facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20, 2003, 05:27 PM
chinaman chinaman is offline
Retired BC Admin
 
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
Default Quran And Science

Given the magnitude of interest shown in the other thread, I think, some might be interested in discussing the Quran in the context of science.

For ages man has been looking for answers and the science has become the main if not the only indispensible tool in the quest.

Quran claims to be the book without error. Let's find out through the share of knowledge with the right tool, infact the only tool equally acceptable to the believers and the nonbelievers alike.

Please keep your discussion clear, short, to the point and include reference where applicable. Please do not make personal attack and be sensible. Thank you.
  #2  
Old November 20, 2003, 05:31 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

This should be interesting, considering how much flak the Bible is getting nowadays.
  #3  
Old November 20, 2003, 05:52 PM
Ehsan's Avatar
Ehsan Ehsan is offline
BanglaCricket Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,275

Quote:
Quran claims to be the book without error.
Ofcourse, no doubt in that. Scientists (including non-muslims) are now researching on Quran to find out many uncovered facts, one of them I believed is the milky way.

Quran said that the earth revolves round the sun and that is stated from a Book which was revealed 1400 years ago. Many scientists are now embracing Islam just for the Science in it.

Doing ablution (wudhu) helps keep our blood pressure low as this is said in the water therapy. Namaz is just another kind of exercise with a devotion to Allah. Islam is the most scientific Relgion. Quran is a manual for human beings on how to live on earth and contains guidelines on how to be successfull in here and here after. If you do a google search on : Quran and Science or Islam and Science then you'll find tons of useful things expalining the relationship of Islam, Quran and Science. Remember Islam is NOT science, Science IS Islam.

I would love to discuss about Quran/Islam and Science but right now the time is not permitting me. Inshallah after we get done with the exams we can hopefully get an interesting discussion going on.

Chinaman bhai I really appreciate you for bringing up this topic, JazakAllah. Brothers like Pompous bhai and Nasif bhai can definitely contribute a lot here. May Allah give us the understaning of the Quran and His closest religion, Islam.

At the last, hopefully this wasn't too long.

[Edited on 20-11-2003 by ehsan]
  #4  
Old November 20, 2003, 06:21 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,678
Default Repost

Just reposting what I posted in other thread. This is more appropriate thread:


=============================
The following picture was taken on Oct. 31, 1999. It is named "Cat's Eye Nebula", a dying star 3000 light years away.


[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?

It is my understanding that the more knowledge we acquire about our universe, the more we will be forced to incline towards God.

String theory and (mem)brane theory creates a picture of universe that is too marvelous to be there by itself.
  #5  
Old November 21, 2003, 01:54 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Have any of you read Jules Verne, the French science fiction writer from late 1800s? He actually predicted a lot of scientific stuff that came true in the 20th century.

But does that mean he was omniscient? No, it just shows that he had the basic ideas of science and a very imaginative mind.

--------------

Nasif: That picture is very nice. But you know that the colors in the astronomical photographs aren't 'real', right?

Read this:

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/I14/I14.HTM

It's written by an astrophotographer whose job is to beautify/doctor these photos so that there is a pleasurable emotional response from the viewer. (In your case, the fact that the color matched a description in Quran has produced a strong emotional response, i.e., a sense of miracle or whatever, even though it is NOT based on the real color of the thing.)

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]
  #6  
Old November 21, 2003, 02:36 AM
chinaman chinaman is offline
Retired BC Admin
 
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021

Arnab, you could do better than that. Giving reference to a person who works as a staff photographer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, specializes in shooting sporting events and calls himself "Used to be a cartoon super-hero in a pervious life, now is a hunka-hunka-burning funk"?
  #7  
Old November 21, 2003, 03:38 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Umm and your point is?

How does that refute the case that those are not real colors?

