Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-08-2013 03:19 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 02:43 PM)Mike Wrote:  Mohd Ibn says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Assalamualaikum Sheikh,

Can you define “existence” without using any word or concept that uses any temporal (time dependent) concept? Jazakallah.


Then Sheikh Abu Adam replied :

Shaykh Abu Adam says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I don’t think you should attempt or even need to define “existence”. If every word in the dictionary needed a definition we would end up with circular reasoning. Hence, there are words that we have an understanding of without needing a definition. That is why in the dictionary you’ll find something like “not non-existent”.


It's look like you're right.
Wow, looks like that guy combined special pleading with circular logic in one statement.

I now declare all gods to be schlurfel.

What is schlurfel you ask? It's a concept we all understand but don't need a definition for....

Yeah, let's see how well that works. Dodgy

Well, you know what they say.
"One man's 'schlurfel' is another man's 'roppytruq' ". Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Seems to me he goes off the rails right at the beginning...which is typical of religious shitheads.

Quote:In other words, Islam is not founded on mysticism, or on the “take it or leave it, this is faith, not logic” approach one finds in other religions. There is no separation of logic and faith in Islam.

Except for the part about some illiterate child fucker going into a cave and being told in "dreams" what "god" says. Yeah. Perfectly logical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
27-08-2013, 01:09 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 12:11 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  As far as invulnerable matter ? or indestructible matter ?
Sorry, no, you can only have that in a comic book.

Matter can't be created and destroyed, but we know that matter can changes. So isn't matter is invulnerable and indestructible?
Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 01:46 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Black Holes

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 06:34 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(27-08-2013 01:46 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Black Holes

But doesn't black holes eventually evaporate? I think there are probabilities that there are other matters that are invulnerable and indestructible as well.
Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2013 11:16 AM by Rahn127.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Not in this universe.

Black Holes are gravity wells. They break down matter and reduce it to the force of gravity among other things.
We define matter in such a way to say that it takes up space. The nature of matter is not solid in the way we think of the word solid.
We hold things in our hands and call them solid because they take up space. Because they take up space they also curve that space and have a component of gravity.

When you break down protons and neutrons and electrons, what remains is gravity and probably the other weak & strong forces too, among other things, but gravity is what we most associate with black holes. Black holes have a volume equal to zero, but are characterized as having the same mass as a proportionate piece of matter with the same amount of gravity. It's simple a way of saying how BIG this black hole would be if it didn't have a volume of zero.

Evaporation
In 1974 Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation. A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.

So, no, black holes won't evaporate. They take in more that they put out.
Input = 2.7 kelvins
Ouput = 100 nanokelvins = .0000001 kelvins
(1 nano kelvin = 10^-9) = .000000001

The universe as we known it will come to an end at some point. What continues on from there and how black holes fit into all of that is beyond me.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
27-08-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(27-08-2013 11:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Not in this universe.

Black Holes are gravity wells. They break down matter and reduce it to the force of gravity among other things.
We define matter in such a way to say that it takes up space. The nature of matter is not solid in the way we think of the word solid.
We hold things in our hands and call them solid because they take up space. Because they take up space they also curve that space and have a component of gravity.

When you break down protons and neutrons and electrons, what remains is gravity and probably the other weak & strong forces too, among other things, but gravity is what we most associate with black holes. Black holes have a volume equal to zero, but are characterized as having the same mass as a proportionate piece of matter with the same amount of gravity. It's simple a way of saying how BIG this black hole would be if it didn't have a volume of zero.

Evaporation
In 1974 Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation. A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.

So, no, black holes won't evaporate. They take in more that they put out.
Input = 2.7 kelvins
Ouput = 100 nanokelvins = .0000001 kelvins
(1 nano kelvin = 10^-9) = .000000001

The universe as we known it will come to an end at some point. What continues on from there and how black holes fit into all of that is beyond me.

Absolutely true, but the background temperature is, naturally, decreasing with time.

Given a long enough timescale (orders of magnitude more than the present universe's age!), it will be below the temperature of any finite-mass black hole.

Nothing lasts forever, after all.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 05:25 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(27-08-2013 11:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Not in this universe.

Black Holes are gravity wells. They break down matter and reduce it to the force of gravity among other things.
We define matter in such a way to say that it takes up space. The nature of matter is not solid in the way we think of the word solid.
We hold things in our hands and call them solid because they take up space. Because they take up space they also curve that space and have a component of gravity.

When you break down protons and neutrons and electrons, what remains is gravity and probably the other weak & strong forces too, among other things, but gravity is what we most associate with black holes. Black holes have a volume equal to zero, but are characterized as having the same mass as a proportionate piece of matter with the same amount of gravity. It's simple a way of saying how BIG this black hole would be if it didn't have a volume of zero.

Evaporation
In 1974 Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation. A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.

So, no, black holes won't evaporate. They take in more that they put out.
Input = 2.7 kelvins
Ouput = 100 nanokelvins = .0000001 kelvins
(1 nano kelvin = 10^-9) = .000000001

The universe as we known it will come to an end at some point. What continues on from there and how black holes fit into all of that is beyond me.

Black hole, IIRC is not even black. And we can only observed it indirectly that's studied through its effect to the surrounding area. Can gravity exist without space and time? And as far as I know atom is 99% empty space right? What do you mean by "the universe as we known it will come to an end at some point"? Is it the observable universe or the whole universe?
Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 05:30 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(27-08-2013 11:55 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Absolutely true, but the background temperature is, naturally, decreasing with time.

Given a long enough timescale (orders of magnitude more than the present universe's age!), it will be below the temperature of any finite-mass black hole.

Nothing lasts forever, after all.

I think maybe space time lasts forever. Unsure
Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(27-08-2013 05:25 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(27-08-2013 11:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Not in this universe.

Black Holes are gravity wells. They break down matter and reduce it to the force of gravity among other things.
We define matter in such a way to say that it takes up space. The nature of matter is not solid in the way we think of the word solid.
We hold things in our hands and call them solid because they take up space. Because they take up space they also curve that space and have a component of gravity.

When you break down protons and neutrons and electrons, what remains is gravity and probably the other weak & strong forces too, among other things, but gravity is what we most associate with black holes. Black holes have a volume equal to zero, but are characterized as having the same mass as a proportionate piece of matter with the same amount of gravity. It's simple a way of saying how BIG this black hole would be if it didn't have a volume of zero.

Evaporation
In 1974 Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation. A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.

So, no, black holes won't evaporate. They take in more that they put out.
Input = 2.7 kelvins
Ouput = 100 nanokelvins = .0000001 kelvins
(1 nano kelvin = 10^-9) = .000000001

The universe as we known it will come to an end at some point. What continues on from there and how black holes fit into all of that is beyond me.

Black hole, IIRC is not even black. And we can only observed it indirectly that's studied through its effect to the surrounding area. Can gravity exist without space and time? And as far as I know atom is 99% empty space right? What do you mean by "the universe as we known it will come to an end at some point"? Is it the observable universe or the whole universe?

The 99% empty space part has been refined a bit and as we look at empty space, we find it's not so empty. Turns out that empty space weighs something. It's characterized as a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence. As we look at the empty space inside of a proton, between the quarks, we find that 90% of the mass we associate with the proton actually comes from this empty space.





Can gravity exist without space and time?
Gravity is now seen as a curvature of space, so space would be needed and presumably where you have space, you more than likely will have the concept of time.

When I say the universe as we known it, I'm talking about in the far distant future when all the stars have burnt out, galaxies gone, super clusters gone, but you still have forces at work (gravity, etc) and how they all interact with each other at this point is anyone's bet.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: