The Moon (Part 2)

Ron Webb wrote: [IMG]smileys/smiley5.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Confused" /> Why would distance make it impossible?� Can you give me an example of this phenomenon?

Simple common sense. The further away a lighted object is the dimmer it's light, so for instance, the light from a street lamp would be reflected on a lake or ocean but because the light of the moon is dimmer than a street lamp it would be impossible for the light to be reflected on the water that is so far away.

Ron Webb wrote: If the moon is only a few thousand miles above the earth's surface, then why is it the same apparent diameter (about half a degree wide) whether it is directly overhead or farther away near the horizon?

Because it is real close. It is not the same size.

Ron Webb wrote: Well, we obviously don't worship Satan because most of us don't even believe that Satan exists.� But otherwise, how is that different from Islam?� Some guy recited something, then other people wrote it down and thought "oh, let's put these in the mosques and teach kids so that they'll grow up knowing nothing."

Yes indeed it's called faith.

Ron Webb wrote: Of course not.� We ask for evidence.� Just as I'm asking you.

You ask for evidence but most of science do not have concrete proof. Modern science is based on theory, like I said somebody once had a good idea and others thought oh let put that in the school curriculum and teach the kids.

Ron Webb wrote: You know from common experience, if not from geometry, that things look smaller when they are farther away.� But just like the moon, the sun's angular diameter remains about the same, whether directly overhead or when it is on the horizon.� So it's not "going away".� It's staying roughly the same distance.� It's just going below the horizon -- which it couldn't do if the world were flat.

What makes you say that? Of course the sun can go 'under' the Earth and re-appear at the other side (after prostrating in front of the Throne of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala and rising once permission is granted).

You see you have to get rid of this image that NASA has given you of the globe and movies like 'gravity'. You grew up in this environment and I can understand that it would be very difficult for you to think outside the box.

Ron Webb wrote: No, I have actually watched the space station pass over Winnipeg, many times.� And I used my GPS just yesterday to find my way to a friend's house for the first time.� These are real things that I have personally experienced, not just stuff I read on the Internet.How do you think GPS works?

I'm not doubting that there are things up there in the sky but I don't share your view that these objects are outside of our atmosphere and circling the globe.

Can you agree that satellites and space stations can be deployed high in the sky and kept there by solar power panels without using gravity?

Ron Webb wrote: Fifty thousand years?� Travelling at what speed?� You don't have any idea, do you?� You're just quoting what you read in some hadith, right? [IMG]smileys/smiley1.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Smile" />

It will take fifty thousand years riding on a horse.

Ron Webb wrote: Do you agree that these satellites have solar panels? If you do then they are powered by solar energy and you are right they just hover there.

Solar panels or not, they would still need some sort of propellant to eject downwards in order to provide upward thrust against gravity.� And after ten years, that would have long run out.Do you know of any solar-powered device that can hover indefinitely?
[/quote]

They are not actually stationary objects but they are gliding. This is the reason you see it in Winnipeg and the pass you by.

Ron Webb wrote: That is not at all how science works.� Students are encouraged and often required to perform experiments that demonstrate the scientific facts they are learning.But your description exactly describes how religion is taught. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Wink" />

Students perform experiments that are according to what they've been taught. If they follow the procedures as stipulated in their science book then they will get a PHD at the end of it.

airmano wrote: Abul: And yet we can only build computers (as the one you use) based on the laws these st**id scientists formulated. Strange ! airmano

We can build computers in any way we want. I didn't bring mathematics into this equation.

Abu Loren wrote: Ron Webb wrote: Why would distance make it impossible?  Can you give me an example of this phenomenon? Simple common sense. The further away a lighted object is the dimmer it's light, so for instance, the light from a street lamp would be reflected on a lake or ocean but because the light of the moon is dimmer than a street lamp it would be impossible for the light to be reflected on the water that is so far away.

How far away does a light have to be that it is "impossible" for it to cast a reflection?  And how do you know?

Common sense and personal experience both tell me that if the light is easily seen with the naked eye, then it should cast a reflection regardless of its distance.  Can you give me any example to the contrary?