Here's another article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._020625-1.html

Quote:
"Ridiculous" is how Kenneth Brecher, a professor of astronomy at Boston University, views the question of the color of the universe. "Meaningless and absurd," he calls the whole affair. "It's very nearly white." But even that view depends on a viewer's point of view.

Brecher complains that "color is not what most astronomers and physicists think it is." It involves hue, saturation and brightness, he instructs, and it can't be thought of as just a wavelength or a frequency.

On a more popular note, Brecher suggests the very vocabulary of astronomy is riddled with misleading color terms. Red giant stars like the bright and popular Betelgeuse, for example, are not really red, though they can sometimes appear so from Earth.

"If you could walk up to Betelgeuse, it would look white," he says.

That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes. Only from a great distance, when the star is relatively dim, can the cones sometimes detect a hint of red. The vast majority of red giants, however, set off only the rods in your eyes, which cannot detect color at all. So most stars appear white, regardless of how they are classified.
Quote:
The quintessential Hubble photograph is a 1995 image of the popular Eagle Nebula, also known as M16 or the Pillars of Creation. The soaring structures had one of their red emissions converted to green -- by the astronomers who took the picture -- in order to highlight scientific detail. In "reality," no green was detected coming from the Pillars.

Interestingly, all Hubble images are created with black-and-white cameras. Ones and zeros are sent to Earth. Color is dropped in later with the popular Photoshop program.

"The color of objects that astronomers release are not really representative of a thing one might imagine exists, which is the objective color of a star or a galaxy," Brecher said in an interview last month during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Albuquerque, where he made his case before his peers.

"Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon," he said. "Color is in the eye of the beholder."
Quote:
Levay and his colleagues sometimes take the editing process another step. Images made with Hubble's infrared camera, called NICMOS, have no intrinsic color values in the visible spectrum. To these photos, the image specialists typically apply a corresponding range of colors from the visible realm in a logical pattern -- red for longer wavelengths and blue for shorter.

"Color is a somewhat fuzzy term," Levay admits in relation to the infrared pictures. "We are artificially applying a perceptual color to light that we cannot perceive." One astronomer would not necessarily apply the same colors to a given infrared image as another, he said, but the same logic with respect to wavelength shifts is typically employed.

Levay points out that what he does is nothing more than an extension of two manipulation techniques that transformed modern astronomy.

"We've been manipulating our view of the universe since the advent of black-and-white photography," he said. "And even before. A telescope manipulates your view of the universe, because it expands the size of your eyes."
This Hubble image of four colliding galaxies, released in earlier this month, was created mostly with infrared light. Astronomers mixed some visible light taken with the telescope's optical imager, too. The visible light was recorded as yellow but made blue before being combined with this picture:






[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]
  #8  
Old November 21, 2003, 09:05 AM
oracle oracle is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2003
Location: U.A.E
Posts: 3,750

Actually, in the Quran it is in medicine, the embryo development of humans which is quite scientific.
-The Quran/Sura 39 on the development of the human embryo.

But Christians use these sort of arguments abundantly too.
Ripping texts from the Old Testament to give some sort of scintific validity. Hindus also.I could come with various examples which were written literally 1000 years before the Christain Judaic ones. So what?

No. I think there is no slam dunk proof of creation.
As one Sufi qoute brilliantly captures the theme of ultimate truth, " It is hidden, hidden , and hidden." The more this Science and Religion nexus is explored the more insecure these texts look.

However, I personally would like to see a more open intellectual climate in the Muslim world. At the least trying to capture the spirit of "enquiry" that was present during the days of Ghazali or Averoes.

If we are going to have religion in society then a Liberal religion is the only option that might have a chance because it would rectify a lot of the latent chauvinism found in the islamic world.
  #9  
Old November 21, 2003, 09:23 AM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,678

Arnab its a red giant. And the picture is 100% optic RGB from Hubble Space Telescope, captured by detecting RGB wavelenghts.

