is your time zone
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.