# The Omni Equation

## Recommended Posts

• Hi all,I think I finally got the answer. Please read and respond if I'm wrong.I will start by proving our current understanding of Mathematics is wrong.
• Did Georg Cantor get it wrong?
• What I believe Cantor found was the infinite possibilities within the number "1".
• One explains itself and every other number including the infinite possibilities within itself. ALL different types of numerical expressions like fractions, decimal points, percentages, whole numbers, irrational number, etc, are different ways of expressing this one number within our finite system.
• One is the identity of mathematics.
• It is such a perfect number that any variations on the 100% value of 1, is an imperfection
• Hence Cantors proclaimed Absolute Infinity is restricted by the number 1, a 100% complete (bounded and ended) value.
• (1) = (100%)
• Absolute Infinity must be boundless and endless and defined in Mathematical language as ∞
• Cantors most proclaimed work is in fractions, a part of the infinite possibilities within 1.
• So we must add the Bound/end/restriction "()" of 1 or 100%.
• (∞)
• All Cantor produced was the greatest Oxymoron in existence.
• No matter if you calculate with 1 or within 1, the infinite possibilities are restricted by its oneness. It therefore must have a beginning and an end.
• This also means because we are within the laws of one E=mc2, It is impossible for the universe merely to have a beginning
• ( ∞
• Georg Cantor was not wrong however about his findings, just what he found has been wrongly titled as infinity. It is infinite yes but not Absolute infinity or infinity in totality.
• There is only one problem with 1. Just by itself it can not calculate within itself or with reproductions of itself.It requires a language to be able to calculate.
• Mathematical Governing laws.
• If "1" is the identity of Mathematics, What is the core of the universal language?
• If you think about it x, ÷ , √ , Etc are grouped and fancy symbols. We could still continue calculating without them. The only two symbols that do exist and explain all other symbols/mathematical expressions are"+" and "-"
• Simple example
• 2x3=6
• (1+1)+(1+1)+(1+1)=(1+1+1+1+1+1)
• Addition and subtraction are only derived due to the existence of the number 1. It is the language spoken by the number 1 and therefore also it's restriction.
• It's either the entity or value exist and added then, eventually ceases to exist and taken away.
• Any entity or value that is added can never not exist or become nothing, only the additional 1 that it supplied is subtracted.
• Whatever this entity contributed or any other additions they reproduced while existing still remains, even if it itself, ceases to exist.
• I mention the word "reproduced" for a reason. To actually create something using multiple other entities or other ones is something you've designed, not created.
• For example if we were to create a table, we (1) are using other materials (1+1+1) and we can only design it to our desired outcome (1).
• The only way we can actually "create" something is with reproduction. Reason is simple.
• We are each an individual 1s
• our bodies develop and emit 1.1
• Our children becomes another 1
• But always has this .1 from our 1.
• Michael from Vsauce explains it wel
• Vsauce - You can't Touch Anything
• So in actual fact a decimal point that is beyond the 100% of 1, could potentially end up being a part of another 1, even though it developed within the initial 1.
• We can also never become nothing because we were once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something. Everything that has ceased to exist has existed at specific time.Everything that exists or existed is an addition.
• This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.
• For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space, so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is forgotten.
• However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.We can not imagine what someone else imagines to the exact detail nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your own wiring and experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.
• Hence nothing outside of your restricted (1) can be contemplated because we are restricted by your unique Addition and Subtraction. (+|-)
• Quick summary
• Cantors infinity is not absolute infinity and restricted by 1(1)=(100%)=(∞)
• (1) is restricted by 100%
• (+|-) is the language and also a restriction of (1).
• We can not contemplate beyond our (1)
• This is the core of mathematics. Everything must have an Equal and opposite to exist.
• Hence It also explains
• Positive and negative,
• Time space,
• Proton electron,
• Right Wrong,
• Light Dark
• We can even say
• Yin Yang.
• All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
• Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
• Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
• The only title that can be given to something that explains everything is
• The Theory of Everything(+|-)
• In understanding this number 1 and it language that it must obey in order to be calculate, we also see the relationship between science and mathematics
• That is mathematics studies the (+ | - )laws to understand the (1) value.
• Science studies the(1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
• Except.......
• Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
• How do you explain this. Easy....
• A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1. It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
• + ( + | - )
• Would it be wrong then if I state this is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
• And this is what governing physics only studies (+|-)?
• I believe this is the never before seen link between Quantum Mechanics and Gravitational Physics.
• Even a law however is not nothing, but something. It is an action and must proceed an entity.
• 1 + ( + | - )
• I'll ask another question to better understand what I'm implying
• What is 1 added onto finite or 1 added onto Mathematics as the equation shows?
• Different variations
• 1 + ()
• 1 + (1)
• 1 + (Maths)
• 1 + (e=mc2)
• 1 + (+|-)
• 1 + (logic)
• 1 + (everything)
• 1 + (finite)
• ??
• Heres an example... Say we calculated everything and found the total answer,
• Hypothetically say everything equals to 100, what is 1 added onto 100 or everything1+(100)?
• It can not be 101
• It must therefore be ∞
• "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."
• What is faster than the speed of light?
• So now we have an equation
• 1 + (1) = ∞ or better explained
• 1 + ( + | - ) = ∞
• The Actual True infinity or as I like to call this, The Omni Equation.
• Now to really get to the best bit
• THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.
• First let me start by mentioning this,
• We (1) have free will (+|-).
• God "1=∞" outside of () does not tamper with (+|-).
• This falls under the category of "Miracle" which I will explain later.
• We can do good or bad and imbalance the system.
• When time of judgement comes "="
• and your judged by 1=∞ outside of our (+|-)
• You can potentially end up with + ∞ or - ∞
• E.g
• You've done 60% positive in total within your free will
• Well....
• 1+(+60,-40) = + ∞ = Heaven
• Or the vice versa, hell
• 1+(+40,-60) = - ∞
• That would mean
• Added onto subtraction itself is -∞
• 1 + (+) = + ∞
• 1 + (-) = - ∞
• It is important to remember ONLY "1 = ∞" outside of () can judge. We can not even judge ourselves.
• Now let me show you different religious belief structures. We must understand that anything outside of the finite is hidden, incomparable and incomprehensible.
• Let me explain it this way
• We already know1= ∞ outside finite is God,
• Everything created is an addition, a positive + .
• God only gives positives to the universe.
• +(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist
• 1=(+|-)Pantheist, the universe is God
• (1= ∞ )Buddhism, look within yourself to find personal Nirvana. Cantors ideology is somewhat a Buddhist belief.
• 1=+=(+|-) = ∞
• Christianity,
• father (1) holy spirit (+) son (+|-) (holy spirit is the deliverer of Gods word, positive, the son is earthly bound son)
• However Jesus said in the Bible constantly
• the father (1)
• is greater (+)
• than I (+|-).
• I should also mention Christianity believes (1=∞) or Jesus God who came to earth. This is very similar to the Buddhist belief however, Buddhism believes everyone has the potential of finding ∞ within themselves and Christianity believe only 1 character, Jesus had ∞ within him.
• Also another similar religious belief is Hinduism where multiple (1=∞) can or have existed.
• By clearly looking at the restrictions of (1), (+|-), We understand 1=∞ can never have any ().
• In other words, God can never be an oxymoron.
• That would mean to understand a religious quote like, to be made "in Gods image" actually means to be made up of 1 but never his ∞.
• Also the other Christian ideologies, like a part of God or begotten son of God, can also be explained
• A part of God
• God Is the only 100% ∞
• If Jesus was .1% of Gods 100%
• Then God becomes 99.9%
• and we become Godless.
• Son of God
• To have a child is an emission from yourself. We are given genes from our parents, not actual physical parts but a mathematical development of reproduction that is produced, then emitted. So it already is restricted by (+|-) and Absolute ∞ can not be within ().
• Also an emission from yourself is always connected to you.
• What I mean is,
• As explained earlier
• We are each an individual 1
• Our bodies develop and emit 1.1
• Our children becomes another 1
• But always has this .1 from our 1.
• The problem is God is Absolute ∞. If God developed then emitted rather than created, then God becomes a 1.1 at one stage and an always 100% ∞ infinite God, becomes a 110% ∞.
• God can not be greater than God. He must be complete but Absolute ∞.
• In all fairness to Christianity, Not until the Nicene Creed was this error accepted. Athanasius's ideology prevailed Arius concept. When studied in depth mathematically, it is easy to spot that Arius's belief should have been accepted.
• Also there are sections in the Bible that are more correct than our current accepted mathematics
• For example
• Genesis 1:1 ...God (1) created (+) heavens ( ∞ ) and earth (+|-),
• or the finite is within infinite, not vice versa.
• Even though Genesis's further explanation maybe mathematically unsound, the first line is in perfect sync and actually proves wrong Cantor.
• Islam
• Quran
• Surah 112,
• In the name of Allah, 1=∞
• The most Beneficent (saying thanks for the + in (+|-) to the ∞ beneficent)
• The most merciful (asking for mercy for your - in (+|-) to the ∞ merciful )
• Say he is 1 (1),
• on all whom depend (+)
• he begets not, nor is begotten (+|-)
• and none is like him (∞)
• The whole Quran is written with this theme, I have not found a single Chapter/Surah that falls outside of the vicinity of the equation. It explains God, what he gives to mankind, a positive and negative and the eternal end.and so on....
• The equation explains a lot of unanswered questions Like for example God does not change the mathematics, he could but won't. He does miracles by setting the mathematics before the creation is created, so Moses parting the ocean means the ocean already had its appointed time to part.
• Even though it does not explain evolution, which I am a firm believer of even though I believe in God, (I can explain this religiously if required), it does explain that Adams heaven must have been on earth because Adam is within the (+|-).
• Also there is no such thing as original sin, we may have come because of it but are not subject to it.The reason Adams heaven was considered heaven is due to him only being able to see the positives (+) within the (+|-) when he sinned the negatives were revealed.
• I know so much more about the equation but I'll leave you all with this final important feature of The Omni Equation,
• Scientist and related schools of Academia have been debating theologians, labeling them "backward thinking" and restricted for believing in a deity.
• The truth is however, the equation clearly shows those who follow a deity have thought a lot more about the bigger picture and in particular, outside the box.
• I applaud criticism.

Edited by Notexceling
##### Share on other sites

Did you read that after you posted it?

It's full of control characters and it's unreadable.

I'm not sure it will be worth reading when you fix that, but at east people might look at it.

##### Share on other sites

I'm trying desperately to fix itIt keeps reverting back tithe same, when I leave paragraph spaces

Sorry about the bullet points, it's the only fix

##### Share on other sites

"One is the identity of mathematics."

No, it's an identity in maths, but so is zero.

"It is such a perfect number that any variations on the 100% value of 1, is an imperfection"

and any deviation from exactly 16 2/3 is also an "imperfection".

That's not unique to the number 1.

"Hence Cantors proclaimed Absolute Infinity is restricted by the number 1"

No

For a start, infinity is rather bigger than 1- by inspection.

More importantly the use of the word "hence" implies some sort of causal relation.

but there isn't one.

"Absolute Infinity must be boundless and endless and defined in Mathematical language as ∞"

Which infinity?

There are, as Cantor pointed out, several.

I'm not going to go through the rest of the post because it's all that bad.

It's full of false assertions. Implicit causations that are not there and general mumbo jumbo.

It is, on the whole, just word salad.

##### Share on other sites

• [*]Hi all,I think I finally got the answer. Please read and respond if I'm wrong. ... THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.[*][*]First let me start by mentioning this,[*][*]We (1) have free will (+|-).[*][*]God "1=∞" outside of () does not tamper with (+|-).

Hi there Notexceling ! First of all, let me sincerely express my appreciation for the trouble you have gone to in presenting your hypothesis. I know that can be hard work, and I know it represents a good chunk of your time, energy, and researching abilities. I do, honestly, appreciate that. Let me also say that I can, in some idiosyncratic way, empathize with your wordiness, and length of OP. I am (and I will put this in a fair way) guilty of doing the same, at times. (Although there are times when 'guilty of' would be a stretch of the imagination, in all pragmatic fairness... we do, at times, have to balance all the waffle that is out there.) Then, let me see if I can help out a little here.

Mathematics and arithmetic are wonderful, fun, and challenging things. While it baffles me, my mother was a math teacher, and my father was too. (Although he was a physics teacher) One thing that is interesting, is the binary aspect which you had mentioned. Another interesting thing is the 'mass,' 'volume' sensory perception which even Zebra fish have demonstrated, which is at the core of mathematical reasoning too. Of course, as you may know, mathematical ability is a left hemisphere function for the most part, in most brains--including non-human primates (Great Apes, at least). But enough rambling; to the 'helping out' point.

The above quote is where your hypothesis essentially breaks down altogether, into a fatal error (save other points for this post). You had started out which some philosophical (as much as, if not more so) issues related to mathematics, and then went down to some pragmatic, basic level. The basics of going from one is pragmatic and realistic, and, does not have any use of the burdensome philosophical fluff that we find. Of course, as John Cuthber had pointed out, above, zero is an important starting place. The farmer whose fencing and barn works had been blown down in the typhoon, found that there were zero cows on his premises. He had to start from zero to get to having one cow, at least, again.