Visit: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cyc...1220_hand.html


The above image was taken by two telescopes, left one is from Chandra Observatory and right one is from Hubble Space Telescope. Chandra image was taken 100% X-ray shown in orange. The right image (hubble) has the X-Ray part (the blue part) and optical part(red and green part) from the Hubble. This composite image was taken with RGB detector as well as other detectors.

For full information on Cat's Eye Nubula please read this (explains Hubble image taking process):
HUBBLE PROBES THE COMPLEX HISTORY OF A DYING STAR


Hubble's image does not come like regular camera. Using different wavelenght detectors Hubble can give the color contents of the source, which then can be recomposed. Details from Hubble site: RGB recomposition

But ultimately a red giant, Cat's Eye Nebula, is obviosly red, even if we see black and white.


Red Giant Info:
Quote:
Because it has run out of fuel, the star begins to cool, and contract. The outer layers of the star fall inwards under gravity, and as they fall they heat up. A shell surrounding the central core becomes hot enough to fuse protons into alphas. So the star gains a new source of energy. The core of the star is now hotter than it was during its normal life and this heat causes the outer parts of the star to swell. The star becomes a giant. The radiation from the fusing shell has grown weak by the time it reaches the surface of the star. Weak radiation is red, so the star becomes a red giant.

This is the fate of the sun in about 5 billion years. You might want to mark your calendar!

The Quran verse here is taking about Red Giant. When sun becomes a red giant in 5-7billion years, it will engulf Earth, including Mars. And when that happens our "sky" will burn up with heat and earth will be destroyed. The sky will seem to be disintegrated and sky color that we will see (if someone is alive) will be reddish/rose like color.. This is what is meat by "When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."

The End: http://www.nature.com/nsu/010510/010510-7.html

It is very simple to understand. No denying it.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by nasif]
  #10  
Old November 21, 2003, 09:30 AM
oracle oracle is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2003
Location: U.A.E
Posts: 3,750

He makes you in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
This statement is from Sura 39. . . .
  #11  
Old November 21, 2003, 09:43 AM
chinaman chinaman is offline
Retired BC Admin
 
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
Default Bob & Yunus

Seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different world... And there they were, on a flight from Cape Town to Durban, ....... After the formalities were covered, the conversation continued........

Read the full story

or

Here

[Edited on 11-21-2003 by chinaman : URL changed]
  #12  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:07 AM
Zobair's Avatar
Zobair Zobair is offline
BanglaCricket Staff
 
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Location: 16th floor
Posts: 4,103
Default good one chinaman bhai!

The difference between Muhammad (PBUH)' book (the Creator's Word) and Jules Verne was one is describing the mechanism of processes which can theoretically be investigated right at the moment it was mentioned and the other one predicted and imagined way into the future. A fake prophet would have been much safer just guessing about the future rather than describing in detail how he thought things creation worked and risk being exposed as a crank! What would care if people found out after his death?! Jules Verne had a one track mind...just like you would expect humans to be...he was interested in technology, exploration...and that showed in his novels...the Quran talks about a multitude of things from various aspects of life and creation...There is no "may be" or "ifs" or "buts" at all. Every thing is said with simple and firm conviction.

In any case, if the Quran is a big lie..and Muhammad (PBUH) was a crank....he was the best damned actor in the whole world...he lived a life of complete and utter deception...lied through his teeth...could break into a sweat and act strange and the wierdest of times...impressed people with his honesty and truthfulfess (all of which was fake and yet perfectly orchestrated)..gave up what was a very comfortable life for perpetuating some lies and persisted with them come hell of high water....half-starved himself to death and almost got killed on numerous occasions, all for some fake God he had created in his mind....not only that...he got a quite a few people killed because of his deception...came up with wierd stuff about babies in the womb...and mountains...and galaxies which no one understand for quite a while after that ...what a super-crook! nauzubillah!
  #13  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:13 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

1. Nasif: "But ultimately a red giant, Cat's Eye Nebula, is obviosly red, even if we see black and white."

Dude, a red giant isn't RED, what part of the following did you not understand?