Ron Webb wrote: If the moon is only a few thousand miles above the earth's surface, then why is it the same apparent diameter (about half a degree wide) whether it is directly overhead or farther away near the horizon? Because it is real close. It is not the same size.

But it is the same size, and if you doubt it then compare any of your photos.  The moon is almost exactly the same apparent diameter, and therefore the same distance, regardless of how high it is in the sky.  And that distance must be huge compared to the size of the earth -- otherwise we would notice the change in angular diameter/distance as it moved from zenith to horizon.

Ron Webb wrote: Of course not.  We ask for evidence.  Just as I'm asking you. You ask for evidence but most of science do not have concrete proof. Modern science is based on theory, like I said somebody once had a good idea and others thought oh let put that in the school curriculum and teach the kids.

It's true that science is very reluctant to declare something "proved", because we are always open to new ideas if new evidence demands it.  That's why we continue to refer to them as "theories", even though (as in the Copernican theory) they have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that nobody doubts them.

But it always amuses me when religious dogmatists criticize science for not having "proof" of its theories.  How can you demand proof from us when it plays no role in your own worldview?  Like you said, it's called "faith".  You have no use for evidence or facts or proof.  Where is your "concrete proof" for the theory of Islam?

What makes you say that? Of course the sun can go 'under' the Earth and re-appear at the other side (after prostrating in front of the Throne of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala and rising once permission is granted).

If the sun goes under the earth, and the earth is flat, then the whole earth would be dark at the same time -- and we know that never happens.  When it's night in Sharjah, it's day in Winnipeg, and vice versa.

You see you have to get rid of this image that NASA has given you of the globe and movies like 'gravity'. You grew up in this environment and I can understand that it would be very difficult for you to think outside the box.

Again with the NASA jibe.  I already told you the Copernican theory was well entrenched in science, and confirmed hundreds of different ways by thousands of people, centuries before NASA.

I'm not doubting that there are things up there in the sky but I don't share your view that these objects are outside of our atmosphere and circling the globe.

But they wouldn't work if they weren't outside the atmosphere and circling the globe.

Can you agree that satellites and space stations can be deployed high in the sky and kept there by solar power panels without using gravity?

No, I can't agree; and you can't offer me a plausible explanation for how they could work that way, let alone any example of a solar-powered craft that can hover indefinitely.

It will take fifty thousand years riding on a horse.

Does the hadith actually say that, or are you just making stuff up again?

By the way, if a horse can gallop at 30 mph, that would make the first heaven about 13 billion miles up.  Which is plenty of room to accommodate the Copernican model for the solar system.

Do you agree that these satellites have solar panels? If you do then they are powered by solar energy and you are right they just hover there. Solar panels or not, they would still need some sort of propellant to eject downwards in order to provide upward thrust against gravity.  And after ten years, that would have long run out.Do you know of any solar-powered device that can hover indefinitely? They are not actually stationary objects but they are gliding. This is the reason you see it in Winnipeg and the pass you by.

Look, it's one thing to be making stuff up, but if you're not even going to be consistent in your made-up stuff, there's really no point in discussing.

There must be a thousand private companies that use satellite technology, employing hundreds of thousands of engineers and other scientists in all advanced nations of the world (including Muslim nations).  You really think a conspiracy of that magnitude and scope can be maintained for decades?  And if so, then why is it not even more plausible that the whole story of Muhammad (which ultimately rests on the claims of just one man, or at best a few dozen of his followers) was just another conspiracy?

Students perform experiments that are according to what they've been taught. If they follow the procedures as stipulated in their science book then they will get a PHD at the end of it.

You don't get a PhD simply by repeating what you were taught.  Every PhD student is required to write and defend a thesis, which includes original research or experimentation of some sort.

Ron Webb wrote: ]How far away does a light have to be that it is "impossible" for it to cast a reflection?� And how do you know?Common sense and personal experience both tell me that if the light is easily seen with the naked eye, then it should cast a reflection regardless of its distance.� Can you give me any example to the contrary?