The main problem, however, and one especially tied in to this particular sub-forum, is that you have suddenly, without any further explanation, background, referencing to sound knowledge and belief, thrown in the word "God." Of course, if one wishes to use an English translation of the Arabic A'llah, one can use that form (God), but it is not a good idea due to confusion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, and the many more present and past systems, did not talk about God at all. God is the deity of the Jewish system as of late First Temple Period, and Second Temple Period, as it is a plug-in substitute for YHWH. In Christendom, it is used for the deity of the modern Christian biblical god. Therefore for one, you have misused the word, putting it in an incorrect form. You should have written 'A god ...,' or you should have given the name of the particular god you had had in mind; which leads to the next point of concern with this fatal error the hypothesis commits.

The god of the Quran has no name, only epithets and titles, addresses and honorable dressing. Before the Quran had been compiled and edited, the post third century Christian system's information source's god had no name either, only the same--except for the understood dogma of the character Jesus' being a part of a single godhead. Both these systems, of course, derived from the Jewish system, and the Jewish system's information source's god did have an exact name, namely, יהוה (YHWH). Thanks to some nonsensical superstitious, emotionally laden ignorance, and the now known-to-be-the-case non-existence of such an external factuality of nature, the personal name of that said supreme being went out of common knowledge due to non-oral usage. (The crowds were illiterate.)

Before that, say, around pre-800 BCE, there was no such system, and there were many gods and goddesses. Before that, say, around the year 25,000 BCE, there were no real gods that can be determined to have been published. To make a long story shorter (since I have, as I had hinted at in the opening lines, dragged it out a bit already) the notion, definition of a god, arose from the Homo genus' activities related to social bonding--powerful warrior leaders and 'kings,' on up to invisible 'big-brother' protectors of the in-group coherence and togetherness. There has been no short supply of gods and goddess over the course of these past 10,000 years. What that amounts to in the way of sound knowledge and belief, is that the very concept, and definition, as it is at present, is due to a figment of the human imagination.

Therefore, you have thrown in a premise predicate which in no way matches the course data for your argument start up. Not having a single yen to your name, is having zero yen--a very real, and pragmatic matter. Having one car, is having a very real, external factuality of nature' count--a car is a very real thing. Looking at that old photo, and recalling the number of strands of hair which have now returned to earth (I suppose), is understanding real count, and mass. A god, or a goddess--any god or goddess will do, you know--is not a real thing in this sense in anyway.

Although your statement that "God does not tamper with whatever," is very true. That is like the truth that because the figment in my son's mind will never demonstrate a consistently perfect test score result, that figment does not tamper with anything external to my son's mind. In the end, therefore, this point will have to be removed, and then that will surely have to cause us to go back to the drawing board. Any theological concern will not be shown to have any bearing on any pragmatic mathematical matter, and the opposite is true too. Therefore, without that portion, what is it that you wish to show. I would like to hear that.

Again, thanks for your time and hard work, and your thought sharing--even though... and look at this post, will you!?... hee, hee, hee...

Edited by LimbicLoser
##### Share on other sites

It's not clear that the OP is at all familiar with any of the things Cantor proved. The entirety of the post is so far into nonsense that it's hard to know where to start.

If 1 is infinity, how big of an infinity is it? See, that was one of Cantor's proofs (and a brilliantly elegant one at that); he showed that not all infinities are created equal. Some are bigger than others. Is 1 countably infinite? Being so familiar with the subject it shouldn't be hard for you to provide us with a logical proof.

Oh, and if we're talking Cantor, then you should be familiar enough with sets to know that mathematics is derived from the empty set rather than 1.

##### Share on other sites

What you need to do to prove that everything is one equation is enter it into a computer and see if the simulation perfectly matches reality, although that sort of creates the paradox of "what if that already happened?". Though, amybe you could get away with trying to just solve for any variable of any law of physics.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

"One is the identity of mathematics."

No, it's an identity in maths, but so is zero.

Zero being considered an additive identity is so humorous when zero can't even identify itself.

Without 1 we have no identity or mathematics and vice versa.

It is the absolute and complete identity of mathematics.

"It is such a perfect number that any variations on the 100% value of 1, is an imperfection"

and any deviation from exactly 16 2/3 is also an "imperfection".

That's not unique to the number 1.

1 is the only unique number?

1 can explain 16 and 2/3 and even infinity, can any other number do that?

"Hence Cantors proclaimed Absolute Infinity is restricted by the number 1"

No

For a start, infinity is rather bigger than 1- by inspection.

Cantor found there could be many ∞, but all his explanations are restricted to existence of the number 1 and mathematics.

Absolute Infinity must be greater than any/all restrictions.

I'm just giving you an equation, that explains something Absolutely unrestricted. Beyond number 1 and mathematics.

"Absolute Infinity must be boundless and endless and defined in Mathematical language as ∞"

Which infinity?

There are, as Cantor pointed out, several.