Quote:
On a more popular note, Brecher suggests the very vocabulary of astronomy is riddled with misleading color terms. Red giant stars like the bright and popular Betelgeuse, for example, are not really red, though they can sometimes appear so from Earth.

"If you could walk up to Betelgeuse, it would look white," he says.

That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes. Only from a great distance, when the star is relatively dim, can the cones sometimes detect a hint of red. The vast majority of red giants, however, set off only the rods in your eyes, which cannot detect color at all. So most stars appear white, regardless of how they are classified.
2. And what point did you want to prove with the RGB composition link from the hubble site? Let's read some of the stuff from the very site you gave me.

Quote:
a. Representative color helps scientists visualize what would otherwise be invisible, such as the appearance of an object in infrared light.

b. Enhancing the visible colors in an image often brings out an object's subtle structural detail.

c. We use color:

To depict how an object might look to us if our eyes were as powerful as Hubble

To visualize features of an object that would ordinarily be invisible to the human eye

To bring out an object's subtle details.

Color in Hubble images is used to highlight interesting features of the celestial object being studied. It is added to the separate black-and-white exposures that are combined to make the final image.

Creating color images out of the original black-and-white exposures is equal parts art and science.
Which is exactly my point.

And you know what's funny? The example of this art of color doctoring they give us is none other than your cat's eye nebula. haha!

3. This is how it's done, again, taken from the very site you gave me:

Quote:
Taking color pictures with the Hubble Space Telescope is much more complex than taking color pictures with a traditional camera. For one thing, Hubble doesn't use color film in fact, it doesn't use film at all. Rather, its cameras record light from the universe with special electronic detectors.

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft. We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye.
There is NO RGB detector in hubble! Where did you find that info? Did you just make that up? There are, however, RGB manipulation techniques that scientists use on these black and white photos to 1. enhance technical details 2. visual pleasure. Let's say, hypothetically, they wanna measure the intensity of light in the photo. Instead of using just brightness as a measure they use the color red. The more intense a part, the redder it is. The less intense, more pinkish it becomes. But it doesn't REALLY mean that the thing is red! The color is used to aid our understanding. And scientists may use different colors for the same property they wanna highlight in different photos. Maybe in other photos, intensity was shown with blue color. It's COMPLETELY ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE to the Color Enhancing Person's personal artistic choice.

So my question is:

Why do you say there is an optical RGB detector in Hubble when there is none? Why are you bent on bending the truth? Is your faith SO strong that you have to brainwash yourself like that?

Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.

And then they took two images from hubble, which were initially BLACK-and- WHITE images ALREADY color-doctored with red and green.

Notice how the chandra image on the left all on a sudden was converted from orange to blue in the composite pic on the right.

That's because they wanted to compare the "hotness" of different parts of the nebula. But OUR HUMAN EYES are NOT capable of seeing such stuff. So they color coded the hotness with more hot being red and less hot being blue.

It's ALL subjective. They could have easily color coded hot being green and cold being red.

It's color doctoring. As simple as that.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]
  #14  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:40 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
In any case, if the Quran is a big lie..and Muhammad (PBUH) was a crank....he was the best damned actor in the whole world...he lived a life of complete and utter deception...lied through his teeth...could break into a sweat and act strange and the wierdest of times...impressed people with his honesty and truthfulfess (all of which was fake and yet perfectly orchestrated)..gave up what was a very comfortable life for perpetuating some lies and persisted with them come hell of high water....half-starved himself to death and almost got killed on numerous occasions, all for some fake God he had created in his mind....not only that...he got a quite a few people killed because of his deception...came up with wierd stuff about babies in the womb...and mountains...and galaxies which no one understand for quite a while after that ...what a super-crook! nauzubillah!
You know what, these exact questions stump me too. But you know how history gets distorted right? Ask an Awami supporter about Sheikh Mujib and you will get all these Rong-chorano Galgoppo about his life.

