275 replies to this topic

[Lion6969]

Rlyeh, on 14 November 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

A bit of a short memory? I asked if you had an example of using the equation, your reply

Yes! I have made a thread " The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model:". Have a look at it.

And if you need to be reminded of your credibility (or lack there of), just look at this thread. The only people advocating your "theory" are those who lack understanding of basic algebra.

I dont think anyone has advocated his theory, not even me. All I have done is correct people assumptions on the linguistic side of things, science and philosophical aspects.

I for one am very interested in his theory but I will analyse it critically when I'm familiar with it all, for now I'm enjoying the read and wish Al-Amiyr carries on posting.

[Lion6969]

al-amiyr, on 14 November 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

.

I am still hoping that there will be some posters who will answer the question that I have asked earlier so that we could proceed knowing that we are still on the right track.  For now just ask questions relating to the subject.

You can refer back to the following posts to post #1 #8 #9 #12 #19 #22 #23 #26 #27 #58 and #61

Here is the question that I asked earlier.



Read the following again. It is important. It is the first QCM verse that will take us into the Qur'aan Cosmological model. Its understanding is important.

Very interesting....so what you are saying is thar Quran is referencing not directly but through deeper meaning and reflection of the verses that the current existence ie universe came in to existence as a result of a previous collapsed universe which was caused by Allah to be return to it's to state of singularity (ratqan), for then Allah to cause it to expand again creating the current creation. I think it's plausible but there a few problems in my opinion.

Any remenants of a collapsed universe would mean that a physical plane existed prior to our singularity, therefore science such as physics should not breakdown at the singularity, because physics works from physical plane to another, we call the observations laws of physics, yet how do you explain the breakdown?

Second question, based on your theory, what was the cause of our universes creation ie expansion? God or the collapsed universe?

(I'm applying philosophy to you theory, see how it goes)

More to come later I need to absorb your theory more I think

[al-amiyr]

Lion6969, on 14 November 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Very interesting....so what you are saying is thar Quran is referencing not directly but through deeper meaning and reflection of the verses that the current existence ie universe came in to existence as a result of a previous collapsed universe which was caused by Allah to be return to it's to state of singularity (ratqan), for then Allah to cause it to expand again creating the current creation. I think it's plausible but there a few problems in my opinion.

Any remenants of a collapsed universe would mean that a physical plane existed prior to our singularity, therefore science such as physics should not breakdown at the singularity, because physics works from physical plane to another, we call the observations laws of physics, yet how do you explain the breakdown?

Second question, based on your theory, what was the cause of our universes creation ie expansion? God or the collapsed universe?

(I'm applying philosophy to you theory, see how it goes)

More to come later I need to absorb your theory more I think

For now can you answer the question I posed in order to continue deeper into the model? It is very important.

Quote

1)- What is the Ratqan?

[Quaentum]

Lion6969, on 14 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Seriously Alien I genuinely don't mean to offend or belittle you or anyone. I enjoy our debates and everyone here knows that I always bring philosophy in to scientific debates, I do so because most people don't understand that scientific theories are rejected or accepted based on philosophical reasonings and alignment. For example all the empirical data showing us that we live in a heliocentric solar system can be interpreted to create a geo centric model showing earth at the centre of the solar system and the universe. We reject the latter on philosophical basis alone!

In a geocentric system, with the Sun and the rest of the planets orbiting the Earth, those planets, such as Mercury, that are closer to the Earth than the Sun would never be seen to pass behind the Sun as they are inside it's orbit.  Since we can observe that Mercury does in fact pass behind the Sun, it refutes the geocentric model.

Thus it is a scientific basis and not a philosophical basis that allows us to reject the geocentric model

[Beckys_Mom]

al-amiyr, on 14 November 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

For now can you answer the question I posed in order to continue deeper into the model? It is very important.



1)- What is the Ratqan?

The coming together of something, and the consequent infusion  into a single entity ..OR total darkness

[Seeker79]

Lion6969, on 14 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

I'm gonna keep it simple, established facts are that through observations and other collected data we know the universe began, it started with a singularity appearing which expanded. These are established facts discovered in the 20th century. The Quran gives this detail and more, some of which is still be to be discovered.

Now based on the established on the facts, anything proposing a cause even god, is dealing with metaphysical aspects which has no empirical proof, therefore can only be reasoned for.

Based on established facts and according to hawkings and others I quoted, say that time, space, sum of all matter began with expansion of the singularity, prior to this nothing existed. Nothing meaning, we dont know what was before or what caused it, nothing logically cannot be the cause, because from nothing we get nothing.