All I'm saying is that the moon's light is not bright enough for it to cast a reflection on water. Simple logic.

Ron Webb wrote: But it is the same size, and if you doubt it then compare any of your photos.� The moon is almost exactly the same apparent diameter, and therefore the same distance, regardless of how high it is in the sky.� And that distance must be huge compared to the size of the earth -- otherwise we would notice the change in angular diameter/distance as it moved from zenith to horizon.

Your only assuming the distance is huge. I would estimate that the moon is only about 50,000 to 60,000 miles above the earth. There is nor have ever been technology available to calculate the distance accurately or to the exact distance.

Ron Webb wrote: It's true that science is very reluctant to declare something "proved", because we are always open to new ideas if new evidence demands it.� That's why we continue to refer to them as "theories", even though (as in the Copernican theory) they have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that nobody doubts them.But it always amuses me when religious dogmatists criticize science for not having "proof" of its theories.� How can you demand proof from us when it plays no role in your own worldview?� Like you said, it's called "faith".� You have no use for evidence or facts or proof.� Where is your "concrete proof" for the theory of Islam?

What you've wrote above is the quote of the century if not the millenium.

Ron Webb wrote: If the sun goes under the earth, and the earth is flat, then the whole earth would be dark at the same time -- and we know that never happens.� When it's night in Sharjah, it's day in Winnipeg, and vice versa.

When the sun is above the America's the other part of the world is in darkness. When the sun sets in the America's it goes under the earth and appears in the east for a new day. It doesn't take a long time for it travel to the other side. I wish I could draw a picture to illustrate this point.

Ron Webb wrote: Again with the NASA jibe.� I already told you the Copernican theory was well entrenched in science, and confirmed hundreds of different ways by thousands of people, centuries before NASA.

I love making NASA jibes because it is the instrument of satan. It has mislead so many into thinking of the world as it is now whilst the world is completely different to what you think.

Ron Webb wrote: But they wouldn't work if they weren't outside the atmosphere and circling the globe.

As I've said previously there is no atmosphere as such. It's just the the oxygen level gets weaker and weaker as we go up. If you go up a few thousand miles then you wouldn't see the earth as a globe (like the picture that NASA paints) but a flat earth. When you look up you see the clouds then the sky as far as the eye can see. This is it, that's all there is.

Ron Webb wrote: No, I can't agree; and you can't offer me a plausible explanation for how they could work that way, let alone any example of a solar-powered craft that can hover indefinitely.

Of course I can. Any vessel with a power source can be made to hover above the earth. Without damage the solar panels can work indefinately.

Ron Webb wrote: Does the hadith actually say that, or are you just making stuff up again?By the way, if a horse can gallop at 30 mph, that would make the first heaven about 13 billion miles up.� Which is plenty of room to accommodate the Copernican model for the solar system.

NO the hadiths does not say that. By the way you are using a calculation given to by scientists without any real proof of the real distance. It's all guess work.

Ron Webb wrote: Solar panels or not, they would still need some sort of propellant to eject downwards in order to provide upward thrust against gravity.� And after ten years, that would have long run out.Do you know of any solar-powered device that can hover indefinitely?

What are you talking about? As I've all you need is power.

Ron Webb wrote: Look, it's one thing to be making stuff up, but if you're not even going to be consistent in your made-up stuff, there's really no point in discussing.There must be a thousand private companies that use satellite technology, employing hundreds of thousands of engineers and other scientists in all advanced nations of the world (including Muslim nations).� You really think a conspiracy of that magnitude and scope can be maintained for decades?� And if so, then why is it not even more plausible that the whole story of Muhammad (which ultimately rests on the claims of just one man, or at best a few dozen of his followers) was just another conspiracy?

There is no conspiracy. They were all taught by the same science books that you read. They grow up thinking like you do and follow the status quo.

With regard to Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) you would understand that the Qur'an is the Words of God and that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is the final messenger and prophet to mankind if you had a little bit of guidance.

It's not too late, if you sincerely pray and ask for guidance then you might just get it In Shaa Allah.