Now, I am not so much of a fool to say the history of Islam is a big lie. There's a lot of truth out there in the annals of history. The main question is are these truths being tainted by the zealous followers along the process?

History is rife with examples of schizophreninc religious leaders. We have seen them in 21st century as well. And the more weird they act, the more important they become in normal public's eye.

If Muhammad calmly produced the verses in a homely family dinner among friends, people probably would have taken him as a joker. So maybe he had to do theatrical stuff like swooning and stuf.

Pompous, you know that people are superstitious, right? And as you go back in generations, the more superstitious people seem to be. Your mom is less superstitious than your grandma, who is less superstitious than her mom. When you grandma talks about causes of some illness from jin bhoot, or makes up stupid reasons why your stomach is cramping, you laugh at her, right? Because you now know what's really happening inside your body thanks to the science of medicine.

And this is going back only one generation. If people can be so superstitious and ignorant in just one generation, imagine what the poeple would be like in 600 A.D.? I mean if you read some of the hadiths, you can clearly see Muhammad knew nothing about how the body worked internally (obviously), he just applied common sense and spouted off whatever was in his mind with an air of conviction.

Now, my guess is, a LOT and I mean a LOT of these stories regarding Muhammad (or any other prophet, for that matter) is folklore. Made up stories that sound so awesome but I'm sure if you dig deep, you'll come up with something very different.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]
  #15  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:45 AM
oracle oracle is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2003
Location: U.A.E
Posts: 3,750

Quote:
The difference between Muhammad (PBUH)' book (the Creator's Word) and Jules Verne was one is describing the mechanism of processes which can theoretically be investigated right at the moment it was mentioned and the other one predicted and imagined way into the future
Describing the mechanism that can theoretically be investigated sounds pretty much like the core of western scintific exploration since the renaissance. That is using measurement and experimentation to arrive or debunk a hypothesis.

Early Islam was actually quite adept at this having taken to heart the findings of the Greeks (mainly Aristotle) and establishing a nascent Islamic culture of science and philosophy. However, the foremost Islamic scholar of the time Ghazali did not go beyond this stage of science and make "applied" paramount in Islamic thought. Scientific study was secondary to the submission to God.

The big rift between Science and Religion in Europe occured because of adapting Science for utilitarian purposes, thereby abandoning quest for truth or nature of god. As a result of which bringing in the "modern" western society. At some point in History the European countries radically developed their societies differently from Islamic ones. It is this divergence which is interesting and worth analyzing.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by oracle]
  #16  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:53 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by oracle
The big rift between Science and Religion in Europe occured because of adapting Science for utilitarian purposes, thereby abandoning quest for truth or nature of god. As a result of which bringing in the "modern" western society.
I think a bigger rift took place in the 20th century when a majority of the scientists realized that science has nothing to do with God. Science is still pursuing truth. But, God is a subjective entity that science has nothing to do with. God doesn't even fit in the model of science. It's for people of blind faith.

But again, some scientists live a dual life. When they are doing science, they switch off their blind faith mechanisms in their head. And when they go back home and say their prayers, they are back in irrational blind faith mode again. It's pretty cool.
  #17  
Old November 21, 2003, 11:56 AM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,678

Quote:
Why do you say there is an optical RGB detector in Hubble when there is none? Why are bent on bending the truth?

Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.

And then they took two images from hubble, which were initially BLACK-and- WHITE images ALREADY color-doctored with red and green.
Before you accuse someone of bending the truth please analyze the material. If you have read the Dying Star article you would have known the following:
This color picture, taken with the Wide Field Planetary Camera-2, is a
composite of three images taken at different wavelengths. (red,
hydrogen-alpha; blue, neutral oxygen, 6300 angstroms; green, ionized
nitrogen, 6584 angstroms).


