tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post6026592199238612462..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Hoodbhoy on Neutrinos and AngelsSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-18604596608749528862012-03-18T00:40:07.576-04:002012-03-18T00:40:07.576-04:00An independent measurement by ICARUS measured the ...An independent measurement by ICARUS measured the neutrino’s velocity to be no faster than the speed of light. So CERN's Research Director issued a retraction: "The evidence is beginning to point towards the OPERA result being an artifact of the measurement..." See Universe Today: <a rel="nofollow">http://www.universetoday.com/94203/neutrinos-obey-the-speed-limit-after-all/</a><br /><br />So sorry Hoodboy, no super-luminary travel for neutrinos. This also means that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity won all its battles. If Hoodboy still won't concede to GR then let him cower in denial. <br /><br />There is no contradiction between the Quran and GR; so the only thing that Hoodboy could still criticize is the voice of our narrator.Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-58545968169448429772012-01-21T18:54:59.102-05:002012-01-21T18:54:59.102-05:00Excellent Article. I totally agree with the essenc...Excellent Article. I totally agree with the essence.<br /><br />Quran has two kind of Verses (Ayats): (i) with clear meanings to present the case of religion and (ii) not so clear examples where sometime science is involved COINCIDENTALLY.<br /><br />We have to accept that Quran is the book of guidance (in terms of ISLAM) and not a book of Science.<br /><br />Now problem with majority of Muslims is that they falsely assume that as Quran is God's book so it should have every information in it. On this man-made false assumption they try to link some not-so-clear verses with modern science and in doing so they damage the reputation of religion instead of helping it.Shafiq.Irfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18013170562487419872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-48487417533995105352012-01-12T15:03:36.210-05:002012-01-12T15:03:36.210-05:00Well my understanding about black holes is that th...Well my understanding about black holes is that this phenomenon itself is what general theory of relativity is all about. How does it 'fail' at black hole, rather to me it seems the other way round? Shall read more on it. The author can tell more about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-46887909868135449842012-01-12T14:35:54.681-05:002012-01-12T14:35:54.681-05:00For me the heart of the matter is the following pa...For me the heart of the matter is the following paragraph. Intelligent Pakistanis can gain much by internalizing what Hoodbhoy is saying here:<br /><br /><i>Science comes from persistently and patiently checking hypotheses, building upon earlier discoveries and knowledge, and systematically sifting out all which cannot pass stringent tests of logic and observation. For example, experiments at CERN consume the working lives of some of the most brilliant people on earth, require billions of dollars of equipment, and stretch human capacities and ingenuity to the limit. When real scientists eventually publish a result, it comes from solid evidence and not from uncontrolled spurts of imagination and strident assertions of faith.</i>ACnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-1154846412469028372012-01-12T13:32:23.469-05:002012-01-12T13:32:23.469-05:00@Asad M
Still, from the event horizon and inwards,...@Asad M<br />Still, from the event horizon and inwards, Hoodbhoy declares GR's failure where in reality it was never tested.Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-90691640659345056542012-01-12T13:07:41.512-05:002012-01-12T13:07:41.512-05:00@Wormhole199: Wouldn’t argue with you on event ho...@Wormhole199: Wouldn’t argue with you on event horizon but may be Hoodbhoy is referring to what happens ‘beyond’ the event horizon and towards the centre of a black hole (at singularity) where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite and GR fails. Well, you should be right on Wormholes, it’s your nick too :)<br /><br />Hoodbhoy surely isn’t anti-GR and isn’t denying GR at all; he’s just saying that it is wrong to say that any scientific theory is absolutely correct even one as robust and proven as GR. Again, you seem to be missing the whole point of his argument, which basically is that it is not good science to prove the Quran by science or vice-versa.Asad Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590746399686326935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-81730030839877560162012-01-12T12:08:58.445-05:002012-01-12T12:08:58.445-05:00@Asad M "However, you did not respond to his ...@Asad M "However, you did not respond to his argument that General Relativity fails in certain situations (e.g. as at the edge of a black hole), is not a complete theory..." General Relativity fails at the singularity, not at the edge of a blackhole as he claims. There is nothing special about the event horizon, you can cross it. Actually with wormholes (Einstein-Rosen Bridge) you can cross it and appear in another galaxy. So GR doesn't fail at the edge of a blackhole as he claims. We know this from Einstein himself. But it seems Hoodbhoy is anti-GR. Well all parts of General Relativity were individually verified (except wormholes). If he is really anti-GR then he belongs to a minority of physicists who still live in denial.Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-81882613102703160512012-01-12T11:41:10.512-05:002012-01-12T11:41:10.512-05:00Correction: If the frame of reference today at CER...Correction: If the frame of reference today at CERN is correct then in SN 1987A the difference in arrival times should have been <b><i>3.5 years</i></b>, not 3 hours. <br /><br />See video at 7:45:<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.universetoday.com/89407/particle-physics-and-faster-than-light-neutrinos-discuss/</a>Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-70781053900054742382012-01-12T11:21:38.231-05:002012-01-12T11:21:38.231-05:00@Wormhole199: I don’t think Hoodbhoy would even b...@Wormhole199: I don’t think Hoodbhoy would even be reading your posts on Tribune. If your post is too long and with website links then it’d go in moderation and the moderator would decide to publish or not after reading.<br /><br />Prof. Hoodbhoy wrote in the article that he was ‘skeptical’ (like everyone else) about CERN’s results on neutrinos and never claimed that neutrinos actually travelled faster than light speed. However, you did not respond to his argument that General Relativity fails in certain situations (e.g. as at the edge of a black hole), is not a complete theory, in short it’s not very wise to use science to prove that Islam is right.Asad Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590746399686326935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-35286625511851823042012-01-12T08:25:41.144-05:002012-01-12T08:25:41.144-05:00We have a natural experiment which further asserts...We have a natural experiment which further asserts that the result at CERN is just an error in the frame of reference:<br />In 1987 a supernova (exploding star) was detected. We received the neutrinos from the supernova however we received the visible light from the same supernova 3 hours later. However in 1987 nobody claimed that neutrinos were traveling faster than light, even though they arrived 3 hours before light. Why not? Because the neutrinos were emitted from the center of the exploding star and they needed 2.5 seconds to reach the surface of the star (traveled unimpeded all the way). However visible light was emitted when the shockwave arrived to the outer surface. It took 3 hours for the shockwave to travel from the center of the star to the surface; then light was emitted from the outer surface. So neutrinos practically had 3 hours head start. If the frame of reference today at CERN is correct then in 1987 the difference in arrival times should have been <b>3.5 days</b>, not 3 hours. <br /><br />http://www.universetoday.com/89407/particle-physics-and-faster-than-light-neutrinos-discuss/<br /><br />So again no super-luminary travel for neutrinos; it is just an error in the frame of reference. So Hoodbhoy's frame of reference is invalid for CERN or speed of light in Quran (he used the same non-inertial frame).Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-21271633890930549612012-01-12T00:36:11.569-05:002012-01-12T00:36:11.569-05:00But Huudbhoy made a mistake in his frame of refere...But Huudbhoy made a mistake in his frame of reference, and he kept deleting our posts at the Tribune. <br /><br />The error at CERN turned out to be from the frame of reference. The CERN comparison was made in a rotating frame (non-inertial). But 299792.458 km/sec is the speed of light in local inertial frames (not in all frames as Hoodbhoy and his students insist on). So when we make the comparison in a <b>local inertial frame</b> we find that neutrinos NEVER traveled faster than light. Since Earth is spinning with respect to stars then it is a non-inertial frame. However the frame of the GPS satellite is an almost inertial frame. When the motion of this frame is taken into account then the neutrinos in this frame NEVER exceeded the speed of light. <br />This result is already published.<br />For physicists: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 Download PDF: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2685v4 <br /><br />For laymen: http://www.universetoday.com/89933/special-relativity-may-answer-faster-than-light-neutrino-mystery/<br /><br />So sorry no super-luminary travel for neutrinos and Hoodbhoy's frame of reference is invalid for CERN or speed of light in Quran (he used the same non-inertial frame).Wormhole199http://www.speed-light.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-73528792060677935242012-01-11T03:36:24.021-05:002012-01-11T03:36:24.021-05:00I wouldn't jump over to any conclusion with th...I wouldn't jump over to any conclusion with the CERN's neutrino experiment. The constant 'c' has, and always will, stand the test of time, like the second law of thermodynamics. If you really 'find' something travelling faster than light in some 'marvellous' experiment, better check where you are bunging up things in the whole picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-12635212662972955652012-01-11T02:28:13.671-05:002012-01-11T02:28:13.671-05:00Great article by Mr. Pervez Hoodbhoy! Science and ...Great article by Mr. Pervez Hoodbhoy! Science and religion should be kept separate.<br /><br />It really makes me facepalm whenever I see someone trying to find a "miracle" in the Quran. Just see <a href="http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html" rel="nofollow">http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html</a> (<b>WARNING</b>: <i>loads of bullshit incoming</i>) ;).Saifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-3091198633409157752012-01-10T23:25:33.279-05:002012-01-10T23:25:33.279-05:00This has been going on for a while unfortunately. ...This has been going on for a while unfortunately. I used to have an edition of such a book (Dou Quran) on Ijaz (in Urdu) from 1930 which tried to do the same thing but most of the theories in that book have been discarded now. I think a historical overview of this literature would be quite useful.Aurangzebhttp://www.islamscifi.comnoreply@blogger.com