Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Scientific evidence in Islam? Age of the universe, the Big Bang and the Expansion.

Announcements Posted on
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Yes there are.

    Bucaille was the personal physician of the Saudi royal family. He even has his own 'movement', Bucaillism. As far as I'm aware he never converted to Islam, which shows how strong his own beliefs were about this topic.
    I don't think someone needs to convert in order to admit the accuracy of a scientific statement. I've seen many Atheists admit it aswell, as long as they have a "plagurism or this was already known at the time" arguement up their sleeve.

    There's many Historians who thought Muhammad(pbuh) was a Prophet (some believed he was a Prophet sent to only Arabia), but they never converted.

    And finally, not everyone that converts tends to go public about it. Atleast not like Cat Stevens.

    Whether you believe in Islam or not shouldn't be dependant on Science - The whole argument implies science, which, not only has its flaws but is also ever changing, is the yardstick for truth, when it shouldn't be.

    The whole science thing is also a probabilistic arguement that's regarded as one of many signs it's from the divine. It is inline with the Qur'an's approach to these things which is to make you think and reflect.



    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    You're probably right, I was more trying to put across the point that each verse can be interpreted to suit one's own agenda .
    I'm guessing you don't know much about Quranic Linguistic studies.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    .
    This is becoming frustrating. Scientists have made models on this and have proven that it is NEAR impossible that we have descended from just one male and one female married couple that lived thousands of years ago. It is not a few that would die (offspring), they weren't alive in the 20th or 21st century. It is highly likely that the vast majority of them would die, due to disease, predation, child birth. In fact with the number of children Adam and Eve had, the probability of Eve dying during childbirth approaches 1.

    As I said previously, the number of recessive genes would have a continual increase chance of showing themselves. Making selective pressures even harder on the offspring further reducing their survival rate.


    Only if Adam and Eve had no genetic defects (almost totally unlikely), there was basically no disease, environmental pressures were non existent, there was cause for their to be rapid genetic mutation and they lived for a long long time, could it actually be possible that they were the progenitors of humanity. Most unfortunately, the chances of this actually occurring are near 0 (which is what makes me highly sceptical of it) and nothing like how we believe humanity to have began and spread throughout the world - this has been extrapolated from fossil records. Also the variance of the Human genome seems to show that we descended from at least a few thousand different individuals (humans), rather than just two.

    Again, I would like to ask your own standpoint. What/who are Adam and Eve for you? Are they created separate and outside of evolution by God or did they have common descent?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Person1001)
    ..
    Please look up Keith Moore and other misquoted or bribed or misinformed scientists. You will quickly realise that many of them were put in positions to say what they did and others were rewarded greatly. Quran science is not that incredible and even if it were correct (and it's not, but lets just not go their because you will say it is purposely vague or something and I can't be bothered having this discussion for the 1000th time) there were Greeks and Indians before him who had extremely similar ideas and models for embryology. The other scientists in the conference held, first one was in Pakistan right? Were misinformed or given hypothetical situations and then there answers were cut to provide the pieces for the video done of it. I can't remember the video's of the scientists, some who have retracted their statements and others that are openly truthful about their experience but if you ask Gofre, he's usually around on TSR he will provide you the links to them.

    Besides that, I would not believe the literal interpretation if I were a religious person of any Abrahamic faith, it is blindingly obvious that the most important thing that should be derived is that God made us from something insignificant to something great (alluding to his own greatness) and that Adam and Eve's Fall shows us what happens when we disobey God (and instead follow our desires or the Devil) we are punished. I would take it to be more of a parable rather than a piece of actual history.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    No, i chose the verse that gave the qurans opinion of how the first human being came to exist on earth - ie islamic view of the creation of the human species. You are making yourself look foolish now denying that. That is the islamic equivalent of the scientific evoutionery theory of man - and you can see one contradicts the other.

    You brought up embyology etc as an irrelvant progression, to try and leave the topic of discussion

    So for the forth time - the quran states all humans oringated from a man called adam, moulded from clay - either you accept that or beleive it to be untrue
    Well look. You say the verse is talking about the origin of the human species. I think the verse applies to each individual, not just Adam. You're not going to convince me otherwise just by asserting it, for the fourth time or the four hundredth time. Regardless of what you think the verse means, you haven't demonstrated a conflict between the Qur'an and evolution, because there are other ways a person can understand the verse besides the interpretation you are championing so valiantly.

    All you're doing is disproving a belief that I don't even hold. It's a pointless exercise.

    Islam states judaism and christianity are corrupted versions of its precursors. And that all other religions are simply 'pagan' and untrue.
    No, it doesn't.

    But it copies 'pagan' scripture to make up its holy book. Hypocracy?
    Unjustified assertion about "copying".
    Pagan religions are partially true, not entirely false.

    without proof or reasoning as to what was right or wrong, or why.
    The reasoning is that God is the author of the Qur'an, and knows the details mroe accurately than anyone who may have heard the story before. The Qur'an's idea of Jesus is different to that of the Bible. But it is reasoned in the Qur'an that Jesus isn't the son of God, not just arbitrarily stated.

    Sounds far -fetched, the more likely explanatio is the authors of the quran needed to fill a few hundred pages, so used stories and sciences they had heard of from the past, but changed some of the names.
    It only sounds far-fetched to you because you don't believe the stories are true. If two people write the same fictional story, it's pretty likely one copied from the other. But if two people write the same true story, then it's not so likely.

    As I said, you're not providing anything convincing. You're just stating your own conjectures as though they are fact.

    Incorrect, even according to Islamic record, there were early versions of the quran that were signficantly different to others, in terms of extra ayas, and missing ones. And contradicting directions to face in prayer, things that are and arnt permissable etc. So not soley down to dialectual differences at all.
    No, incorrect. Any variant copy of the full Qur'an was purely a case of variant pronunciation arising from ambiguous spelling. Whoever has told you this stuff about the Qur'an commanding different prayer directions has just made it up.

    And who is judging all of a sudden which were correct and whcih were not, they were all written by people that had lived with mohammed were they not. Since when do humans have the power to decide what is suitable gospel and scripture?
    Humans who understand Arabic spelling can tell you which Qur'an's words are spelt correctly and which one's aren't. No authority or power or scholarship is needed for that.

    muslims beleive over 250 verses of the quran have been abrogated (altered and or substituted) - the actual amount is often debated, as with everything in islam.
    Well they are wrong then. In the entire Qur'an there is not one single verse which "abrogates" another. Any Muslim who has gone through the Qur'an knows this.

    but we know from various evidential scripture that ayas have been changed and substitued, this could have only be done by human authors. Muslims accpet this fact ( by what logic i dont really understand) so its not something you can deny.
    What "evidential scripture" might this be?
    Also - just because other Muslims accept something means I have to accept it too? That's just ridiculous.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    This is becoming frustrating. Scientists have made models on this and have proven that it is NEAR impossible that we have descended from just one male and one female married couple that lived thousands of years ago.
    Can I see the models and proofs you're referring to?

    It is not a few that would die (offspring), they weren't alive in the 20th or 21st century. It is highly likely that the vast majority of them would die, due to disease, predation, child birth. In fact with the number of children Adam and Eve had, the probability of Eve dying during childbirth approaches 1.
    As I said, it only takes 3 or 4 surviving children per couple for an exponential increase in birth rates. Eve doesn't need to have millions of children for this. Even if the Hadith says she did - the Hadith could easily be wrong.

    And as far as Muslims are concerned, God is involved in all of this. Certain things which are usually unlikely can become likely if God is making them happen on purpose. Eve doesn't have to die during childbirth. A particular offspring doesn't have to get a disease due to incest etc.

    Only if Adam and Eve had no genetic defects (almost totally unlikely), there was basically no disease, environmental pressures were non existent, there was cause for their to be rapid genetic mutation and they lived for a long long time, could it actually be possible that they were the progenitors of humanity. Most unfortunately, the chances of this actually occurring are near 0 (which is what makes me highly sceptical of it) and nothing like how we believe humanity to have began and spread throughout the world - this has been extrapolated from fossil records. Also the variance of the Human genome seems to show that we descended from at least a few thousand different individuals (humans), rather than just two.
    If you assume randomness, then sure, maybe the chances of Adam and Eve having no genetic defects is very small. But again, the Muslim doesn't assume randomness. He assumes that God is doing all of this on purpose. If he aims to populate the earth with two people, it would be inappropriate of him to create Adam and Eve with genetic defects leading to the premature deaths of all their children.

    Lots of things are near impossible. The beginning of this universe was near impossible, but it still happened. Apes undergoing exactly the right mutations for human evolution was near impossible, but still happened. Lots of things are very unlikely by default, but still end up happening anyway. Islam simply aims to tell you that this creation is one of those things.

    Again, I would like to ask your own standpoint. What/who are Adam and Eve for you? Are they created separate and outside of evolution by God or did they have common descent?
    My personal view is that the Qur'an isn't specific enough on the details to form any conclusive belief on it. The Hadith provides more information, but I don't place much reliability on its exact details. And no scientific evidence I've ever seen is specific enough to be able to tell us for sure exactly what happened at the very beginning of human life, or life in general.

