I have talked before about scientific discoveries in Quran, but not so much because even I myself, didn't know much about this topic.

As I'm hopping from site to site, video to video about Physics (something i do almost every day).. I came across This Site!.

Explaining almost all Astronomical Discoveries that have been found between the lines of the Quran, with a Correct proof via tons of Mathematical Calculations and amazing use of laws of physics.. I'm still at the half of the long page of this site and i am completely blown away by all what i have read so far.

Some of The Topics this site is Discussing:
1.Calculating The Speed of Light Via 2 Different Ways
2. Gravitational Time Dilation
3.Pulsars, Black Holes & Singularity
4.Wormholes


Most of the last part is not proved to be right, even i, still won't believe it until i see pretty clear evidence that blackholes act as shortcuts in the universe, and i am mostly blown away by the first part.. just the speed of light part was totally amazing..


And again, i'm not opening this topic for Religions to fight or flame, i am just asking for a little mature discussion about these topics and thats it.


And if you actually viewed that site and read a little bit of it, thank you.. i know it's a very tl;dr article.

interesting.

personally i beleive in the "ruminations on the elder scrolls" book in skyrim

because it is all paraphrasing, "angels" as "light" and "god" as the primal "nothingness/lack of existence" from which the universe/existence came. the funny thing about paraphrasing descriptions of the universe is, if you fail to define the entities involved in the interaction/relationship being described, it becomes impossible to be entirely wrong.

many see this as an obstacle to understanding, and in many ways it is, since nothing in a paraphrased description of the universe really explains why one group of people should kill another, or be rewarded or punished for such acts in an afterlife. the ambiguity allows the "hijacking" of descriptions and explanations by people who see what they want to see.

this is how emperically true such statements such as "up the bum = no babies" can be twisted into things such as "kill all homosexuals". in these undefined paraphrased descriptions, humans see what they want to see, because that with which they see, evolves over time. words change their meanings.

but the existence of this "obstacle to understanding" hints at a greater truth

it is a governing principle of information itself

it is why buddhists confer understanding to their students asking them questions.

questions such as,

does the bird fly through the air, or does it simply beleive it flies through the air, inferring within its enviroment, that which it expects to see? it cannot be proven either way, occams razor does the rest.
what is the real difference between dreaming while asleep, and being awake?

why is it we cannot remember most details of dreams once we awaken, but cannot remember most details of the real world whilst dreaming?

and what of dreaming while awake? hallucinations?

how do we define that which is "real" from mere representations of "real" things? the answer is that we cannot define them differently, we observe representations, we construct "reality" from perceived representations. "reality" is a false concept. what we define as "real" has more to do with what we beleive to be real, it is an arbitrary distinction we place upon what we perceive which has much more to do with how something relates to us. we see an "enemy" in a game as "not real" but another human with a weapon as "real". this says nothing of the object's "existence" since both "exist". whether we define something as "real" or "not real" depends on how closely it is related with us, and on what levels it can "interact" with us.

and in that context there is no "absolute" reality. it is all relative.

Currently browsing via cell phone . And I'll surely open the link after getting on computer

like for example, today i woke up to my alarm on my phone, 15 times.

i hit the snooze button 15 times, and had several dreams during which i dreamed i was having breakfast and getting ready. i noticed many details which wouldnt make sense when awake (i noticed them directly after my alarm went off, in the few seconds of being awake, before i fell back asleep), like certain people being there who shouldnt be. like every time i fell back asleep, the "details" defining what i was seeing were twisted. i know it was because i was half asleep, but does that mean what i was seeing wasnt "real" in a sense? the perceptions i had, while not "mine" were not physically impossible (in fact they seemed almost like visions of what other people who're preparing for the same thing would likely experience), it was like the "realities" remained in superposition, defined by the aspects of reality which mattered most at the time.

like multiple instances of the same occurences being observed simeltaneously. but the neccesity of the "sleep/wake" cycle from the snooze button on the alarm didnt make sense, until i considered it from a reverse causality point of view. having the alarm didnt cause the "dreams", it simply allowed me to have those dreams similar enough and limited enough in duration that i would recognise the small differences which hinted at the neurological cause, and the dual "implications", the fact that they had two "explanations" which rather than contradicting each other, worked together to create a far bigger picture than what either could create on their own (when considered in the context of a universe where the double slit experiment is observed scientific truth)

@ k-2 - in western culture there is a saying, "see how deep the rabbit hole goes", you've only scratched the surface

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

when you read some of the works of albert einstein, and his quotes, it becomes clear that he had suspicions about the world which go far deeper than anything he published.

Admittedly, whilst Arabic Scholars were on a par to none in the fields of mathmatics and astronomy, the conclusions drawn from the texts quoted are a very long bow.

Religious texts and science I don't believe should be mixed together at any time. They tend to be mutually exclusive.

entire topic tl;dr