Absolute, in Totality infinity.

How can there be several ∞ in any of Cantors work? 1 can explain them all yet we know 1 has a bound and an end.

##### Share on other sites

re. "How can there be several ∞ in any of Cantors work? "

Since you clearly don't understand Cantor's work, perhaps you should realise why you can't use it as a basis for some strange theories about God.

" 1 can explain them all "

No, it can't.

"I'm just giving you an equation, that explains something Absolutely unrestricted. Beyond number 1 and mathematics."

If the equation is "beyond mathematics" then i's clearly not a mathematical equation.

What sort is it exactly?

Do you realise just how little sense you are making here?

##### Share on other sites

Notexceling, you may be right. You have demonstrated that the number of logical fallacies can be directly proportional to the number of lines of text and you did that in 1 post.

##### Share on other sites

How can there be several ∞ in any of Cantors work?

It'd help if you'd actually read it. His most famous theorem is incomprehensible if there is only one size of infinity, because it shows that not all infinities are created equal. There are exactly as many positive even numbers as there are positive numbers. This should blow your mind. Going through different infinite sets, we see all sorts of infinities that are intuitively unequal, but are actually cardinally equivalent. Doesn't it feel like there should be half as many positive even integers as there are positive integers?

Well, we can pair up every member of one of the sets with one and only one member of the other with the relation y=(1/2)x. You start with 2 and cut it in half and it pairs with 1, then move on to 4 and cut it in half and it pairs with 2, then move on to 6 and cut it in half and it pairs with 3 and so on forever. This relation is an isomorphic function which means the two sets it relates are cardinally equivalent. The two infinities which seem to be so different are exactly the same size. There's a really nifty proof that shows that the set of all positive rational numbers is also the exact same size as the set of all positive integers. With such wildly different types of infinities being exactly the same size, one might think that all infinities are the same size. This is not the case.

Not all infinities are created equal. There are uncountable infinities such as the set of all irrational numbers. And in general, a power set is larger than the set from which it is made, so the power set of any countable infinity is uncountable as well.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

chilehed, I have unapproved your post for several reasons. It's offtopic, it's thread hijacking, you failed to cite the source of your copy/paste so it's plagiarism and we're choosing NOT to promote the use of the word "retard" on this site.

Further, I'm recommending suspension of your account for such horrible judgement, and assume that you will think before posting again. We'll get back to you on the suspension.

##### Share on other sites

And in general, a power set is larger than the set from which it is made, so the power set of any countable infinity is uncountable as well.

This, by the way, means that there are an infinite number of different sizes of infinities.

##### Share on other sites

I thank you for your response.

I could potentially respond to all your comments but that would be a post longer than the Bible, so I will just justify my reasoning based on your main points.

Firstly I do not agree with

Quote "mathematical ability is a left hemisphere function for the most part, in most brains"

Mathematics ability is within all creatures. Once any creature is born, it must mathematically calculate a way of staying alive.

The survival instinct or emotions must come from the newborn itself and that requires calculations. A perfectly healthy new born baby doesn't need to be taught to breathe, it just does. A zebra fish doesn't need to be taught to swim, it just does.

If we came from a single cell organism and evolved to the state we are, that first spark of life had to strategize a plan to survive. It also had to use the foundations of the universal law of mathematics, in order to reproduce and prosper.

The only difference between us and our cousins, that is all creations that came from this first life form, is we got good at mathematics.

We started questioning the logic, the what's, when's, how's and especially why's. Started exploring, learning, contemplating, deciphering, dominating etc

My doctrine of choice, the Quran states amongst all the other creatures, including our closely related cousins, Adam was the first one to do so.

While our primate relatives were causing mischief and shedding blood, Adam was learning.

In regards to your scenario of the cow and the farmer is with the idea that the cow actually exists.  The farmer does not start with zero cows, he has prior knowledge of the existence of cows and builds his farm with the intention of getting cows.

If the cows were at Absolute zero, he would have asked for something else rather than a cow.

Without 1 cow existing or ever existing, there is no such thing as cows.

As I mentioned before, even though I follow Allah, The use of the word "God" is because I'm  explaining the Absolute, in totality God, a incomprehensible completely unrestricted entity that must be outside of our mathematical laws.

That is why for your understanding I explained the concept of God with Maths.

The 1=∞ outside of finite.

It does not matter what you call this God or even if you follow a God, as long as you believe there is a one, 100% infinite that can never be limited by our governing laws.

If you agree that God, Allah, YHWH, Absolute Infinite or any other name you prefer to call it does exist, then I follow the same 1=∞ that you follow.

God is not just a diety of the Jewish faith.

