Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
Because I am relating the motion of the sun and moon to day and night. The moon cannot outstrip the sun and the night cannot outstrip the day. Both right there, in the same sentence, right next to each other as if they were even said in the same exact breath. Seems far more likely to me that the Quran thought the sun orbited the earth, as the naked eye told 7th century people, then it thought the sun orbited the galaxy. If the repercussions of this weren't so bad, you'd have no problems seeing this clear relationship.
I took the liberty of proofreading and enhancing your post for you.
-
Because it is relating the motion of the sun and moon to day and night. The moon cannot outstrip the sun and the night cannot outstrip the day. Both right there, in the same sentence, right next to each other as if they were even said in the same exact breath. Seems far more likely that the Quran thought the sun orbited the earth, as the naked eye told 7th century people, then it thought the sun orbited the galaxy. If the repercussions of this weren't so bad, you'd have no problems seeing this clear relationship.
It can refer to them both orbiting the galaxy.
-
It can refer to them both orbiting the galaxy.
Oh, so the sun drags the moon around the galaxy and yet the Quran needs to mention that the moon can't catch up to the sun? Hmmmm....What about the earth? How come it didn't tell us that the earth can't catch up to the sun either? Hmmmm.....Maybe it should have told us that no celestial bodies can catch up to the sun, right? But curiously, it only mentions the moon, and it mentions it right next to the mention of the night never catching up to or outstripping the day. But no. Oh no no no. My interpretation is impossible. ;D Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science. But believe me, i know full well that a Muslim simply is not capable of acknowldging things like this, which is how the Quran remains perfect in their world.
-
Ummm
Ummm, people of old DID think the sun orbited the earth, and we find this concept in the hadiths as well. The prophet himself was supposed to have spoken about the sun going somewhere every night and the returning every day and one day, it will return from the opposite direction. If that's not talking about a sun orbiting the earth, I don't know what is.
rotfl
By the way, the first emboldened statement is correct, and the people there are correct, the Sun does and did orbit the Earth, just not through the geodesic.
No, I understood it, and I said that Allah set the orbits of the earth and moon at the right speed so that one wouldn't catch the other. AND I mentioned the clear relation ion the verse between the sun and moon and night and day.
Velocity is a vector. Too bad for you. Yes, there is a clear relation in the verse. You are relating "speed" to the relation. The Quran is relating "direction" or "path" to the relation, as seen in the last part of the verse that clearly states they move on predefined courses, not predefined speeds.
Book full of tautology. Please read your own definition. Your cherry picking of definitions is also pathetic.
You have issues with logic. Generally, one definition of "tautology" does not invalidate the rest. They are all true, which is the whole purpose of a dictionary, to show the possible meanings of a word. Drop this, it's leading nowhere, aside from being convenient to you, because you cannot refute as above, and prefer to talk about an irrelevant definition. You are probably going to point out that the definition is not irrelevant because I mentioned it earlier, but that shows your mindset.
Here are the used definitions
1.) the repetitious or unnecessary use of words that do not provide new information in an utterance, as Hear, hear! or I myself said... Note Tautologies occur commonly in everyday speech. adj. tautologous.
2.) In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new.
3.) A sentence is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false, or if a truth-table for it contains only Ts (True) in the column under the sentence. For example, If today is Monday and I am wearing a red sweater, then I'm wearing a red sweater, Either the moon is made of green cheese or it's not the case that the moon is made of green cheese. The contrast is a self-contradiction, a sentence which is always false; one whose truth table contains only Fs (False). ...
Definition 3.) is the best one here, because the truth table for that verse is exactly so, made up of all truths. Part of the Quran's aim is to be clear and make everything distinct, and nothing does that better than a tautology.
Beliefs have no place or are pointless in a conversation. only logical deduction, which you are not doing very well at so far.
I was talking about your ridiculously restrictive definition of tautology, and your belief that tautology could only mean what is in that definition. Which has no basis in reality as evidenced by items 1, 2, and 3 above.
What the hell are you talking about? "otherwise, they might overtake each other,"?
I am talking about you saying that the verse states "God/Allah/Zeus/Ra has prevented/disallowed".
Sure. Why mention that Allah prevents something from happening, unless it was something that could possibly happen if Allah didn't prevent it? If I travel east and you travel west, does it need to be mentioned that one will not catch up with the other? Of course not. It's a given. But if we both do a circle around the same thing, then it is no longer a given that one would never catch the other, and therefore the statement that the two cannot catch each other (due to allah's control) suddenly becomes very neaningful and worth mentioning. and, to make it even more clear, it tells us that the night cannot catch the day, in the very same verse where it says the moon can't catch the sun. So why are the movements sun and moon and night and day related so closely in the same exact verse?
Take your issue up with the idiots who wanted to burn Galileo, not me. There is no intended meaning, but clarity. The verse does have its meaning, but only when one considers its nature (tautological), implications (refutes the previous geocentricity POV) and context, and not just its content.
It's ridiculous to think that Allah prevents the moon from catching up to the sun? Isn't allah responsible for everything?
Not at all, that isn't ridiculous whatsoever, it is true, in fact. The issue, is again, whether this is active, or passive denial. Activeness requires a subject, passive denial does not require a subject in the sentence. That verse has no subject, meaning it states it passively. In other words, the difference between "possible but prevented", i.e. "active", and "impossible", i.e. "passive". I am arguing for the latter. The simple fact is, that God's will could have been either way, and God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, the creator, chose the passive method. God has power over all things (yet another common theme in the Quran).
Doesn't the day and night refer to the earth? So why shouldn't the sun and moon refer to the earth as well, especially since they are all right next to each other in the same verse. And they are all right next to each other in other verses as well.
They are related, but you are taking the wrong component of the vector, simple as that. In the verse itself, the direction, not the magnitude, is emphasised. So, by your logic, you have to concede that since it relates a vector or two (motions of sun and moon) to day and night, then in the same verse, states they are on a predefined direction, then it is referring to the direction, not speed. Comprende? Your relation between day and night and sun and moon is correct, but not the factors involved.
Passive denial can also simply mean setting the orbit speed for both correctly so that one doesn't catch the other. The concept of one catching the other isn't even relevant if it was talking about two totally unrelated orbits where the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. But boy, is it ever relevant if it was talking about both orbiting the earth
Correct. Unfortunately for you, the verse tends towards completely passive denial, i.e. tautology. See above, the direction is mentioned, not the speed. It is noteworthy, that the Sun and Moon trace close paths to each other in the alternations of the day and night. In either possible instance of passive denial (absolute and otherwise), the verse is correct. From either reference point, the verse is correct. So, the verse is correct for BOTH the previous, 7th century understanding, and also the modern understanding, but nowhere does it say both orbit the Earth through the geodesic, but says they go in their own courses. Great, isn't it?
Yeah, been there, done that. It's an often used excuse, but it never really works. So how fast does the sun travel do to a full circle around the earth?
Roughly 1037 miles per hour (circumference of Earth at Equator * length of day). This is true for the whole universe, in the period of 24 hours.
Then why don't you pay attention to what you write? Didn't you say everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and also say that the solar sytem orbits the earth in 365 days? Go back and read it. Hey, so far, you've been the guy with the holes in your statements, and I don't just make the claim, I show you exactly why.
Both statements are true, and you cannot refute either.
There you go. you just said it again. Clearly you said that everything orbits the earth in 24 hours, relative to the earth and also said everything orbits the earth in 365 days, relative to the earth. That's what you said. Look at it again. It's not my problem that you can't communicate clearly. If you explain things this way, then you're nephew will not understand you as nobody is supposed to understand a contradictory sentence such as that. Would you care to reword this? Thank you.
I stated specifically that it depends on your origin/reference point.
Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science.
No it doesn't. From our perception, that interpretation is correct, in reality, the other interpretation is correct. Choose as you will, I prefer the reality option.
-
Oh, so the sun drags the moon around the galaxy and yet the Quran needs to mention that the moon can't catch up to the sun? Hmmmm....What about the earth? How come it didn't tell us that the earth can't catch up to the sun either? Hmmmm.....Maybe it should have told us that no celestial bodies can catch up to the sun, right? But curiously, it only mentions the moon, and it mentions it right next to the mention of the night never catching up to or outstripping the day. But no. Oh no no no. My interpretation is impossible. ;D Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science. But believe me, i know full well that a Muslim simply is not capable of acknowldging things like this, which is how the Quran remains perfect in their world.
It says the moon does not catch up to the sun. Simple isn't it? Where is the problem here?
-
I've already explained it many times over. You are merely in stonewalling mode now. Gee, why didn't you just do this is the first place?
Where does it say that both the moon and the sun orbit the earth?
-
Where does it say that both the moon and the sun orbit the earth?
It doesn't. So why should we think it's talking about something else, when it also mentions day and night right next to it? What reason do we have to think that it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? In fact, the concept of the galaxy is never really found in the Quran, but the earth is all over the Quran. But yet, we're supposed to think that the Quran was speaking about an orbit around something it never even mentions rather than the earth which it mentions all of the time and is related to night and day? Hardly. What would be the reason for thinking it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? If it was, then perhaps scholars would have made reference to this before science recently discovered the sun orbits a galaxy. But that is nowhere to be found. But only after science discovers this does the Quran NOW talk about an orbit around the galaxy. See what happens? It's such blatant subjectivity that it might as well be called outright logical cheating.
-
It doesn't. So why should we think it's talking about something else, when it also mentions day and night right next to it? What reason do we have to think that it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? In fact, the concept of the galaxy is never really found in the Quran, but the earth is all over the Quran. But yet, we're supposed to think that the Quran was speaking about an orbit around something it never even mentions rather than the earth which it mentions all of the time and is related to night and day? Hardly. What would be the reason for thinking it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? If it was, then perhaps scholars would have made reference to this before science recently discovered the sun orbits a galaxy. But that is nowhere to be found. But only after science discovers this does the Quran NOW talk about an orbit around the galaxy. See what happens? It's such blatant subjectivity that it might as well be called outright logical cheating.
The concept of universe is found in the Quran, and galaxies are part of universe, so it can mean they orbit around the universe. And what's got day and night to do with the moon and the sun orbiting around the earth as you want to put it? You are simply adding to the Quran.
-
It doesn't. So why should we think it's talking about something else, when it also mentions day and night right next to it? What reason do we have to think that it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? In fact, the concept of the galaxy is never really found in the Quran, but the earth is all over the Quran. But yet, we're supposed to think that the Quran was speaking about an orbit around something it never even mentions rather than the earth which it mentions all of the time and is related to night and day? Hardly. What would be the reason for thinking it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? If it was, then perhaps scholars would have made reference to this before science recently discovered the sun orbits a galaxy. But that is nowhere to be found. But only after science discovers this does the Quran NOW talk about an orbit around the galaxy. See what happens? It's such blatant subjectivity that it might as well be called outright logical cheating.
So... where's the discrepancy again?
-
So... where's the discrepancy again?
He's simply adding to the Quran. Too desperate.
-
So... where's the discrepancy again?
The sun orbiting the earth. Why do you think the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the galaxy? I've given all sorts of reasons as to why we should think the Quran is referring to an orbit around the earth, and not one single person has given one single reason why we should instead think the Quran is talking about an orbit around the galaxy. Want more discrepancies? Look at my other threads. Plenty of discrepancies. Muhammad simply had no idea they were discepancies at the time he wrote them.
-
The sun orbiting the earth.
No, this is not in the Quran.
Why do you think the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the galaxy?
Because it is the logical thing to do?
I've given all sorts of reasons as to why we should think the Quran is referring to an orbit around the earth,
You have done no such things.
and not one single person has given one single reason why we should instead think the Quran is talking about an orbit around the galaxy.
How about logic?
Want more discrepancies? Look at my other threads. Plenty of discrepancies.
Refuted.
Muhammad simply had no idea they were discepancies at the time he wrote them.
Prophet Muhammed did not write the Quran.
-
not one single person has given one single reason why we should instead think the Quran is talking about an orbit around the galaxy.
Simply, the verse states three things - the Sun and Moon will not overtake each other, the Day and Night will not overtake each other, and the Sun and Moon follow predefined paths.
You took A and B, the relation between sun and moon, day and night, to conclude "God fixed the speed as constants" and conveniently left out C, the rest of the verse which shows God fixed the paths as constants, with the boundary specified. You are confused as to which component of their vectors is varied and which is constant, simple as that.
If that isn't a plausible reason, you have issues unsolvable on Free-Minds, and like I said, you should visit a psychoanalyst instead.
-
rotfl
By the way, the first emboldened statement is correct, and the people there are correct, the Sun does and did orbit the Earth, just not through the geodesic.
Velocity is a vector. Too bad for you. Yes, there is a clear relation in the verse. You are relating "speed" to the relation. The Quran is relating "direction" or "path" to the relation, as seen in the last part of the verse that clearly states they move on predefined courses, not predefined speeds.
That does not mean that it's course if what prevents them from catching up to each other. It does not say that in the least
You have issues with logic. Generally, one definition of "tautology" does not invalidate the rest. They are all true, which is the whole purpose of a dictionary, to show the possible meanings of a word. Drop this, it's leading nowhere,
Look, i quoted something from something YOU linked. So don't blame me.
aside from being convenient to you, because you cannot refute as above, and prefer to talk about an irrelevant definition.
You introduced it, not me.
You are probably going to point out that the definition is not irrelevant because I mentioned it earlier, but that shows your mindset.
Then why did you even bring it up? What does you logic say about that?
Here are the used definitions
1.) the repetitious or unnecessary use of words that do not provide new information in an utterance, as Hear, hear! or I myself said... Note Tautologies occur commonly in everyday speech. adj. tautologous.
2.) In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new.
3.) A sentence is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false, or if a truth-table for it contains only Ts (True) in the column under the sentence. For example, If today is Monday and I am wearing a red sweater, then I'm wearing a red sweater, Either the moon is made of green cheese or it's not the case that the moon is made of green cheese. The contrast is a self-contradiction, a sentence which is always false; one whose truth table contains only Fs (False). ...
Definition 3.) is the best one here, because the truth table for that verse is exactly so, made up of all truths. Part of the Quran's aim is to be clear and make everything distinct, and nothing does that better than a tautology.
Then why did you give me a link where the first definitions found were ones that matched the definition i used? Did you even read what you linked?
I was talking about your ridiculously restrictive definition of tautology, and your belief that tautology could only mean what is in that definition. Which has no basis in reality as evidenced by items 1, 2, and 3 above.
I am talking about you saying that the verse states "God/Allah/Zeus/Ra has prevented/disallowed".
If annything is disallowed, isn't it Allah that does this?
Take your issue up with the idiots who wanted to burn Galileo, not me. There is no intended meaning, but clarity. The verse does have its meaning, but only when one considers its nature (tautological), implications (refutes the previous geocentricity POV) and context, and not just its content.
Why don't you simply put this into plain, simple english. You're hiding behind convolutions.
Not at all, that isn't ridiculous whatsoever, it is true, in fact. The issue, is again, whether this is active, or passive denial. Activeness requires a subject, passive denial does not require a subject in the sentence. That verse has no subject, meaning it states it passively. In other words, the difference between "possible but prevented", i.e. "active", and "impossible", i.e. "passive". I am arguing for the latter.
Would it be impossible if God set the orbits speeds correctly? Anyway, whether it's passive or active haven't been thoroughly established. I'm just going along with it because the sun can be prevented from catching the earth in a passive situation as well as active
The simple fact is, that God's will could have been either way, and God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, the creator, chose the passive method. God has power over all things (yet another common theme in the Quran).
That actually is not fully established yet, but again, I'll go along with it because it is most certainly possible to prevent the moon from catching up to the sun in a passive manner in the case of both orbiting the aeth. so again, this passive and active stuff isn't all that relevant, because my interpratation can work for both.
They are related, but you are taking the wrong component of the vector, simple as that. In the verse itself, the direction, not the magnitude, is emphasised.
So what? It also talks about "one catching up to the other". Does that denote speed? Should we include that in the context?
So, by your logic, you have to concede that since it relates a vector or two (motions of sun and moon) to day and night, then in the same verse, states they are on a predefined direction, then it is referring to the direction, not speed. Comprende?
How about direction AND speed? Comprende? Does catch up to or outstrip specifically mean direction, or does it also involve speed? If something collides with something, we say collide or intersect. but is says catch up or outstrip. It says the same thing about night and day as well. Does night and day mean direction or time and speed? Comprende?
Your relation between day and night and sun and moon is correct, but not the factors involved.
Well then answer it, ok? and make it good for once.
Correct. Unfortunately for you, the verse tends towards completely passive denial, i.e. tautology.
And as I've told you, my idea can work in either the passive or active. So why are we still going over this?
See above, the direction is mentioned, not the speed.
And night and day do not catch up to each other either. Is that direction that causes that also? Debunked.
It is noteworthy, that the Sun and Moon trace close paths to each other in the alternations of the day and night.
What?
In either possible instance of passive denial (absolute and otherwise), the verse is correct. From either reference point, the verse is correct. So, the verse is correct for BOTH the previous, 7th century understanding, and also the modern understanding, but nowhere does it say both orbit the Earth through the geodesic, but says they go in their own courses. Great, isn't it?
Sure, so what is the Quran telling us that the earth orbits and why? Why is it telling us it orbits the galaxy? You won't answer this.
Roughly 1037 miles per hour (circumference of Earth at Equator * length of day). This is true for the whole universe, in the period of 24 hours.
The sun orbits the galaxy at 50400 miles per hour. So what are you talking about? Is this yet another blunder from the scientific genius? Were you the guy that said comets were dust trails or was it someone else?
Both statements are true, and you cannot refute either.
How fast does the sun travel around the galaxy?
I stated specifically that it depends on your origin/reference point.
From which point of view , besides the earth, does the sun orbit the earth?
No it doesn't. From our perception, that interpretation is correct, in reality, the other interpretation is correct. Choose as you will, I prefer the reality option.
In regards to the sun and earth, what does one observe from an objective third point of view such as a space shuttle? Do we watch the sun go behind the earth and then return in 24 hours? When in a space shuttle, do we naturally travel around the earth along with the rest of the universe seeing all of the different parts of the earth? Does the earth spin at all or is that just our perception? Would you care to explain how we got geostationary satellites to works? They couldn't work unless the earth actually and truly spins This whole physics nonsense is designed to be nothing but an attempt at convolution to smokescreen the clear errors. Yes, things are relative, but that's not good enough to hide the errors. Nice try.
-
That does not mean that it's course if what prevents them from catching up to each other. It does not say that in the least
Then the Sun and Moon are not necessarily related to the day and night mentioned directly next to it, in the same verse ). Double standards are very convenient, nice try. There is no way out for you because this verse simply cannot be disproved, and the only thing you can do is attribute a supposed 7th century understanding of the universe - even though the verse is perfectly in line with the modern understanding.
Look, i quoted something from something YOU linked. So don't blame me.
So what? If I quoted a devout atheist who said a sensible quote, does that mean I follow atheism?
Then why did you even bring it up? What does you logic say about that?
Actually, I did not bring it up. All I did was point out that the Quran pointing out the obvious (to us) is a very common theme, and you spun it into an argument over the meaning of "tautology".
Then why did you give me a link where the first definitions found were ones that matched the definition i used? Did you even read what you linked?
The broadest, most generic definition applies.
If anything is disallowed, isn't it Allah that does this?
Yes. The difference is, that "it is not allowed that" or "it is not decreed that" is different from "Allah decreed that", because the first is in the passive/negative sense, and the latter is in the active/positive sense.
Why don't you simply put this into plain, simple english. You're hiding behind convolutions.
Alright. The verse and other cross-references make it very clear that heliocentricity is correct, because the Quran describes phenomena arising from heliocentricity, and assigns them to the celestial bodies they came from. What you said was something along the lines of "the verse has meaning only with this understanding". But, the rest of the Quran simply refutes that understanding wholesale, meaning the Quran supports an absolutely passive stance, a tautology, i.e. truth table full of truths.
Would it be impossible if God set the orbits speeds correctly? Anyway, whether it's passive or active haven't been thoroughly established. I'm just going along with it because the sun can be prevented from catching the earth in a passive situation as well as active
According to God's law, yes. I hope you realise the sheer absurdity of what you are saying. The Quran simply does not point to the Sun and Moon being on the same path.
For instance, in 2189, God defines the new moon as a measuring system or time of benefit for mankind. This is impossible with both Sun and Moon on the same path and with fixed velocities, for two obvious reasons. The phases would not exist, meaning no new moon would exist, in such a system and because there would be no advantage to using the moon instead of the sun in such a system.
The most damning evidence is 105 where the Sun is linked to the years, and the moon to be linked to the months (the count of which is 12 per solar year, by God's decree in 936). 105 amd 106 challenge the reader to look for signs, and simply put, 105 conforms to reality like no other - it is heliocentric no matter what spin you wish to put on it.
Now, in 3129, it makes the case for the curvature of Earth, and again, geocentricity, by stating that night merges into day and vice versa - something that can only happen with curvature. Of course, anyone could have observed that. But when this is linked to the movement of the bodies, this goes against a concept of flat Earth. In 3130, it shows a very important principle - Allah or God or Zeus or Ra is "Al-Haq", truth, or reality. If you are aware, these two concepts are intertwined - there can be no falsehood in reality, and describing reality is equal to telling the truth. When God states he is reality, and truth, then challenges us to look to reality to verify the Quran, my belief is sealed. This is also another verse where anthropomorphism is rejected, and God is shown to be conceptual (I'm taking liberties with that word).
In 3513, we have the direct link between day and night merging, and sun and moon running their appointed terms, as mentioned in 3129.
3639 - same theme. Interesting reference to a palm branch - see http//www.answering-christianity.com/moon_orbit_miracle.htm. Same theme echoed in 395, the overlapping of day and night linked to the sun and moon's course. 4137 describes the two bodies as signs of God - another challenge to the reader to ensure their understanding is in line with reality.
756-7510 describes an eclipse occurring. There is, only one way for that to occur. In reality, eclipses DID NOT ALWAYS OCCUR - we coincidentally ()) happened to spawn on Earth at the very time the sun and moon lined up as needed and the phenomenon began.
That actually is not fully established yet, but again, I'll go along with it because it is most certainly possible to prevent the moon from catching up to the sun in a passive manner in the case of both orbiting the aeth. so again, this passive and active stuff isn't all that relevant, because my interpratation can work for both.
Yes. Though the state of passiveness is already established based on cross-reference.
So what? It also talks about "one catching up to the other". Does that denote speed? Should we include that in the context?
Parallel lines stretch for infinite lengths, if the Sun and Moon traced these paths through space, are their speeds relevant? Same thing here, given their paths. So, speed or not, it matters not. The Sun could be moving at 0mph and the Moon at infinity mph, they won't touch. Presumably, the geodesics for the Sun and Moon are parallel. Way out of the depth of my knowledge though.
How about direction AND speed? Comprende? Does catch up to or outstrip specifically mean direction, or does it also involve speed? If something collides with something, we say collide or intersect. but is says catch up or outstrip. It says the same thing about night and day as well. Does night and day mean direction or time and speed? Comprende?
Night and day is associated with the predetermined paths in the Quran, see above for cross-reference based understanding. This includes both speed and such. It must include speed if we take into account that the year is defined as 12 lunar orbits.
And as I've told you, my idea can work in either the passive or active. So why are we still going over this?
To reinforce and restate the obvious.
And night and day do not catch up to each other either. Is that direction that causes that also? Debunked.
Speed has nothing to do with it either. It actually is related to the path of the Earth around the Sun, and the curvature of the Earth. The Quran describes night merging into day merging into night, ad nauseum. The case for heliocentricity has already been made.
What?
Just a thought. The Quranic verse is correct on many dimensions of thinking.
Sure, so what is the Quran telling us that the earth orbits and why? Why is it telling us it orbits the galaxy? You won't answer this.
It isn't telling us that it orbits the galaxies. It is telling us the Sun and Moon follow their predefined course, and that we count the months as 12 per year, based on the new moon. By deduction, we will go nowhere (or probably will end up with heliocentrism, after a while), but take the Quran's challenge and compare its statements to reality and it fits like a glove.
The sun orbits the galaxy at 50400 miles per hour. So what are you talking about? Is this yet another blunder from the scientific genius? Were you the guy that said comets were dust trails or was it someone else?
Actually, you said a few dodgy things. I said comets were made of dust and gas and had trails of dust and nothing more, also that meteors vary in size. The universe orbits the Earth, relative to Earth, at that given speed. Nothing more. You said that meteors come only from comets, go figure.
How fast does the sun travel around the galaxy?
Ask a physicist. Irrelevant question. Please explain why this matters.
From which point of view , besides the earth, does the sun orbit the earth?
