Posted by yousuf gabriel
on March 27, 2009, 2:20 am
203.99.55.27
WHY WORD ATOM IS NOT CHANGED? By Allama Muhammad Yousaf Gabriel
www.oqasa.org
By saying, that the scientist is wrong in a certain aspect, I do in no way mean to injure the feelings of anyone for whom I feel a heart-felt regard, but I feel myself obliged also to point out a little error which the scientist is himself well aware of, and which has had a remarkable mystery concealed beneath it. By the Greek word ATOMOS is necessarily meant something uncuttable, indivisible and indestructible. The same is the meaning of the word Atomos in Greek language, and the same was meant by early Greek atomists when they used the word, "ATOMOS". This word, rather the term "ATOMOS" was adopted by the modern scientist as atom in the same meanings. But in time the atom was split up in sub-atomic parts, such as Neutrons, protons, electrons and positrons etc. So the " ATOM" remained no more an "ATOM". It had changed its character. It was no more uncuttable. But the question which interests us most is that, "was the scientist unmindful of this fact of this basic change of the character of atom"? Did he not realize the necessity of changing the term with the change of the reality? Was the earth allowed to retain its previous designation, that is "Flat", after it was known that it was not flat, but round, or was it again allowed to retain its previous equality as stationary when it was discovered that it was not stationary, but rather it revolved around its axis and it rotated around the sun? The answer is. No. The word "Flat" was changed to "round" and "stationary" to "rotating". Why not then, the question arises, this word "atom" was changed for some other correct word. While, Greek, Latin and all the dictionaries of Europe lay opened before the scientist and we could not suspect Dearth of talent amongst the scientist community. Whey then the word Atom was not changed and why this misnomer was allowed to continue? Was the scientist unmindful of this serious flaw or did he neglect the discrepancy? We find Sir James Jeans regretting this error, on page no. 45, of his admirable boo, "The Mysterious Universe" as saying " Just as the 19th century was drawing to a close, Sir J.J Thompson and his followers began to break up the atom which now proved to be no more uncuttable, and so no more entitled to the name of "atom" then the molecule to which the name had previously been attached". Now this was the case at a time as Sir James Jeans tell us, when the 19th century was drawing to a close. But we have seen the atom shattered into pieces completely by the scientist during the first half of the twentieth century. And yet the atom retained its previous name as if it were its inviolable birth-right. All this seems strange, but the fact which excites far greater wonder than all this, is, that the scientist had actually called up a conference, with a view to discussing this very question that of the error in the name of the atom. But did they discuss the matter? The answer is yes, they did discuss it. But did they change the name of Atom? The answer is no. The question is why? I have read in a most authentic record in a book that after the discussion of the matter, it was, (we do not know why or how), decided, to let the word"atom" remain as it was. it may seem something extra-ordinarily strange to any one acquainted with the accurate nature of science and consequently the scientist. The scientist, the adherent of the principles of science, as a rule could not be expected to call atom as atom which was not atom but was actually Tom, that is exactly the opposite of what the scientist meant. Subject himself to the charge of gross violation of the rules of science, and how did he happened to slight and ignore the basic spirit thereof. It is very interesting situation and there lay behind it a fact far more formidable than at first is to be suspected. And you might ask, what is that fact so astoundingly tremendous, to justify so loud a clamor as this. The answer is that, the power which had been so pleased as to place the prophecy in the Quran about the atomic bomb, the very same power had superimposed itself on the minds of the scientists, in their conference, that they so decided as to let the "atom" remain as it was. This they did, at the eleventh hour. And they dropped the question when they had reached the last rung of their proceedings. We are tempted to ask this question from any one who would be septic about this our assumption: Why if this was not the reason, then the scientists dropped the point to violate the very spirit of science, and of course in vivid contradiction even to common sense, nay even in violation of the general principle of a world in which no one would ever call "ugly" the "beautiful" or "dark" the 'white" except in satirical sense. But again the question arises, as to, why the providence was so over-particular, and so very much interested in the name of atom, that it should remain as it is? The answer to this question is this, that this apparent phonic resemblance as existed between the two words namely the Hatama of the Quran and the Atom of the scientist, was desired to remain, for it was due to this phonic resemblance that the prophecy about the atomic bomb, contained in the Quran , could be discovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adara Afqar e Gabriel Quaid e Azam Street nawababad wah cantt distt Rawalpindi Pakistan.
Yousuf_gabriel@yahoo.com
Message Thread:
« Back to thread