You are correct in your historical referencing that the Jewish religion started a long time after Moses.

Moses never proclaimed to be Jew, nor did any other Prophet proclaim any other religion.

However he explained his belief as having one deity and giving his all to him.

That is exactly what every other prophet also said. They all were dedicated to following one and submitting to him, all the way back to Adam. The God I'm referring to is the Single deity that all of them accepted.

My choice of following the Quran is due to it's mathematical correctness.

What subject would you like

Tectonic plates, water cycles, evolution, expanding universe, big bang, string theory, oxygen, Isostasy, atmosphere,  orbits of celestial entities, Strata levels of the earth, gravity, Van Allen's belt....

They are all mentioned in the doctrine that's 1400 years old.

Yet Im not here to convince you to believe in a God, you have your ways, I have mine.

Just showing that beyond time and space is an Absolute Infinite, not restricted by any laws. Do you believe that mathematics exists beyond these?

Before supplying another biased opinion, I urge you to prove me wrong that Cantors infinite and the infinite amount of varying sized infinities are restricted by laws of (+|-) mathematics and our sole numerical number 1, where as Absolute Infinity can not be at all governed.

I thank you for your criticism

##### Share on other sites

My choice of following the Quran is due to it's mathematical correctness.

What subject would you like

Tectonic plates, water cycles, evolution, expanding universe, big bang, string theory, oxygen, Isostasy, atmosphere, orbits of celestial entities, Strata levels of the earth, gravity, Van Allen's belt....

They are all mentioned in the doctrine that's 1400 years old.

Can you explain why not a single muslim pointed these about before orthodox science discovered them? It could have encouraged many more converts.

##### Share on other sites

The reason is quite simple.

We Muslims do not know what we have until Academia acknowledges a discovery. Very rarely do we have the ability of understanding our doctrine in a scientific manner before the scientist who has dedicated his life to the subject.

Let me give you a quick example

36.80

The One who made for you from green trees, fire

And Behold! With it it you kindle (your fire)

Without Joseph Priestley's discovery of Oxygen in 1774 this passage from the Quran would have meant something totally different, especially for those with lack of educational facilities in the desert. Until it is proven, documented and eventually becomes common knowledge, our capacity lacks the means of deciphering its meaning. From a Muslim perspective, this wasn't always the case however.

Up until the Siege of Baghdad, the Quran was allowed to be studied and reasoned with independently.

In this Golden Age of Islam, Muslims were renowned for their knowledge and contributed works in numerous different fields of Academia. We understood the importance of the second most repeated word (after Allah) in the Quran "ilm" meaning knowledge/science.

Unfortuntaley since then and all the way to current history, the middle east educational system is rated as one of the most lacking in quality, in the world.

Institutionalized limitation were introduced in the 12th century and slowly, with the assistance of the ruling tribal Mongolians within that the era, intellectual freedom was irradicated.

Hadiths (actions and sayings of the prophet) written more than 200 years after the prophets death have also contributed greatly to the poor educational system. The damage this book has caused is evident worldwide. I applaud anyone who can find me a terrorist/extremist Muslim who solely follows the Quran and not hadiths.

Also due to the acceptance of this other book, questioning anything has become a punishable offense.

They say, you follow.

The Quran still however remains its ground as a mathematically sound book.

##### Share on other sites

My choice of following the Quran is due to it's mathematical correctness.

What subject would you like

Tectonic plates, water cycles, evolution, expanding universe, big bang, string theory, oxygen, Isostasy, atmosphere,  orbits of celestial entities, Strata levels of the earth, gravity, Van Allen's belt....

How about the false and plagiarized embryology in the Qur'aan?

##### Share on other sites

This, by the way, means that there are an infinite number of different sizes of infinities.

correct. there are even bounded infinities. ie: what are the rational and irrational division between 3 and 4 . .... infinite.

4 >......3.5, 3.25, pi. 3.125 .........> 3

zorro ....

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

To claim a doctrine false, one would supply the evidence.

If your claim the Quran is plagiarized due to the same accounts being mentioned in other doctrines, this is due to it being a final chapter, rather than a new religion.

The Quran is a book about life, not someone's life.

This is why it explains the universe rather than a human character that we think the universe of.

Here's another example

Expanding Universe

51.48

And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un)

The differences in the doctrines are extensive, even though the same characters and similar stories exist.

Again however, my task was to introduce an equation, not to convert you.

If you believe in Absolute infinity as being outside of our mathematical universal laws and inconceivable, then you follow the same doctrine that I follow.

In regards to the other post

Bounded infinites can

A. Still be explained by 1, as it also can explain every TYPE of number.

B. Still is within the confounds of mathematics

C. The space inbetween the one 1 movement is also still within 1 and mathematics

The topic is Absolute Infinity, not bounded

##### Share on other sites

Can you explain why not a single muslim pointed these about before orthodox science discovered them? It could have encouraged many more converts.

I don't know about 1400 years old and I especially doubt plate tectonics (though metaphorically I could see string theory in a very very loose way because string theory states that all matter and energy is made out of the same single thing, which was a type of philosophy predates string theory, and that philosophy is probably where the notion that only the number "1" is an important number came from), but if you do look back at history Muslim or general Middle Easter culture actually did contribute quite a bit to science math, there were people like Ridwan, Abd El Latif El Baghdadi, Al Jawhari, and many many more who I can't remember the names of, over 1000 years ago, though not quite 1400, the Middle Eastern culture resembled Greek culture in it's prime with large trade routes through major cities and universities that people from all around the world attended. I don't think I agree with excel on most of his/her other points especially considering I'm atheist, but Middle Eastern culture didn't have anything against mathematics or science like Christianity and Western European culture did.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

I am not disputing the role of Islamic and Arabic culture in preserving classical knowledge and building on it. I am denying there is any meaningful scientific knowledge within the Koran.

##### Share on other sites

I am not disputing the role of Islamic and Arabic culture in preserving classical knowledge and building on it. I am denying there is any meaningful scientific knowledge within the Koran.

I have already given you two examples of Qurans previous knowledge of modern science,  Oxygen and expanding universe.

Please allow me to give you more:

Quran 21.31-33

*Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? **And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

***And We have made great mountains like pegs in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, ****and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction.

*****And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs.

******And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

*. The Big bang is explained

RATQAN has two distinct meanings. One meaning is 'the coming together of something and the consequent infusion into a single entity' and the second meaning is 'from total darkness'. Both these meanings are significantly applicable.

FATAQNA means to be ripped apart, explode, disunite or break.

**. Evolution is explained

All living things come from water.

***.  Isostasy of mountains are explained

****. Tectonic plates are explained

*****. Atmosphere or Van Allen's belt is explained

******. Orbits of celestial entities are explained.

Seven heavens

71.15

Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers( tibaqan)?

67.3

He Who created the seven heavens in layers(tibaqan)…

TIBAQAN means "layer, the appropriate cover or covering for something."

This ayat is talking about our seven layers of atmosphere.

1. Troposphere

2. Stratosphere

3. Mesosphere

4. Thermosphere

5. Exosphere

6. Ionosphere

7. Magnetosphere

Iron comes from space

57.25

And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind…

Moon is not a light source of its own ( NOT as genesis suggests its own light, but reflected light)

25:61

Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp (siraaj) and a reflective (noor) moon.

SIRAAJ means a light source with its own production of light, NOOR means borrowed or reflected light.

String theory

51.7

I swear by the heaven furnished with paths (alhubuki).

ALHUBUKI comes from the verb HUBEKE, meaning to weave closely, to knit, to bind together.

In other words the paths in heaven are woven.

Gravity

41:11

Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke (Dukhanun) and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly."

DUKHANUN means smoke but coming from a hot temperature, for example cosmic smoke.

What this ayat translates to mean is when the heavens were still being created (I presume the atmosphere) he told them both to come together, even though they don't want to, they must and do.

Van Allen Belt

21.32

We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.

Seven stratas of Earth

65.12

It is Allah Who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah encompasses all things in His knowledge.

1. Lithosphere (water)

2. Lithosphere (land)

3. Asthenosphere

4. Upper Mantle

5. Inner Mantle

6. Outer Core

7. Inner Core

Isostasy of Mountains

78:6-7 Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs?

Tectonic Plates and Van Allen's belt or atmosphere

86:11-12 [i swear] by Heaven which returns and the earth which splits (sadA).

SADA means to crackling or splitting apart.

Actually the Quran is written with modern technology in mind. Some of the way the book protects itself, is by including miracles that can only be explained using modern technology.

For example I will explain Quranic word repetition.

The statement of "seven heavens" is repeated seven times.

"The creation of the heavens (khalq as-samawat)" is also repeated seven times.

"Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form,

while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times.

The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

The number of repetitions of the words "plant" and "tree" is the same: 26

The word "payment or reward" is repeated 117 times,

while the expression "forgiveness" (mughfirah), which is one of the basic morals of the Qur'an, is repeated exactly twice that amount, 234 times.

When we count the word "Say," we find it appears 332 times.

We arrive at the same figure when we count the phrase "they said."

The number of times the words, "world" (dunya) and "hereafter" (akhira) are repeated is also the same: 115

The word "satan" (shaitan) is used in the Qur'an 88 times,

as is the word "angels" (malaika).

The word faith (iman) (without genitive) is repeated 25 times throughout the Qur'an as is also the word infidelity (kufr).

The words "paradise" and "hell" are each repeated 77 times.

The word "zakah" is repeated in the Qur'an 32 times and the number of repetitions of the word "blessing" (barakah) is also 32.

The expression "the righteous" (al-abraar) is used 6 times but "the wicked" (al-fujjaar) is used half as much, i.e., 3 times.

The number of times the words "Summer-hot" and "winter-cold" are repeated is the same: 5.

The words "wine" (khamr) and "intoxication" (saqara) are repeated in the Qur'an the same number of times: 6

The number of appearances of the words "mind" and "light" is the same: 49.

The words "tongue" and "sermon" are both repeated 25 times.

The words "benefit" and "corrupt" both appear 50 times.

"Reward" (ajr) and "action" (fail) are both repeated 107 times.

"Love" (al-mahabbah) and "obedience" (al-ta'ah) also appear the same number of times: 83

The words "refuge" (maseer) and "for ever" (abadan) appear the same number of times in the Qur'an: 28.

The words "disaster" (al-musibah) and "thanks" (al-shukr) appear the same number of times in the Qur'an: 75.

"Sun" (shams) and "light" (nur) both appear 33 times in the Qur'an.

In counting the word "light" only the simple forms of the word were included.

The number of appearances of "right guidance" (al-huda) and "mercy" (al-rahma) is the same: 79

The words "trouble" and "peace" are both repeated 13 times in the Qur'an.

The words "man" and "woman" are also employed equally: 23 times.

Will they not ponder the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.

(Qur’an, 4:82)

The number of times the words "man" and "woman" are repeated in the Qur'an, 23, The total number of human chromosomes is 46; 23 each from the mother and father.

"Treachery" (khiyanah) is repeated 16 times, while the number of repetitions of the word "foul" (khabith) is 16.

"Human being" is used 65 times: the sum of the number of references to the stages of man's creation is the same: i.e.

Human being 65

Soil (turab) 17

Drop of Sperm (nutfah) 12

Embryo ('alaq) 6

A half formed lump of flesh (mudghah) 3

Bone ('idham) 15

Flesh (lahm) 12

TOTAL 65

This one however will blow you away.

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%.

The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%.

Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today. Am I wrong?

Would you like more?

I've got thousands

##### Share on other sites

I have already given you two examples of Qurans previous knowledge of modern science,  Oxygen and expanding universe.

I found the interpretations of the Koranic texts wholly unconvincing in these instances.

Quran 21.31-33

*Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? *.

The Big bang is explained

RATQAN has two distinct meanings. One meaning is 'the coming together of something and the consequent infusion into a single entity' and the second meaning is 'from total darkness'. Both these meanings are significantly applicable.

FATAQNA means to be ripped apart, explode, disunite or break.

As written the text states that the Earth was split asunder from the heavens. The Earth did not emerge from total darkness. Quite the reverse. In order for the Earth to form it was necessary for the first stars to generate metals through nucleosynthesis and to distribute some of these, via supernovae, into interstellar space. Then the Earth formed from accretion of that material around the proto-sun.

In the supernovae and the t-Tauri phase of the proto-sun (which blew away excess gas that might otherwise have accreted to the Earth) it is clear that the Earth is emerging fro light, not from darkness and at a time quite remote from the Big Bang. The verse is not an accurate or meaningful description of what occured.

**And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
A desert people fully understand the importance and necessity of water to all life. Therefore this statement has absolutely nothing to do with revealing evolution and everything to do with practical survival in the desert.

***And We have made great mountains like pegs in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, ****and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction.

*****And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs.

******And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

***. Isostasy of mountains are explained

****. Tectonic plates are explained

*****. Atmosphere or Van Allen's belt is explained

******. Orbits of celestial entities are explained.

Seven heavens

I see no correlation between what you claim these passages are foretelling and the reality. Frankly, I find it rather offensive to Islam that you are making these observations. I shall discuss this further with those more knowledgeable than me on this point and return to it. However, from a purely scientific standpoint your claims are seriously deficient.

##### Share on other sites

My post topic however is the equation.

It seems we have been side tracked from my religious background.

Refer back to the original post

Thank you

##### Share on other sites

My post topic however is the equation.

It seems we have been side tracked from my religious background.

Refer back to the original post

Thank you

Perhaps you'd like to got back and address my posts about infinity then.

## Create an account

Register a new account