    So if I gave you an answer to this, I'd just be guessing really.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    .
    Your entire argument is based upon divine intervention. Because as I have stated, it is not only near impossible but is neither consistent with fossil records or our genome, that we derived from 2 people thousands of years ago.

    Yes, it is possible that such would happen if a God were to intervene and make conditions conducive for such procreation but no one has seen this God do anything. He doesn't do this stuff any longer (apparently) and we can't even find historical or archaeological proof that he did any of these things in the past. If we had evidence for these things then it would make your argument stronger, however you lack any evidence for your proposed belief (scientific or historical). That is why I currently do not believe the literal Adam and Eve creation story.

    Here are the studies, actually done by a group of Christian scientists, but I think it is still applicable in this debate. I think he works for BioLogos or something.

    Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.
    http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

    In any case I am going to sleep, it is late here. Where do you live?

    Peace out
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    x
    Could you provide me with the source (text) from where the details on embryology are the same, also was this the only/dominant theory on embryology of the people?
    Could you point to me where exactly the Quran makes a false claim (ie. cannot be interpreted correctly).
    • 66 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Decomposing bodies liquefy, it's not beyond belief that people saw this and thought the body was made up of water.




    Creationism is not a theory, it has no supporting evidence.



    There is thought that the verse has been twisted to say this. "And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance" is one of several translations of a verse mentioning the Earth's shape. This to me suggests a flat Earth, and the verses that supposedly mention the egg are actually referring to the way the ostrich spreads the ground out to lay its egg. Even if it did say the Earth was ostrich egg shaped, the Earth is not shaped like an ostrich egg.



    Because creationism says all species were created as they are now, evolution states that they reached their current form over a large space of time and in many stages. Unless it's a form of creationism that allows the creation of single celled organisms that then go on to evolve.



    Read above.
    It is stated that ALL living things are made up of water. Erm..don't hold me to this but I think pre-Islamic Arabs would either bury or cremate the body - so they wouldn't have seen the body liquefy.

    Yes there is no evidence, it's impossible for us to be able to give proof of it and make a full blown conclusion that we know how everything came into existence. What I was trying to say is that the best we can come up with is a teleological explanation.

    Mate, the verse you quoted obviously doesn't refer to the shape of the whole Earth but is rather talking on a smaller scale - I think that's quite obvious. I could decide to interpret it in another way saying that its explaining that the carpet is a tectonic plate and if you push to carpets toward each other it gets humps like the mountains and so this is explaining fold mountain formation in the Himalayas. I'm not saying this is the correct interpretation, just showing how you can come to a conclusion based on your own opinion. That is why when people truly study the Quran in depth, they do so with tafseer.

    Ostrich egg - this has alternative translations. For example, it has been discussed in the passage below:
    "Claiming that the Earth is egg-shaped
    Question
    My question is about the Arabic word dahâ, which according to the translations I have read means "to spread out" or "a vast expanse". A prominent caller to Islam has recently suggested the meaning "egg" or "ostrich egg" for the same word. He says that the Qur'an teaches us the Earth is egg-shaped and goes further to say that this claim is supported by science. Is there a possibility that this word dahâ could mean "egg" or "shaped like an egg" based on its root? I would very much appreciate a response, as this caller to Islam is someone whom we regularly invite to our country to speak, and many have accepted Islam at his hands. Recently, he has been under attack by for translating the Arabic word dahâ to mean "egg-shaped". Also, please could you explain if there is any possibility that the word dahâ could mean "egg-shaped" or something similar?
    Answered by
    the Scientific Research Committee - IslamToday.net
    The word in question is the verb (dahâ). This verb comes from the tri-literal root d-h-w, and it appears in the Qur’ân in relation to the Earth in the following verse: “And the Earth, after that, He spread out (dahâhâ).” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât: 30]

    This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. Allah mentions this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us. He explains what he means by stretching the Earth out and smoothing it out in the following verses: “He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and He made the mountains firmly fixed.” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât : 31-32]

    Therefore, Allah smoothed out the Earth for us by making it a stable and suitable place for habitation, providing its inhabitants with water, pasture, and keeping its mountains firmly-fixed.

    With respect to this word’s association with eggs, it is as follows:

    Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg an "udhiyy". This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w – the same etymological root as the verb dahâ. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs.

    From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depression where the ostrich deposits its egg.

    Whoever uses the word to refer to the egg or to the shape of the egg is being inexact in his linguistic usage. However, without doubt we can say that such an error does not detract from the person’s reputation or scholarship as a whole, and it does not warrant a harsh reprimand.

    In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter. And Allah knows best.

    The exact shape of the Earth is best known from empirical observations, and not from seeking to deduce its exact shape from the Qur’ân.

    The Earth is practically a perfect sphere.

    Yes, the Earth is ever so slightly flattened at the poles, due to its rotation, technically making it an approximate "oblate spheroid", a rounded shape with a sight bulge at the equator.

    However, the difference made by the bulge is extremely minute. The diameter at the equator is only 42.72 kilometers greater than the diameter at the poles. Considering that the average diameter of the Earth is about 12,742 km, the difference is infinitesimal – nothing at all like the shape of an ostrich egg, which is visibly an oval. The average ostrich egg is 15 cm long and 13 cm wide.

    Therefore, the claim that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg is not only unfounded scripturally, it is scientifically inaccurate.

    We should also take this occasion to mention that the Earth is almost perfectly smooth. Its near-perfect smoothness is not compromised by the contours of its crust. The highest mountains and deepest trenches of the crust are insignificant compared to the vastness of the Earth's surface.

    To get an idea of how insignificant the mountains and trenches are when compared to the Earth's surface, we can compare the smoothness of the Earth to that of a billiard ball. A billiard ball must be very smooth and regular. The tolerance allowed for a billiard ball is only 0.22%. (Tolerance, in engineering, refers to the permissible limit of variation in a dimension of a manufactured object.) The Earth, by comparison, has a tolerance of about one part in 584, or 0.17%. This means the Earth is much more perfectly smooth than what is allowed for a billiard ball.

    And Allah knows best.
    "

    I'm not saying for sure this is correct because I'm not a scholar. It's just another interpretation.

    Yes that's what I was suggesting - that religion and evolution can to. An extent go hand-in-hand.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontJudge)
    Why isn't it cool?
    If this is how manz speak in my endz, why wud i adapt proper english cos obviously then i'm being fake inneh.
    kasmeh bro u dont know nuffin. dont diss bro dont diss.

    PS- I missed you
    How on earth is that being fake? So your telling me you write like a gangster wannabe in exams too? You can speak how you want to in your "endz" but please good use of english on here like the rest of us.

    PS- I ain't dissing.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mughal!)
    How on earth is that being fake? So your telling me you write like a gangster wannabe in exams too? You can speak how you want to in your "endz" but please good use of english on here like the rest of us.

    PS- I ain't dissing.
    There's a little thing called pragmatics, in which you may want to look in to babez.

    You're being fake as well shoiaby baby.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Eww that was cringe worthy :sick:


    And I saw your other stunt Mirpuri_Freshie looooool :rofl:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Yes there are.

    Bucaille was the personal physician of the Saudi royal family. He even has his own 'movement', Bucaillism. As far as I'm aware he never converted to Islam, which shows how strong his own beliefs were about this topic.
    There are no errors, you may think that there are but there are'nt-...btw dr maurice bucaille did revert to islam + if he was'nt a muslim that just shows how much he know that islam is the truth!....watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk61hslLHlw&feature=fvst) it might help you understand the quran in the light of science!
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riz10)
    There are no errors, you may think that there are but there are'nt-...btw dr maurice bucaille did revert to islam + if he was'nt a muslim that just shows how much he know that islam is the truth!....watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk61hslLHlw&feature=fvst) it might help you understand the quran in the light of science!
    There are errors, you may think that there aren't but there are <--- now, what seperates what you've said from this statement. Ignoring whether I believe it or not, you've yet to provide any objective and factual i.e. NOT an Islamic source which BACK UP the Islamic source. A lot of people provide pretty unbias, factual information against such claims of perfection, I have yet to receive any unbias information in favour of Qur'anic perfection. Its only ever "this guy reverted" "this islamic scientist believes" etc. Without some unbiased and factual information (much of which counters your claims and have been left un countered by pro-Qur'anic perfection arguments) I doubt you'll convince someone of the Qur'ans perfection. The many threads in the past on TSR are testament to this. So no, I don't want a video from an islamic source, I want an unbias piece of science which correlates perfectly with everything the Qur'an says. If it is so simple and correct, it shouldn't be an issue - just whack out the nearest science textbook and putting it next to the Qur'an should give us some pretty inline views - the fact that it doesn't, surely is an issue?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    It doesn't have to be the exact same shape, they're incredibly similar. It's not like one's circular and the other a triangle. They are both prolate spheroids because their polar axis is longer than the equatorial diameter. The Qur'an is wrong.
    An oblate spheroid is an oblate spheroid, just as a square is a square and a rectangle is a rectangle.

    No, an egg does not have a polar axis, so how are we taking dimensions?

    The fact of the matter is, a normal egg is not the same shape as an ostrich egg and an ostrich egg is a oblate spheroid, just like the earth, therefore the QURAN is correct.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    Yep. I agree with your lecturer. It's what I meant when I said Einstein and Newton agree "in the limit" as you approach every day speeds and masses. Newton's law is fine for getting you to the moon etc. But there was a noticable discrepancy between the orbit of Mercury and Newton's law. The law gave the wrong answer (only wrong by a small amount but wrong nevertheless!). Einstein's theory corrects this issue and is applicable to a much wider range of situations. It was this agreement with the orbit of Mercury that convinced Einstein he had the correct theory. I won't say that relativity is the final answer (in fact, it isn't.. General relativity breaks down at quantum scales) but it's closer to reality than Newton's law.

    It's sort of like the difference between the graphs y=x and y=x^2. They get closer as x tends to 0 and if you can only live on the number line between x=0 and x=0.0001 then they're pretty much the same. But on very close inspection you find differences and as x gets bigger, the differences get bigger. Newton's law is the y=x graph but reality follows the y=x^2 graph (or at least it's so close that we've never observed a difference).
    O.k fine, however thats not the debate, the debate is that GRAVITY IS A LAW, its mechanics (what causes it, potentially gravitons are theoretical).
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    are you from pakistan?

    Yes, why?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    We're going in circles again, you should really try and kick this habit KP. I agree that gravity is a law. I'm saying that it is also a theory, the two are not mutually exclusive and neither has any impact on gravity's status as the other.
    We wouldn't have to go in circles if you just accepted what is, the universe came into existence, gravity is a law.

    Yes, the mechanics are a theory, for example what causes gravity (gravitons) and so fourth....
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    That's a fair point.

    For some reason, I just got the image in my head of this being a tag-team wrestling match. King-Panther has had the "living daylights" kicked out of him, so he tagged in his bigger, tougher brother Perseveranze.
    Living day lights out of me how exactly? I don't need anyones help to debate the likes of you!

    An egg has no polar axis, am I right or am I wrong???? Therefore, we can't determine its poles like we can with the earth, am I right or am I wrong? An ostrich egg is not the same shape as your general egg, am I right or am I wrong?? So if we put the egg down, how is rests in the mothers nest, the diameter will exceed the vertical dimensions, thus making it an oblate spheroid, am I right or am I wrong? The earth is an oblate spheroid, am I right or am I wrong? Therefore, making the quran correct
    • 57 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    We wouldn't have to go in circles if you just accepted what is, the universe came into existence, gravity is a law.

    Yes, the mechanics are a theory, for example what causes gravity (gravitons) and so fourth....
    Gravity is a law? For the ninetieth time, I accept that.

    I'm not even going to bother getting onto whether or not the universe was created or not, we've already seen how productive that conversation is.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    An oblate spheroid is an oblate spheroid, just as a square is a square and a rectangle is a rectangle.

    No, an egg does not have a polar axis, so how are we taking dimensions?

    The fact of the matter is, a normal egg is not the same shape as an ostrich egg and an ostrich egg is a oblate spheroid, just like the earth, therefore the QURAN is correct.
    How does an egg not have a polar axis?



    They're near as dammit the same shape, a normal egg is just a little more pointed at one end (the taglion). They essentially have the same structure. It is prolate, like a chicken egg. As stated, this is because it's polar diameter is longer than its equatorial diameter.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Living day lights out of me how exactly? I don't need anyones help to debate the likes of you!

    An egg has no polar axis, am I right or am I wrong???? Therefore, we can't determine its poles like we can with the earth, am I right or am I wrong? An ostrich egg is not the same shape as your general egg, am I right or am I wrong?? The earth is an oblate spheroid, am I right or am I wrong?
    Wrong on it having no polar axis and not being able to determine its poles.

    Right on the "same shape" part, but the only difference is a regular egg is slightly more pointed at one end. The ostrich egg is still more pointed at one end than the other, they're essentially the same. You can have different sizes and slightly different shapes, and still be oblate or prolate as it's due to equatorial and polar diameters. And of course the Earth's an oblate spheroid.

    So if we put the egg down, how is rests in the mothers nest, the diameter will exceed the vertical dimensions, thus making it an oblate spheroid, am I right or am I wrong?
    I can barely make sense of this. It's not to do with vertical or horizontal, the poles remain the same no matter how it's rotated. If you take an oblate spheroid and turn it by 90 degrees, it's still oblate because the poles are in the same relative position.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 22, 2012
New on TSR

'Stalking pages' have changed!

Find other uni applicants with University Connect

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.