Now to the vacuum, there was no vacuum prior to singularity, the vacuum space time matter all came into existence at the bigbang. You see scientists have been desperately trying to prove that matter can arise from nothing, although everything contrary in science, observation, causality, and experience show otherwise. The holy grail for them was the vacuum which was deemed to closest thing to nothing if not nothing. They found that sub atomic particles came into existence and disappeared. Where did they come from and go, they proposed that this evidence that something can come from nothing! However this was then destroyed when they realised that vacuum is not nothing, it's a rich structure of fluctuating energy (ie consisting of matter whether visible or not, ie sub atomic which is still matter), from which these particles came into existence and vanished with the fluctuations. So for anyone to propose that matter existed in form of a vacuum within which a singularity appeared or caused it to appear is a logical fallacy, cause the sum of all matter is the universe, the vacuum is a part of it and came into existence too, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that universe created itself, another fallacy, how can something exist and not exist at the same time? Plus it would suggest that there is a physical plane beyond the singularity, if so then we should be able to reach it so to speak, our physics would not breakdown at singularity as there would be another physical plane they would function on therefore observable.

Hence why I am saying that I make an argument based on established facts, the counter are all theories which are good in their own right but lack proof and breakdown when philosophically and critically analysed.

Im not arguing with you about most of that. I agree with most of it. There is no logical fallacy. Lumping vacuum energy in with rest is the fallacy here. There is not a single reason to do so. not one. It's fallacious to ride along with what scientists say about visible matter and apply it to the vacuume.  We think we know that the stuff of the universe was once united. But again lion there is nothing that says that vaccume itself was inside of that singularity... It is possible and I think likely that the vacume was here prior.

You know better than anyone to not make assumptions like that. the face of the deep most likely preceded the moment of creation.

By the way the inflationary model assumes the existence of vacuum energy prior to the bb. In fact the bubble itself is an expanding bundle of vacuume energy.

http://www.superstri...mo/cosmo41.html

[al-amiyr]

Beckys_Mom, on 14 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

The coming together of something, and the consequent infusion  into a single entity ..OR total darkness

100%! Perfect answer. It seems like no one wanted to answer the question. I thought that I was going to sit on this rock all day.

Now the word Ratqan comes from the Arabic root word Rataqa. In Arabic there are only three short vowels  a and i and u ;which can be lengthened to aa  and iy  and uw. There are 28 consonants representing exactly 28 sounds. There are no deviations. Arabic differs from English. Arabic, like Hebrew, is based on Root Letters but even more simpler and precise. Over 80% of the spoken Arabic are based on the following pattern.

Xa X- Xa  X = any consonant eg ( b s m l r t q etc.).  The dash - = any of the three short vowels a i u .
If I said substitute L for X then
Xa X- Xa  = LaLaLa or = LaLiLa or = LaLuLa

All of those are verbs of the past tense. There are only five basic verbal patterns. These verbal patters change according to rules to become the entire language. That is why I have started The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model thread to explain this structure of Arabic. It takes about 15 minutes to understand.

Have a look at The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model Verbal Word Program below. I am going to start explaining it in that forum from tomorrow. Do not be dismayed if it is not fully grasped now. If you applied the above rules then there will be no problem for you to work it out. It is just like a lovely puzzle. I have taught it to many five year olds and they grasped it easily. Remember the Xs = any consonant. a = a ; i = i ; u = u and the dash - = a or i or u.

• If you want to give it a go now just fill (replace the xs with consonants) in the sections that are numbered from 1 - 5.

The Program that generates all the Arabic Root Verbs. Read the notes below.



In the next post I shall further elaborate on Ratqan and its verbal rootrataqa.  The an at the end of Ratqan is just a grammatical rule that may or may not be pronounced.

To be continued inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

[Lion6969]

Quaentum, on 14 November 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

In a geocentric system, with the Sun and the rest of the planets orbiting the Earth, those planets, such as Mercury, that are closer to the Earth than the Sun would never be seen to pass behind the Sun as they are inside it's orbit.  Since we can observe that Mercury does in fact pass behind the Sun, it refutes the geocentric model.

Thus it is a scientific basis and not a philosophical basis that allows us to reject the geocentric model

Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about nor did you actually understand my point, I hope the expert above hits it home

[al-amiyr]

Lion6969, on 15 November 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about nor did you actually understand my point, I hope the expert above hits it home

Why the continuation of irrelevant discussions in this thread when I have already asked nicely via PM not to do so because it is creating distractions.
I have basically slowed down my own posting because of this. Initially I said it was fine. Now and then a little deviation is welcoming e.g. like aiming to hit the mark for humor. Strike what I present here and break it down. Then all can learn. Thanks!

[Alienated Being]

al-amiyr, on 15 November 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Why the continuation of irrelevant discussions in this thread when I have already asked nicely via PM not to do so because it is creating distractions.
I have basically slowed down my own posting because of this. Initially I said it was fine. Now and then a little deviation is welcoming e.g. like aiming to hit the mark for humor. Strike what I present here and break it down. Then all can learn. Thanks!

Yes, he has a tendency to address issues that are irrelevant to what is actually being discussed, hence why I stopped responding to his posts.

[Beckys_Mom]

al-amiyr, on 15 November 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Why the continuation of irrelevant discussions in this thread when I have already asked nicely via PM not to do so because it is creating distractions.
I have basically slowed down my own posting because of this. Initially I said it was fine. Now and then a little deviation is welcoming e.g. like aiming to hit the mark for humor. Strike what I present here and break it down. Then all can learn. Thanks!

Just skip them, treat it like white noise and block it out  lol  and continue on with what you are doing.. I for one am still reading.. And throw in a few more questions..get things moving along

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 15 November 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[al-amiyr]

Let us again have a look at the first of the two Qur'aan Cosmological Model verses upon which the  Qur'aan Cosmological Model is based.

- - -

The Qur'aan 021:030

"Have those who have disbelieved now not seen:-

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

And We made from  al-maa' (the water) every living thing.

Will they now not believe?"

- - -

As has already been said that this verse contains an encyclopedia of information of which only the cosmological parts will be touched upon. To do that we shall simply extract the parts of the verse that I have already made bold. Let us read the extracted parts.

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

As you have seen, the cosmological parts of the verse comprise three phrases: The first - that the samaawaat and the ‘arD; the second - were both Ratqan; and the third - and so We Fataq them both again. From the analyses of the Arabic language and the clear descriptions of the use of the two words in many other places in the Qur'aan, the samaawaat and the ‘arD simply means the whole realm of the universe; i.e. the sun, moon, stars and all other extra-terrestrial phenomena as well as the earth.
The verse continues and say that this whole realm of the universe; i.e. the sun, moon, stars and all other extra-terrestrial phenomena as well as the earth were both Ratqan (i.e. a thingbrought together; sewn together, stitched up, closed up and with no spaces between the parts). Those are the meanings of the the Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical term  Ratqan. If you wish you may just say Ratq because the an at the end of it is an Arabic grammatical rule that indicates that the word is an object of the previous verb.I have left it as Ratqan for easier pronunciation. Also observe that I have enlarged the initial letter of the R ofRatqan. The reason is to show distinction because the initial letters of the major phases of the creation according to the Qur'aan Cosmological Model also serves as the important abbreviations of the Qur'aan Cosmological Model Algorithmic Compression Kh = +T +R  +F  +2T +2R +2F.

It will be seen that when we run this Qur’aanic cosmological algorithmic compression Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F through the fundamental structure of the Arabic language which is The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model then we witness a magnificent display of verbs, nouns, and adjectives that go back to describe each and every phase of the universe at its exact time and place in great detail.
We are presented without exaggeration hundreds of beautiful informative illustrations of the phases the universe underwent, undergo and will undergo from its cosmological origin, through its cosmological evolution, and until its eventual cosmological end.
And upon that we also see the derivation of many simple and logical abbreviations that precisely describe each and every phase of the universe. And then further beyond that we realize and see how the actions of the universe drive life into the dead and empty of meaning fundamental building blocks of the language- which are all the fundamental verbal patterns from which are derived the words of the language. In other words when you have learned this program then you would be able to know the meanings of many of the words of the Qur'aanic Arabic language by simple calculation that can then be verified in an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Does that sound unbelievable? Summon the arrows for rest and move the mind to find the target.

Ratq to be continued inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

[al-amiyr]

Beckys_Mom, on 15 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Just skip them, treat it like white noise and block it out  lol  and continue on with what you are doing.. I for one am still reading.. And throw in a few more questions..get things moving along

Sitting now here at the computer for almost 18 hours (6 non stop). Typing  everything via two fingers. Did about 10 illustrations. I love my critics to be experts. They are the ones who in the end will make meaningful contributions. On this journey there will be nothing that will not be encountered. The QCM  is only the dot of the beginning and only a dot was presented so far. The new movement will have to be begun.

[al-amiyr]

My Beautiful Middle Earth Cape Town: Where Rises Table Mountain In The Garden Of The Earth.

[Seeker79]

Well second reading through startling to get it more.