Even the Hubble Site explains RGB detection with different wavelenght detectors. http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/beh...olor/rgb.shtml


Quote:
Dude, a red giant isn't RED, what part of the following did you not understand?
Quote:
That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes.
Dude, no one will be alive to see sun's red giant. Earth will burn up long before red giant engulfs earth. Residents of earth may only see the initial stage (beginning process) of the red giant and that will appear as red/rosy.

Quote:
Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.
Please don't make up a story to justify your logic. No one is stupid here. We know we don't see X-Ray. I mentioned the orange to let you know that it was created color. X-Ray isn't orange. This was to show constrast with the cat's eye's color which was generated from 3 (RGB) wavelength detectors.


Quote:
And you know what's funny? The example of this art of color doctoring they give us is none other than your cat's eye nebula. haha!
And you think I didn't see that? I knew you were going to say this. Just shows how quick you were to write up an answer without giving any thought. Please read the caption under that cat's eye picture:
Quote:
From Hubble Site

Enhanced Color
Enhancing the visible colors in an image often brings out an object's subtle structural detail.
They are just saying that they enhance picture's color. That doesn't mean that the picture was black and white. It just means the colors were weak and they enhanced it, to make to more distinct.

Jumping into conclusion too soon is a big mistake for everything in life. Let it soak...

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by nasif]
  #18  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:01 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
Default Oh My God

For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!

Quote:
They are just saying that they enhance picture's color. That doesn't mean that the picture was black and white. It just means the colors were weak and they enhanced it, to make to more distinct.
They are enhancing the color they ADDED in the previous step. Those are not real colors they are enhancing. They are taking black and white photos, adding color to them (which depends on what colors THEY, the photo doctors, like to see) and THEN they are enhancing the colors they just added to show subtle features more clearly.

The colors aren't REAL!


[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]
  #19  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:02 PM
Unknown's Avatar
Unknown Unknown is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: November 21, 2003
Location: Blue Moon
Posts: 509
Default Arrogance?

It is well evident that arrogance leads mankind away from Allah.

Even here we see vivid examples of arrogance.

SCIENCE itself is "yet" not an accurate means by which we can derive every bit of information about our world and this universe.

My main point... it is utter ARROGANCE to believe that WE(all that exists in the universe) came to being by a "universal" accident.

Arnab: "dude" your arrogance is why you fail to see the obvious.

As it is stated in the Quran... Allah guides those who he pleases and misguides those who he wills.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]
  #20  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:03 PM
oracle oracle is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2003
Location: U.A.E
Posts: 3,750

Quote:
I think a bigger rift took place in the 20th century when a majority of the scientists realized that science has nothing to do with God. Science is still pursuing truth
Yes, I agree. However, the case is not closed and I really doubt it will be. Actually, I will agree to disagree with you on the second sentence because the pursuit of truth may have been compromised by the pursuit of big money.

Secondly,


Quote:
And when they go back home and say their prayers, they are back in irrational blind faith mode again. It's pretty cool.
Actually, that interaction between irrationality and rationality, i.e the creative process, has produced quite a number of scientific breakthroughs and religious belief of the scientist may have spurred this. So why suppress or belittle it if it benefits man?.
  #21  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:09 PM
Zobair's Avatar
Zobair Zobair is offline
BanglaCricket Staff
 
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Location: 16th floor
Posts: 4,103

Can you provide any examples of such hadith? Are they sound?
Quote:
And this is going back only one generation. If people can be so superstitious and ignorant in just one generation, imagine what the poeple would be like in 600 A.D.? I mean if you read some of the hadiths, you can clearly see Muhammad knew nothing about how the body worked internally (obviously), he just applied common sense and spouted off whatever was in his mind with an air of conviction.

Is this speculation on your part or do you have any other reason to believe this happened?

Quote:
If Muhammad calmly produced the verses in a homely family dinner among friends, people probably would have taken him as a joker. So maybe he had to do theatrical stuff like swooning and stuf.

