The Asteroid 2007 WD5 will not impact Mars.

[Dexter Sinister]

The Sumerian perished because they were idolaters worshipping stones and the stars of the sky;

You're not getting away with nonsense like that in a science thread. They didn't worship stones and stars, they had quite a complex pantheon of gods, as you'd know if you relied on anything other than religious texts for your information. One of the factors in Sumeria's decline was salinization of the soil and reduced agricultural yields. They lived in the alluvial basin between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and centuries of irrigation in a high-evaporation zone eventually left a load of hard water minerals in the soil. The effects are still visible. That's a problem common to all irrigation systems even today. Another factor in their decline was the rise of neighbours like the Babylonians, another pack of idolaters in your terms. Many of the Old Testament stories originated with the Sumerians. You'll find the flood story, for instance, in the Sumerian tale of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[eanassir]

You're not getting away with nonsense like that in a science thread. They didn't worship stones and stars, they had quite a complex pantheon of gods, as you'd know if you relied on anything other than religious texts for your information. One of the factors in Sumeria's decline was salinization of the soil and reduced agricultural yields. They lived in the alluvial basin between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and centuries of irrigation in a high-evaporation zone eventually left a load of hard water minerals in the soil. The effects are still visible. That's a problem common to all irrigation systems even today. Another factor in their decline was the rise of neighbours like the Babylonians, another pack of idolaters in your terms. Many of the Old Testament stories originated with the Sumerians. You'll find the flood story, for instance, in the Sumerian tale of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The "pantheon of gods" which was constructed in a ladder pattern; this indicates their idolatry and polytheism, in comparison to the monotheism that their citizen Prophet Abraham commanded them, but they denied him, and he then left them and migrated to the land of Canaan and after his departure God punished them.

I don't think that the salinization of the soil was the reason for their disappearance; because many folks came after them in the same land till today. Moreover, the alluvial plain was still fresh in its formation and development, and no such salt might have been a problem (may be!) ; its capital Ur was near the gulf at that time, then the plain extended by the alluvial precipitation.

The flood story was narrated from the time of Noah who was before Abraham; Abraham was one of the shia'a cult of Noah and his family; then God guided him to realize the truth and to be a monotheist and a prophet.

And because God sent a large number of apostles to various nations and each apostle came with the tongue or the language of his own people, but later on such messages were altered and distorted by time; therefore we find similarities between many cultures concerning the flood of Noah and other stories.​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't think that the salinization of the soil was the reason for their disappearance;

I didn't say it was, I said it was one of the factors in their decline.

...the alluvial plain was still fresh in its formation and development...

Really? How old do you think that landscape is? Are you one of those people who think the planet's only about 6000 years old?

 

[eanassir]

I didn't say it was, I said it was one of the factors in their decline. Really? How old do you think that landscape is? Are you one of those people who think the planet's only about 6000 years old?

I don't know how old was it. But there is annual or continuous precipitation that lead to more extension of the plain into the gulf which will retreat by time.

The planet is not only about 6000 years, but its creation or transformation from a hot sun into a planet having a cold crust took 2000 years, and other 4000 years for the settling of the mountains on it and thickening of its crust; the sum is 6000 years. But from then till now we don't know how long.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's the nature of science and critical thinking, my friends. I don't want to believe, I want to know, and in the absence of good evidence I will not believe. The methods of science are the only reliable means we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas, and that they work spectacularly well is undeniable. The medical knowledge that prolongs our lives and the technical knowledge that's created the computers and networks that enable us to talk on on this message board are all products of science, and they work whether you believe in them or not. Belief doesn't enter into it, and the lesson seems clear to me: where belief is a critical factor in whether something is perceived to work or not work, we're probably deceiving ourselves.

Is the taste of a raspberry the product of science? Belief enters into everything, if there were no belief in experimentation there would be no experimentation, no inquiery, no discovery An idea must be believed or it will not be persued through experimentation to a conclusion/fact.
The nature of criticle thinking is not confined to science. Experimentation is not confined to science. Science is depentent on reason and logic and belief without which none of it works. You would not think to experiment if belief in reason did not suggest progress.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You miss the point entirely Beave, commit the fallacy of equivocation, and ignore the context of what I wrote.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...its creation or transformation from a hot sun into a planet having a cold crust took 2000 years, and other 4000 years for the settling of the mountains on it and thickening of its crust; the sum is 6000 years. But from then till now we don't know how long.

The earth was never a hot sun, it isn't big enough to sustain fusion reactions. Mountains did not settle onto it, they're generated by internal processes of the earth itself. And we do know at least approximately how old the earth is, about 4,500 million years.

 

[#juan]

The earth was never a hot sun, it isn't big enough to sustain fusion reactions. Mountains did not settle onto it, they're generated by internal processes of the earth itself. And we do know at least approximately how old the earth is, about 4,500 million years.

You might want to make that billions to satisfy the nit-pickers......:lol:.....I would guess it was a typo..

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You might want to make that billions to satisfy the nit-pickers......:lol:.....I would guess it was a typo..

Uh... no, I don't think so. 4,500 million is 4.5 billion in North American usage. To us a billion is a thousand million, 1,000,000,000, to most Europeans it's a million million, 1,000,000,000,000, and the generally accepted age of the earth is about 4,500,000,000 years.

 

[eanassir]

That's absolute nonsense eanassir. There is nothing in orbital mechanics that relates the period of an orbit around a body to the body's period of rotation. It depends on only two things: the masses of the two bodies, and the distance between them. Satellites in low earth orbit complete the trip in a little under 90 minutes. There are hundreds of things in orbit around the earth that complete an orbit in a lot less time than 24 hours. There are millions of things in orbit around Saturn that revolve around the planet faster than it rotates. Every one of them gives the lie to Velikovsky's ignorant claim, and yours.

I asked, by e mail, a Canadian Astronomer, specialist in this field: Professor Paul Wiegert, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario :
> Do such rocks circle around the earth in less than 24 hours duration
or longer?
And he replied:​

"None of these rocks can circle the Earth that quickly. The Moon does it
in a month, the others all take about a year. Any rocks which were close
enough to orbit the Earth that fast (24 hours) would have already been
seen (its a curious fact that anything orbiting the Earth will orbit
faster if it is closer, regardless of its mass, shape, etc)"

 

[eanassir]

The earth was never a hot sun, it isn't big enough to sustain fusion reactions. Mountains did not settle onto it, they're generated by internal processes of the earth itself. And we do know at least approximately how old the earth is, about 4,500 million years.

The earth together with the rest of the planets were one sun;
that sun was converted into an earth with a crust, thin at the start;
then it was exploded into nine pieces that formed the present planets which started to rotate around the nearest sun: our present sun.

This is more correct and reasonable than all other theories.


There were two main theories; just 30 years ago:
1- the present planets formed from repeated explosions of the sun, throwing masses in the space that formed the present planets.
2- there approached another sun that pulled a cigar like projection out of our sun, and this cigar-like projection formed the planets with different masses.

Therefore, you cannot depend on theories and take that for certain, because everyday there will be new theories . One told me another strange theory that the planets are formed from the uniting of planetoids after their collision with each other.

See the answer about such theories here:
http://universeandquran.741.com/#FormationofEarth

eanassir

http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're wrong about everything again, as usual. The earth and all the other planets and asteroids and so on in the solar system together don't form a large enough mass to make a sun either. The minimum size for something to be a star is about four one hundredths, 0.04, of the sun's mass. All the matter in the solar system outside the sun adds up to less than half of that. The sun explosively ejecting the planets or a close approach by another star have never been serious contenders as an explanation for the origin of the solar system. The current explanation is what's called the nebular hypothesis, which has been around since the middle of the 18th century

Professor Wiegert is correct, you're misinterpreting his answer or you asked him the wrong question, because he confirms what I said, not what you and Velikovsky claim. There are no known natural objects of any significant size that orbit the earth in less than 24 hours, if there were we'd have seen them, but he doesn't say it's impossible, in fact he says quite the opposite: "anything orbiting the Earth will orbit it faster if it is closer" and in cases where the mass of the orbiting object is negligible compared to the earth's mass we can leave it out of the calculations, it won't materially affect the body's orbit. Ask him the right question: is it possible for a natural object to orbit the earth in less than 24 hours; the answer to that is yes. From the wording of his answer, you appear to have asked him if there are any such objects; the answer to that is no. In fact, send him this paragraph, or anything else I've written in this thread. He'll confirm that I'm right.

 

[Tonington]

For those keeping score, I believe it's Science: 54, Appeals to authority: 0

DS, you've shown great patience here. Perhaps Eanassir can benefit from the correspondence, provided he asks the right questions. Though I'm not sure how credible Wiegert would seem to Eanassir, if he disagreed with the metaphysical Quran explanations of our physical universe.

 

[eanassir]

The earth and all the other planets and asteroids and so on in the solar system together don't form a large enough mass to make a sun either. The minimum size for something to be a star is about four one hundredths, 0.04, of the sun's mass. All the matter in the solar system outside the sun adds up to less than half of that.

The sun that exploded (the mother of our planets) was smaller than the present sun. This our sun will break up into nineteen planets. The new planets will be attracted to a sun much bigger than the present sun. Each sun will be bigger than the previous one.

The sun explosively ejecting the planets or a close approach by another star have never been serious contenders as an explanation for the origin of the solar system.

You say so now, but such theories were outstanding then.

The current explanation is what's called the nebular hypothesis, which has been around since the middle of the 18th century

It will never be a fact or a rule.

From the wording of his answer, you appear to have asked him if there are any such objects; the answer to that is no. In fact, send him this paragraph, or anything else I've written in this thread. He'll confirm that I'm right.

I don't know the man; he may not be willing to answer; but I may try later.

eanassir

http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[eanassir]

For those keeping score, I believe it's Science: 54, Appeals to authority: 0

DS, you've shown great patience here. Perhaps Eanassir can benefit from the correspondence, provided he asks the right questions. Though I'm not sure how credible Wiegert would seem to Eanassir, if he disagreed with the metaphysical Quran explanations of our physical universe.

Of course neither this man nor any other may be comparable to the absolute knowledge of God and his Glorious Quran.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You say so now, but such theories were outstanding then.

No, that's not true. 30 years ago I was just out of university after formally studying such things for most of a decade, and those theories are not what I was taught.

Of course neither this man nor any other may be comparable to the absolute knowledge of God and his Glorious Quran.

That's the bottom line for you, obviously, the ultimate out for anything anyone says that you can't understand or don't want to know. God may indeed have absolute knowledge, assuming he exists at all, but if the material you've tried to pass off as science and scientific thinking here is indicative, he didn't reveal any of it in the Quran.

 

[eanassir]

No, that's not true. 30 years ago I was just out of university after formally studying such things for most of a decade, and those theories are not what I was taught. That's the bottom line for you, obviously, the ultimate out for anything anyone says that you can't understand or don't want to know. God may indeed have absolute knowledge, assuming he exists at all, but if the material you've tried to pass off as science and scientific thinking here is indicative, he didn't reveal any of it in the Quran.

Yes, that's, what I told you, is true. I studied a book entitled "Astronomy" printed or published at London in the 70s; this book is not available with me now; when I restore it, I may tell you the names of its authors; it was a series of science books written by specialists in the different fields; he mentioned these two theories as the outstanding ones, and did not mention any other theory.

Moreover, I will not be -like some- to found my doctrine according to frail theories that are changeable, and leave the All-Wise God's word in the Quran.

eanassir

http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, that's, what I told you, is true. I studied a book entitled "Astronomy" printed or published at London in the 70s;

You just had an out of date reference, that's all. Those theories haven't been taken seriously since the 1950s. The references I have at hand show the transition to the nebular hypothesis occurring in the late 1960s and early 1970s as it became apparent that the catastrophist hypotheses couldn't work. In fact the only reference I have that doesn't explicitly reject those theories is an old children's encyclopedia dated 1949.

Moreover, I will not be -like some- to found my doctrine according to frail theories that are changeable, and leave the All-Wise God's word in the Quran.

Boy, you really just don't get it. Changeability is not a sign of frailty or weakness in a scientific theory, it's science's greatest strength. Theories change and grow, and are sometimes completely tossed out and replaced, as new information and deeper understandings become available. Science is self-correcting and self-improving in a way your dogmatic religiosity can never be, and as long as you remain stuck in it, you're never going to understand how to think clearly.

But as long as you continue to post religious maundering as science in a science forum, I'm going to keep kicking it to pieces. Post it in a religious discussion and I'll leave you alone. I know you're never going to accept or understand anything I tell you, and frankly I really don't care what you think, you're deluded beyond the reach of reason and evidence, but you're not getting away with misleading anybody else if I can help it.

 

[eanassir]

You just had an out of date reference, that's all. Those theories haven't been taken seriously since the 1950s. The references I have at hand show the transition to the nebular hypothesis occurring in the late 1960s and early 1970s as it became apparent that the catastrophist hypotheses couldn't work. In fact the only reference I have that doesn't explicitly reject those theories is an old children's encyclopedia dated 1949.

Whether it was 1950 or 1970; there were such theories and they have been discarded.​

Boy, you really just don't get it. Changeability is not a sign of frailty or weakness in a scientific theory, it's science's greatest strength. Theories change and grow, and are sometimes completely tossed out and replaced, as new information and deeper understandings become available.
Science is self-correcting and self-improving in a way your dogmatic religiosity can never be, and as long as you remain stuck in it, you're never going to understand how to think clearly.

Boy, I agree, and invite others to study science and make researches. I love science, but not to take it as a plea to spread non-respect to God's word. But they should admit that it is changeable and this is very good; it is alive and dynamic.

But as long as you continue to post religious maundering as science in a science forum, I'm going to keep kicking it to pieces. Post it in a religious discussion and I'll leave you alone. I know you're never going to accept or understand anything I tell you, and frankly I really don't care what you think, you're deluded beyond the reach of reason and evidence, but you're not getting away with misleading anybody else if I can help it.

You have the right; but be fair, and admit you were wrong when it is proved. And I will keep up informing others of any new progress [in case I encounter such a thing].

eanassir

http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... be fair, and admit you were wrong when it is proved.

Sure I will, anytime, but you need to understand what proof means. You haven't so far proven me wrong on anything by any standards science would accept, you just keep going back to arguments from the presumed authority of the Quran and an uneducated, unsophisticated man's interpretation of it. That isn't good enough, it's not a valid argument. If you want to make empirical claims about the nature of reality, as you keep doing, you have to put aside the Quran and look at the real evidence. None of it supports any of your major claims, and you refuse to accept proof when it's given to you. I could show you the orbital equations that prove Velikovsky is wrong about a body being forbidden to orbit a planet faster than the planet rotates, they're the same equations we've been using for a long time to calculate orbits, predict the return of comets, predict eclipses, send men to the moon and bring them back, and send out probes to explore the solar system. They work, consistently and reliably, but you wouldn't understand them and you'd just deny them anyway if they give results not consistent with your authoritative Quran. And that's the root of your problem with understanding what people who actually do understand science and its methods have been trying to tell you. The Quran is not a book of science and it's fundamentally wrong about many empirical things, just as the Bible is.