Certainly not from the point of view of Earth. I said reference point/origin, not point of view. It may help to think of the solar system as a 3D graph.
In regards to the sun and earth, what does one observe from an objective third point of view such as a space shuttle? Do we watch the sun go behind the earth and then return in 24 hours? When in a space shuttle, do we naturally travel around the earth along with the rest of the universe seeing all of the different parts of the earth? Does the earth spin at all or is that just our perception? Would you care to explain how we got geostationary satellites to works? They couldn't work unless the earth actually and truly spins This whole physics nonsense is designed to be nothing but an attempt at convolution to smokescreen the clear errors. Yes, things are relative, but that's not good enough to hide the errors. Nice try.
Yes, you see the Sun go behind the Earth (depending on distance, obviously) and return. And yes, for the second. It's relative. Same for the third, it's both. Fourth, the geostationary satellite rotates with the entire universe around the Earth. Not difficult to grasp. Of course the Earth spins, I said exactly that, but you stated something to the effect of "The Earth has a rotational speed of x relative to the universe" and I stated "the universe has a rotational speed of -x relative to the Earth". Same thing.
Peace...
-
No, this is not in the Quran.Because it is the logical thing to do?
Why would that be logical? I know it's logical to assume that science is correct when they say that the sun is orbiting the galaxy, but why, exactly, does it make it logical for the Quran to mean this as well? You know precisely what this question is pointing to.
-
The sun orbiting the earth. Why do you think the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the galaxy? I've given all sorts of reasons as to why we should think the Quran is referring to an orbit around the earth, and not one single person has given one single reason why we should instead think the Quran is talking about an orbit around the galaxy. Want more discrepancies? Look at my other threads. Plenty of discrepancies. Muhammad simply had no idea they were discepancies at the time he wrote them.
No, I didn't say it meant anything, because it neither said around the galaxy or around the earth. It is open to interpretation. You, however, attach one interpretation to it as if it is objectively true, and then call it a discrepancy. That is all. I assure you, all your so-called discrepancies will (and have) have the above attribute. Next..
-
DON'T REPLY YET...
Then the Sun and Moon are not necessarily related to the day and night mentioned directly next to it, in the same verse ). Double standards are very convenient, nice try.
Yes, not necessarily, which says nothing about probability or how likely something is. Just because it mentions both in the same breath, that doesn't mean we are 100% sure that they are being related. I suppose 90% sure isn't nearly good enough and needs to be completely discarded and the matter closed up. ;D
There is no way out for you because this verse simply cannot be disproved, and the only thing you can do is attribute a supposed 7th century understanding of the universe - even though the verse is perfectly in line with the modern understanding.
I don't think any modern writer, poet or plain average Jo would ever associate night and day with the movement of the sun and moon with night and day and therefore would never mention them in the same breath. Now, if it instead mentioned the movement of the earth in the same verse as night and day, then we might have something good going on. But nope. Nothing like that. It's moon sun, night day. The movements are associated with the states. Having them in the same exact verse, right next to each other, and then having them bundled as all makes this even more likely. Hey, at some point, we decide what a verse most likely says, right? Nothing will ever be proven as 100% wrong as long as the human mind decides to get creative. Creativity is almost endless. But at some point, one has to step back and decide what is most likely.
So what? If I quoted a devout atheist who said a sensible quote, does that mean I follow atheism?
Actually, I did not bring it up. All I did was point out that the Quran pointing out the obvious (to us) is a very common theme, and you spun it into an argument over the meaning of "tautology".
The broadest, most generic definition applies.
Yes. The difference is, that "it is not allowed that" or "it is not decreed that" is different from "Allah decreed that", because the first is in the passive/negative sense, and the latter is in the active/positive sense.
Alright. The verse and other cross-references make it very clear that heliocentricity is correct, because the Quran describes phenomena arising from heliocentricity,
Where? Be specific.
and assigns them to the celestial bodies they came from. What you said was something along the lines of "the verse has meaning only with this understanding". But, the rest of the Quran simply refutes that understanding wholesale, meaning the Quran supports an absolutely passive stance, a tautology, i.e. truth table full of truths.
And for the hundredth time, I don't care about passive or active because my idea works in either case. I don't care about passive or active. I don't care about passive or active. I don't care about passive or active. Why do you continually stick to this when it doesn't matter either way to my point?
According to God's law, yes. I hope you realise the sheer absurdity of what you are saying. The Quran simply does not point to the Sun and Moon being on the same path.
I didn't say the same path, I said they orbit the same thing. That didn't work.
For instance, in 2189, God defines the new moon as a measuring system or time of benefit for mankind. This is impossible with both Sun and Moon on the same path and with fixed velocities, for two obvious reasons. The phases would not exist, meaning no new moon would exist, in such a system and because there would be no advantage to using the moon instead of the sun in such a system.
See above. Anyway, to be specific, the moon was specifically thought to be used for measurement of months and the sun for days.
The most damning evidence is 105 where the Sun is linked to the years, and the moon to be linked to the months (the count of which is 12 per solar year, by God's decree in 936). 105 amd 106 challenge the reader to look for signs, and simply put, 105 conforms to reality like no other - it is heliocentric no matter what spin you wish to put on it.
105 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.
106 Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day, and in all that Allah hath created, in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who fear Him.
Which one is keeping the time of year, the sun or the moon?
http//www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=10&tid=22395
(5. It is He Who made the sun a shining thing and the moon as a light and measured out for it stages that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create this but in truth. He explains the Ayat in detail for people who have knowledge.) (6. Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day and in all that Allah has created in the heavens and the earth are Ayat for those who have Taqwa.)
Allah tells us about the signs He created that are indicative of His complete power and great might. He made the rays that come forth from the bright sun as the source of light, and made the beams that come forth from the moon as light. He made them of two different natures so they would not be confused with one another. Allah made the dominion of the sun in the daytime and the moon in the night. He ordained phases for the moon, where it starts small then its light increases until it completes a full moon. Then it begins to decrease until it returns to its first phase at the conclusion of the month. Allah said
(And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old dried curved date stalk. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.) (3639-40) And He said
(And the sun and the moon for counting) And in this Ayah He said
(and measured) that is the moon, Allah said
(And measured out for it stages that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. '' The days are revealed by the action of the sun, and the months and the years by the moon. Allah then stated
[
Looks like it's the moon, not the sun. Instead, the action of the sun reveal and count the days. Hmmmm.....That's what I thought too.
Now, in 3129, it makes the case for the curvature of Earth, and again, geocentricity, by stating that night merges into day and vice versa - something that can only happen with curvature.
Well, that's not really true. What exactly is the difference between our observation of a horizon and an observation from a flat surface? In both cases, the light gradually appears and disappears. So he's still only talking about something obvious to any naked eye
Of course, anyone could have observed that. But when this is linked to the movement of the bodies, this goes against a concept of flat Earth. In 3130, it shows a very important principle - Allah or God or Zeus or Ra is "Al-Haq", truth, or reality. If you are aware, these two concepts are intertwined - there can be no falsehood in reality, and describing reality is equal to telling the truth. When God states he is reality, and truth, then challenges us to look to reality to verify the Quran, my belief is sealed. This is also another verse where anthropomorphism is rejected, and God is shown to be conceptual (I'm taking liberties with that word)
What the heck are you going off about? Can't you stick to the subject?
In 3513, we have the direct link between day and night merging, and sun and moon running their appointed terms, as mentioned in 3129.
3639 - same theme. Interesting reference to a palm branch - see http//www.answering-christianity.com/moon_orbit_miracle.htm. Same theme echoed in 395, the overlapping of day and night linked to the sun and moon's course. 4137 describes the two bodies as signs of God - another challenge to the reader to ensure their understanding is in line with reality.Yes, seems like they are almost ALWAYS mentioned together, night. day, movement of the moon, movement of the sun. So what's that trying to tell us?
756-7510 describes an eclipse occurring. There is, only one way for that to occur. In reality, eclipses DID NOT ALWAYS OCCUR - we coincidentally ()) happened to spawn on Earth at the very time the sun and moon lined up as needed and the phenomenon began.
Peace...
What the...?
-
Why would that be logical? I know it's logical to assume that science is correct when they say that the sun is orbiting the galaxy, but why, exactly, does it make it logical for the Quran to mean this as well? You know precisely what this question is pointing to.
It can mean that both revolve around thier own axis.