Start of with a guess...end with conviction...nice work!
Quote:
Now, my guess is, a LOT and I mean a LOT of these stories regarding Muhammad (or any other prophet, for that matter) is folklore. Made up stories that sound so awesome but I'm sure if you dig deep, you'll come up with something very different.
History, particular of Muhammad's life, as is recorded by Muslims and Non-Muslims, is based on his actions, and accounts by modern historians are almost symmetric in content, though they may diffeer in their speculation of intentions. As for superstitions, I am guessing you are referring to the hadith. Actually, most, and I mean overwhelmingly MOST hadith deal with day to day sayings and rulings of the prophet, very much non-superstitious...superstitions are generally associated with unnatural events...miracles...of which only a handful are associated the prophet. As for his state when he received the revelations...many non-Muslims had speculated that he was epileptic..only to dismiss these as not plausible later...well you seem to know how to break into a sweat cold sweat on demand...next time I need a deferral for my exam I will ask for some tips
  #22  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:10 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,678

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!
Obviously you have never worked with image processing. When you seperate a color image into its component colors, it gets seperated into 3 grey scale images. Its very simple in computer to produce a color image from 3 RGB component grey scale image. They do this all the time in publishing industry with 4 channels CMYK.

Yes, they take the image in grey scale (its not black and white, that is an incorrect term). But they have 3 different grey scale for 3 channels of RGB. From these 3 grey scale image a color picture can be composed. Its as if you have taken a color image. There is no practical difference.
  #23  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:10 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Actually, that interaction between irrationality and rationality, i.e the creative process, has produced quite a number of scientific breakthroughs and religious belief of the scientist may have spurred this. So why suppress or belittle it if it benefits man?.
I am not belittling it. I am saying it's cool.
It's pretty interesting to observe what you dub as "the interaction between irrationality and rationality."

I think human brain is not capable of being rational all the time. It's not a defect. It's just how we have evolved. Our brain was developed to the extent that we were able to live and propagate. Not anything more than that. It's the legacy of evolution.
  #24  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:14 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by nasif
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!
Obviously you have never worked with image processing. When you seperate a color image into its component colors, it gets seperated into 3 grey scale images. Its very simple in computer to produce a color image from 3 RGB component grey scale image. They do this all the time in publishing industry with 4 channels CMYK.

Yes, they take the image in grey scale (its not black and white, that is an incorrect term). But they have 3 different grey scale for 3 channels of RGB. From these 3 grey scale image a color picture can be composed. Its as if you have taken a color image. There is no practical difference.
Obviously, you don't seem to understand that space photography as done by Hubble is completely different from normal photography.

Hubble is basically collecting various types of data, some of which is visible, most of which isn't. The scientists are taking these data, which are in binary form and making images out of them.

They are not initially collecting an RGB inage and then seperating the colors. They are taking an image that resembles a grey scale image (but in fact has much more info than that) and then ADDING colors to it to their whim.
  #25  
Old November 21, 2003, 12:24 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,678

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Hubble is basically collecting various types of data, some of which is visible, most of which isn't. The scientists are taking these data, which are in binary form and making images out of them.

They are not initially collecting an RGB inage and then seperating the colors. They are taking an image that resembles a grey scale image (but in fact has much more info than that) and then ADDING colors to it to their whim.
You are posting before I can even read whats been posted. Fast indeed.

Ok lets give it in step by step:

1. Turn the hubble on
2. Face it towards cats eye
3. Get digital image from Wide Field Planetary Camera-2
4. Digital image data has different channels of data for each of the different detector. Three of these detectors are red, blue and green wavelength detectors. There are other detectors, we will disregard them.
5. Digital data of each of these wavelength is in grey scale.
6. Turn your computer on
7. Load the grey scale digital images for three wavelenghts.
8. Re-combine these three grey scale into RGB color image.
9. Now we have weak color image.
10. Enhace image colors so the it has high constrast.
11. Post it on your website
12. Discuss about it in BanglaCricket.com
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket