183,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Serie: Wiley-Scrivener
- Sprache: Englisch
Is "zero waste engineering" possible? This book outlines how to achieve zero waste engineering, following natural pathways that are truly sustainable. Using methods that have been developed in various areas for sustainability purposes, such as new mathematical models, recyclable material selection, and renewable energy, the authors probe the principles of zero waste engineering and how it can be applied to construction, energy production, and many other areas of engineering. This groundbreaking new volume: * Explores new scientific principles on which sustainability and zero waste engineering can be based * Presents new models for energy efficiency, cooling processes, and natural chemical and material selection in industrial applications and business * Explains how "green buildings" and "green homes" can be efficiently built and operated with zero waste * Offers case histories and successful experiments in sustainability and zero-waste engineering Ideal for: Engineers and scientists of all industries, including the energy industry, construction, the process industries, and manufacturing. Chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, petroleum engineers, process engineers, civil engineers, and many other types of engineers would all benefit from reading this exciting new volume.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 652
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Half Title page
Title page
Copyright page
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 The Deficiency of Current Engineering Practices
1.3 The Zero Waste Approach
1.4 Scope of the Book
1.5 Organization of the Book
Chapter 2: A Delinearized History of Time and Its Impact on Scientific Cognition
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Importance of The Continuous Long-term History
2.3 Delinearized History of Time and Knowledge
2.4 A Reflection on The Purposes of Sciences
2.5 About The “New Science” of Time and Motion
2.6 What is New Versus What is Permitted: Science and The Establishment?
2.7 The Nature-Science Approach
2.8 Conclusions
Chapter 3: Towards Modeling of Zero Waste Engineering Processes With Inherent Sustainability
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Development of a Sustainable Model
3.3 Observation of Nature: Importance of Intangibles
3.4 Analogy of Physical Phenomena
3.5 Intangible Cause to Tangible Consequence
3.6 Removable Discontinuities: Phases and Renewability of Materials
3.7 Rebalancing Mass and Energy
3.8 ENERGY: Existing Model
3.9 Conclusions
Chapter 4: The Formulation of a Comprehensive Mass and Energy Balance Equation
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy
4.3 Avalanche Theory
4.4 Aims of Modeling Natural Phenomena
4.5 Simultaneous Characterization of Matter and Energy
4.6 A Discussion
4.7 Conclusions
Chapter 5: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD): The Case for a Science of Intangibles and Zero Waste Engineering
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Need for the Science of Intangibles
5.3 The Need for Multidimensional Study
5.4 Assessing the overall performance of a process
5.5 Facts about Honey and the Science of Intangibles
5.6 The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy
5.7 CCD In Relation to Science of Tangibles
5.8 Possible Causes of CCD
5.9 Nature Science Approach and Discussion
5.10 A New Approach to Product Characterization
5.11 A Discussion
5.12 Conclusions
Chapter 6: Zero Waste Lifestyle with Inherently Sustainable Technologies
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Energy from Kitchen Waste and Sewage
6.3 Utilization of Produced Waste in a Desalination Plant
6.4 Solar Aquatic Process to Purify Desalinated/Waste Water
6.5 Direct Use of Solar Energy
6.6 Sustainability Analysis
6.6 Conclusions
Chapter 7: A Novel Sustainable Combined Heating/Cooling/Refrigeration System
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Einstein Refrigeration Cycle
7.3 Thermodynamic Model and the Energy Requirement of the Cycle
7.4 Solar Cooler and Heat Engine
7.5 Actual Coefficient of Performance (COP) Calculation
7.6 Absorption Refrigeration System
7.7 Calculation of Global Efficiency
7.8 Solar Energy Utilization in the Refrigeration Cycle
7.9 The New System
7.10 Pathway Analysis
7.11 Sustainability Analysis
7.12 Conclusions
Chapter 8: A Zero Waste Design for Direct Usage of Solar Energy
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The Prototype
8.3 Results and Discussion of Parabolic Solar Technology
8.4 Conclusions
Chapter 9: Investigation of Vegetable Oil as the Thermal Fluid in a Parabolic Solar Collector
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Experimental Setup and Procedures
9.4 Results and Discussion
9.5 Conclusions
Chapter 10: The Potential of Biogas in the Zero Waste Mode in the Cold-Climate Environment
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Background
10.3 Biogas Fermentation
10.4 Factors Involved in Anaerobic Digestion
10.5 Heath and Environmental Issue
10.6 Digester in Cold Countries
10.7 Experimental Setup and Procedures
10.8 Discussion
10.9 Conclusions
Chapter 11: The New Synthesis: Application of All Natural Materials for Engineering Applications
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Metal Waste Removal with Natural Materials
11.3 Natural Materials as Bonding Agents
11.4 Selection of Adhesives
11.5 Conclusions
Chapter 12: Sustainability of Nuclear Energy
12.1 Summary
12.2 Introduction
12.3 Energy Demand in Emerging Economies and Nuclear Power
12.4 Nuclear Energy Options
12.5 Status of Global Nuclear Energy Development
12.6 Nuclear Research Reactors
12.7 Global Estimated Uranium Resources
12.8 Nuclear Reactor Technologies
12.9 Sustainability of Nuclear Energy
12.10 Nuclear Energy and Global Warming
12.11 Global Efficiency of Nuclear Energy
12.12 Energy from Nuclear Fusion
12.13 Some Considerations
12.14 Conclusions
Chapter 13: High Temperature Reactors for Hydrogen Production
13.1 Summary
13.2 Introduction
13.3 IS Process
13.4 Solar Energy for High Temperature Reactor
13.5 Sustainability of the Process
13.6 Conclusions
Chapter 14: Economic Assessment of Zero Waste Engineering
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Delinearized history of Modern Age
14.3 Insufficiency of conventional economics models
14.4 The New Synthesis
14.5 The new investment model, conforming to the Information Age
14.6 Economics of Zero waste engineering projects
14.7 Conclusions
Chapter 15: Conclusions and Recommendations
15.1 Conclusions
Reference
Index
Zero Waste Engineering
Scrivener Publishing3 Winter Street, Suite 3Salem, MA 01970
Scrivener Publishing Collections Editors
James E. R. Couper
Richard Erdlac
Norman Lieberman
W. Kent Muhlbauer
S. A. Sherif
Ken Dragoon
Rafiq Islam
Peter Martin
Andrew Y. C. Nee
James G. Speight
Publishers at Scrivener
Martin Scrivener ([email protected])
Phillip Carmical ([email protected])
Copyright © 2012 by Scrivener Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.
Co-published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, and Scrivener Publishing LLC, Salem, Massachusetts.Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
For more information about Scrivener products please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Islam, Rafiqul, 1959-Zero waste engineering / M. Rafiqul Islam.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-470-62604-71. Waste minimization. I. Title.TD793.9.I85 2012628.4—dc232011043326ISBN 978-0-470-62604-7
Preface
The modern age is synonymous with wasting habits. Nature, however, does not produce any waste. The fundamental notion that mass cannot be created or destroyed dictates that only the transformation of materials from one phase to another phase takes place. However, the mass balance alone does not guarantee zero waste. Nature is perfect, which means it operates at 100% efficiency. This postulate necessitates that any product that is the outcome of a natural process must be entirely usable by some other process, which in turn would result into products that are suitable as inputs to the process. A natural system is 100% recyclable and therefore has net zero waste. Such a process will renew zero waste as long as each component of the overall process also operates along the lines of zero waste.
The information age offers a unique opportunity for 1) transparency (arising from monitoring in space and time); 2) infinite productivity (due to inclusion of intangibles, zero waste, and transparency); and 3) custom-designed solutions (due to transparency and infinite productivity). When one compares these features with the essential features of Nature, viz., dynamic, unique, and strictly non-linear, one appreciates that the information age has given us an opportunity to emulate nature. This book outlines how to develop a zero waste way of living that follows natural pathways that are surmised to be truly sustainable. Initially, it is established that New Science is insufficient to account for natural phenomena. Mathematical models are developed in order to provide one with the basis of a truly sustainable process. A new mass and energy balance consideration amounted to a paradigm shift in designing environmentally sustainable technologies for both energy and materials applications. The resulting mathematical models can distinguish between sustainable and unsustainable energy and material resources. Also, processes that would result into mass and energy pollution can be distinguished from processes that would result into greening of the environment.
This book provides a guideline to model a truly sustainable lifestyle. A mathematical model is proposed that recasts the mass and energy balance equations in such a way that both energy and mass sources are characterized based on their sustainability. As applications, direct solar energy usage, sustainable desalination and biological waste conversion into value-added products are studied. This book analyzes the pathways of different existing systems and identifies efficient sustainable solutions with maximum utilization of mass and energy
A number of novel designs, including biomass energy, solar energy, desalination processes associated with solar aquatic water treatment processes, and natural adsorbent and adhesives, are presented. Each of these processes fulfills the scientific sustainability criterion.
In this book, an integrated loop system was investigated for one hundred apartment buildings. The system includes an anaerobic digester, which is the key unit of the integrated process. This book emphasizes the use of solar energy directly, such as direct heating or cooling through absorption-based refrigeration units.
This book has introduced a new way to calculate coefficient of performance (COP) following the true pathway to compare different cooling systems. Solar absorption refrigeration/cooling/heating systems have been developed with some modification of Einstein’s absorption refrigeration system. This book suggests that the modification of the fin structure of a solar collector can increase the solar absorption efficiency from 41% to 77.8%. A major experimental finding of this study is to introduce vegetable oil use as a solar heat transfer oil.
In continuing with the theme of sustainable products, this book introduces an array of adsorbents and adhesives, derived from natural sources. Several natural adsorbents were found attractive sustainable solutions to remove lead from aqueous waste streams. This is followed by an economic evaluation and a sustainability analysis in order to determine feasibility of the whole zero waste concept.
Before the disastrous tsunami off the coast of Japan in 2011, nuclear energy was being promoted as a clean source of energy. This myth is deconstructed in this book that presents a thorough sustainability study of nuclear energy. This is followed by the possible “greening” of high temperature gas reactors (HTGR) that have generated renewed interest in recent years.
Finally, an economic analysis technique is presented. This technique addresses the short-comings of current economic models and shows how zero waste engineering can be best assessed with new approaches.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The modern age is synonymous with waste generation. In industrialized countries, there is a direct correlation between the standard of living and generation of waste (McBean et al., 1995). However, it is becoming increasingly clear that such a lifestyle is not sustainable (Khan and Islam, 2007a). Issues ranging from global warming to toxic shock continue to confirm that the 3Rs (reduction, reuse, recycling) approach is not sufficient and an alternate approach to technology development must be introduced.
It is well known that nature produces no waste. The fundamental notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed dictates that only the transformation of materials from one phase to another phase can take place. However, the conservation of mass alone does not guarantee zero waste. Human intervention with natural processes can alter 100% of the recyclic nature of matter. Only natural processes operate in a zero waste mode, meaning that any product that is the outcome of a natural process must be entirely usable by some other process, which in turn would result in a product that is suitable as an input to the first process. Such a process will remain zero waste as long as each component of the overall process also operates within the principle of zero waste. That is why the emulation of nature is a necessary and sufficient condition that can lead us towards a truly sustainable lifestyle.
In this process, it is of the utmost importance to understand the nature of Nature. Khan and Islam (2007a) described the characteristic features of Nature. This is listed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Typical features of natural processes as compared to the claims of artificial processes (reproduced from Khan and Islam, 2007a).
Nature (Δ
t
→ ∞) (Real)
Artificial (Δ
t
→ 0) (Aphenomenal)
Complex
Simple
Chaotic
Steady, periodic, or quasi-periodic
Unpredictable
Predictable
Unique (every component is different)
Non-unique, self similar
Productive
Reproductive
Non-symmetric
Symmetric
Non-uniform
Uniform
Heterogeneous, diverse
Homogeneous
Internal
External
Anisotropic
Isotropic
Bottom-up
Top-down
Multifunctional
Single-functional
Dynamic
Static
Irreversible
Reversible
Open system
Closed system
True
False
Self healing
Self destructive
Nonlinear
Linear
Multi-dimensional
Unidimensional
Infinite degree of freedom
Finite degree of freedom
Non-trainable
Trainable
Infinite
Finite
Intangible
Tangible
Open
Closed
Flexible
Inflexible/rigid
Table 1.2 The true difference between sustainable and unsustainable processes (reproduced from Khan and Islam, 2007a).
Sustainable (Natural)
Unsustainable (Artificial)
Progressive/youth measured by the rate of change
Non-progressive/resists change
Unlimited adaptability and flexibility
Zero adaptability and inflexible
Increasingly self evident with time
Increasingly difficult to cover up aphenomenal source
100% efficient
Efficiency approaches zero as processing is increased
Can never be proven to be unsustainable
Unsustainability unravels itself with time
For a process to be environmentally sustainable, it has to be natural. This means the fundamental features of natural processes as outlined above (in Tables 1.1 and 1.2) are not violated. This is the only technology development mode that can assure sustainability.
1.2 The Deficiency of Current Engineering Practices
Non-renewable energy sources are predominantly being used today. Nearly 90% of today’s energy is supplied by oil, gas, and coal (Salameh, 2003). The burning of fossil fuel accounts for more than 100 times greater dependence than the energy generated through renewable sources (solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy). However, fossil fuels are limited. According to the present consumption level, known reserves for coal, oil, gas and nuclear correspond to a duration of the order of 230, 45, 63 and 54 years, respectively (Rubbia, 2006). Moreover, today’s atmospheric pollution is derived from their combustion that produces many toxic by-products, the most devastating being plastics (Khan et al., 2007c). In addition, most existing processes are energy inefficient, which is why much attention is needed to increase energy efficiency. Moreover, past chemical engineering practices led to the generation of extremely high volumes of wastes, which pose serious long-term problems due to the presence of toxic materials. However, most of the technologies in use today are not beneficial to living beings. Even after extensive development of different technologies from decade to decade, it is evident that the world is becoming a container of toxic materials and is continuously losing its healthy atmosphere. That is why it is necessary to develop truly sustainable technology for mankind.
1.3 The Zero Waste Approach
In order to address the aforementioned problem, the main objective of this book is to deconstruct the aphenomenal assumptions behind numerous ‘laws’ and numerical solution schemes that are touted as the only solutions to engineering problems and to develop a design evaluation framework that combines energy technologies with mass and energy efficient techniques to create a new generation of zero waste mass and energy efficient life styles. In an ideal, zero waste scheme, the products and by-products of one process are used for another process (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Schematic of a zero waste energy and mass consumption scheme.
The process involves a number of novel designs, including biomass energy, solar energy (refrigeration and other applications), a desalination process, a solar aquatic water treatment system, and a number of useful products derived from natural sources. In this study, various approaches are advanced that would reposition all energy technologies in a zero waste mode. The overall goal is to devise new solutions that are convergent over long periods of time so that the natural ecosystem is not disturbed.
1.4 Scope of the Book
As the need for environmentally safe solutions to chemical engineering problems arise, natural alternatives to existing systems are being studied extensively. The use of waste and naturally occurring elements as potentially valuable assets help move this process in the right direction. This process brings in triple dividends, namely, reuse of waste materials (waste elimination), reduction of environmental degradation by avoiding artificial additives, and an economic boon of waste conversion (Zatzman and Islam, 2007b). Furthermore, this scheme decreases the ever-increasing demand for fossil fuel and reduces dependency on foreign natural resources. Finally, the technology can be coupled with fossil fuel production and consumption in order to create synergy and ‘greening’ of the fossil fuel usage (Vaziri et al., 2007). There is a definite possibility of expanding production and consumption for human needs on the basis of a net-zero waste of mass or energy, either at the input or output level of any process. Following this, it becomes feasible to propose approaches to zero waste living in an urban setting, including processing and regeneration of solids, liquids and gases.
1.5 Organization of the Book
Chapter 1 introduces the book and its layout. This chapter also outlines the problem statements, objectives, scope and the content of the book.
Chapter 2 reviews the development of a scientific approach that makes it possible to incorporate intangible elements during the engineering analysis of a process. This chapter points out unexpected or hitherto unconsidered strengths of certain alternative approaches, long buried or dismissed either as religious hocuspocus or “uncivilized”, i.e., non-European in origin. This chapter examines the first premise of all major theories and ‘laws’ that were introduced in the so-called ‘New Science’ of post-Renaissance Europe and thenceforth to the rest of the world. This section also deconstructs the spurious assumptions behind numerous ‘laws’ and numerical solution schemes that are touted as the only solutions to engineering problems.
Chapter 3 provides one with a guideline for sustainability using mass and energy balance that is essential to modeling sustainable engineering practices. In this chapter, a detailed analysis of different features of sustainability is presented in order to understand the importance of using the concept of sustainability in every technology development model. This is followed by the presentation of a new theory on combined mass and energy balance. The potential application of the new theory to nano technology is discussed. Materials are characterized based on their sustainability, thereby making it easy to determine the long-term outcome of a particular technology. This equation is solved for a number of cases and is shown to be successful in discerning between various natural and artificial sources of mass and energy.
Chapter 5 presents a case study of a recently identified crisis, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Serious concerns about the sustainability of the modern lifestyle have emerged ever since the outbreak of the CCD syndrome. This chapter presents a study of this problem and highlights the need for addressing the causes rather than the symptoms - a modus operandi that has become synonymous with post-renaissance world order. This chapter also shows that the so-called New Science is incapable of deciphering the causes of the CCD crisis. Finally, this chapter provides one with a guideline for determining root causes of such crisises and offers solutions that would pre-empt future occurrence of these crisises. Finally, Chapter 5 presents a framework for the science of intangibles, showing that the incorporation of intangible elements is necessary as a precondition for the development of truly sustainable technologies.
The content of Chapters 3 through 5 opens up the scope to model a truly sustainable life-style. Chapters 6 and 7 follow up on this concept and elucidate a guideline of ‘zero waste sustainable living’, using several sustainable technologies. The process involves a number of novel designs, including biomass energy, solar energy (refrigeration and other applications) and a desalination process.
One of the important tools for sustainable living is to maximize the utilization of solar energy, which is indeed the only true source of energy suitable for the planet earth. However, indirect usage of solar energy, for instance, the use of photovoltaics, can reduce both the efficiency and the quality of solar energy. It is important to determine the efficiency of a proposed system. Chapter 6 introduces a novel solar absorption cooling system that incorporates Einstein’s absorption refrigeration system. In order to avoid difficulties associated with conventional analysis that are only applicable to non-zero waste schemes, this section introduces a new method for calculating the coefficient of performance (COP) of a cooling system. With the help of this revised COP, it is shown that the COP of absorption refrigeration system is higher than that of a vapor compression refrigeration system. This section also deals with energy characterization for choosing the sustainable energy applications.
Some experimental results are necessary to support some of the concepts presented in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 presents experimental findings of a number of parameters associated with a solar parabolic collection. This parabolic collector uses vegetable oil as a thermal oil. This chapter introduces a new design of a solar collector with some significant improvements of the fin structure that increases the efficiency of the collector. This chapter also provides one with an alternative to inherently toxic synthetic thermal oil that is commonly used in engineering applications.
The zero waste concept, both in mass and energy, are further consolidated in Chapter 10. In this chapter, the performance of biogas production from kitchen wastes in anaerobic digesters is presented. Experiments were conducted under low to moderate temperatures with and without any bacterial inoculums. In all experiments, the addition of any synthetic material or modified microorganisms was avoided. This information is useful to design a ‘zero waste life style’.
A zero waste lifestyle must accompany a sustainable water purification technique. Chapter 11 shows an experimental example of purifying waste water using natural materials, thereby preserving the true sustainability of the process. In this chapter, mango stone is used to adsorb lead from waste water, offering a technique for the reduction of heavy metal from an aqueous stream. Different experimental criteria are shown to find out its applicability and usefulness. This technique offers a sustainable means of decontaminating water without resorting to potentially toxic adsorption materials (e.g. synthetic resins) or questionable irradiation processes (e.g. UV, ozonation).
In this book, a number of ways are sought to maximize the utilization of sustainable technologies. Any sustainable lifestyle must accompany the use of non-toxic materials for daily activities. The use of synthetic products can severely affect our ability to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The latter (does he mean later or latter?) section of Chapter 11 identifies the utilization of synthetic adhesives in our day to day lives in various ways and points out their long term detrimental effects. This chapter also provides a search of natural adhesives to replace detrimental synthetic adhesives. A number of naturally occurring products are mixed together and their adhesive properties are investigated. This chapter finally introduces a number of solutions as alternatives to synthetic adhesives and suggests their uses in different applications. Even though these products are immediately useful for environmentally sensitive people, they offer tremendous potential for future mass production and common use for everyone.
Recently, nuclear energy has been promoted as the new ‘clean’ source of energy and even oil rich countries are being told to brace for a nuclear surge. Chapter 12 studies the sustainability of nuclear energy. Chapter 13 analyzes the use of solar energy in the thermochemical reactor (a very high temperature reactor) which will produce hydrogen from water to utilize in hydrogen fuel cells. This chapter suggests a number of solutions for high temperature reactors to make those reactors efficient following a sustainable path.
This book introduces a paradigm shift in engineering analysis. Any engineering analysis is not complete without a study of economical factors that would dictate feasibility of a newly proposed scheme. Such investigation, however, must accompany a new approach as the conventional economic analysis is not suitable for study of truly sustainable (e.g. zero waste) techniques (Zatzman and Islam, 2007b). Chapter 14 introduces a new approach to comprehensive economic analysis, which includes long-term considerations that are only captured through intangible elements. This chapter proposes a guideline of economic evaluations that will identify the best processes among different processes for both short-term and long-term applications. As an example, this chapter evaluates the merit of a sustainable technology that is applied within the framework of renewable energy sources.
Conclusions are made in Chapter 15. This is followed by 50-plus pages of comprehensive lists of references in Chapter 16.
Chapter 2
A Delinearized History of Time and Its Impact on Scientific Cognition
2.1 Introduction
The modern age has been characterized as being both a time of “technological disaster” (as per Nobel Laureate Chemist, Robert Curl), and of “scientific miracles” (as the most predominant theme of modern education). Numerous debates break out every day, resulting in the formation of various schools of thoughts, often settling for “agreeing to disagree”. At the end, little more than band-aid solutions are offered in order to “delay the symptoms” of any ill-effects of the current technology developments. This modus operandi is not conducive to knowledge and cannot be utilized to lead the current civilization out of the misery that it faces, as is evident in all sectors of life. In this regard, the information age offers us a unique opportunity in the form of 1) transparency (arising from monitoring space and time); 2) infinite productivity (due to inclusion of intangibles, zero waste, and transparency); and 3) custom-designed solutions (due to transparency and infinite productivity). When one compares these features with the essential features of Nature, viz., dynamic, unique, and strictly non-linear, one appreciates that the information age has given us an opportunity to emulate nature. This gives us hope of correctly modelling effects of man-made activities on the global ecosystem. In our earlier work (Islam et al., 2010 Chhetri and Islam, 2008), we identified that almost all the theories and “laws” of the modern age have spurious assumptions behind them. It was also established that New Science is insufficient to account for natural phenomena, thereby making it impossible to design processes that are inherently sustainable unless a narrow definition of sustainability is used. As a remedy to this impasse, it was proposed that a true paradigm shift be applied to sustainability studies, starting from fundamental theories and mathematical models. The resulting mathematical models can distinguish between sustainable and unsustainable energy and material resources. Also, processes that would result in mass and energy pollution, could be distinguished from processes that would result in more of a greening of the environment. With this new theory, one can determine conclusively the practices that need to be avoided.
At present, numerous debates break out in favor and against any technology that is proposed. Both sides use New Science to make their points, without questioning the validity of the “laws” and theories of New Science. In this book, the premises behind all of these laws and theories are challenged, before entering into any discussion of sustainable technology development. The most prominent debate takes place in the context of global warming. In this debate, the recent groundbreaking work of Chilingar and his associates (Sorokthin et al., 2007), offers the first scientific discourse. However, the engineering applications lead to several conclusions that support the status quo, drawing sharp criticism from the sponsors of “alternate energy” sources. Ironically, scientists who promoted that “chemicals are chemicals”, meaning carbon dioxide is independent of the sources or the pathways, are the same ones that have become the most ardent proponents of the “carbon dioxide from petroleum is evil” mantra. How could this be? If carbon dioxide is the essence of photosynthesis that is needed for the survival of plants that themselves are needed for sustaining the entire ecosystem, how could the same carbon dioxide be held responsible for “destroying the planet”? No amount of doctrinal sermon can explain these contradictions, particularly as the same group, which promotes nuclear as “clean” energy, considers genetically modified, chemical fertilizers and pesticide infested crops derivatives processed through toxic means as “renewable”. This same group also proclaims that electricity collected with toxic silicon photovoltaics and stored with even more toxic batteries –all to be utilized through the most toxic “white light”—as sustainable. In the past, the same logic has been used in the “I can’t believe it’s not butter” culture that saw the dominance of artificial fat (transfat) over real fat (saturated fat) as geared toward creating a similar crisis involving water (CBC, Dec. 19, 2008; Icenhower, 2006). The addiction to artificial continues.
This chapter is dedicated to showing in historical context how doctrinal approach has infiltrated New Science and made it impossible to develop theories that would make it possible to correct the current trends in technology developments that are inherently unsustainable. It demystifies the above doctrinal philosophy that has perplexed the entire world, led by the scientists who have shown little appetite for solving the puzzle, resorting instead to being stuck in the Einstein box.
2.2 The Importance of The Continuous Long-term History
Does there exist anything, anywhere in nature or society, that is taken care of mainly, only or primarily in the short-term? Is such a notion consistent or inconsistent with what makes us human? Even positing this question stirs waters that run very, very deep. For example, the theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, created a huge best-seller decades ago with his reflections on this problem, in his arrestingly entitled A Brief History of Time (1988). This chapter repositions and discusses the problem of Time, short-term and long-term, by setting out what can best be described as its “de-linearized” history. A very real contradiction has broken out in all fields of research. It is a struggle between solving the long-term environmental needs of both the natural world and human societal development on the one hand, and the extremely short-term character of whatever “truth” is comprehended by the theories currently used to model those solutions on the other. Seeking to get to the bottom of this contradiction, this chapter unfolds several approaches from very different directions that nevertheless point to the same conclusion. Certain developments in the history of mathematics are reviewed. At the end, a theory of real analysis is proposed. This emerged from Newton’s elaboration of the fundamental rules of calculus and the application of these findings, both to solve physical problems, mechanical engineering problems and even to advance the theory itself. Today, additionally, a great deal of engineering as well as theoretical work in the natural sciences relies even more heavily on mathematical modeling, emerging from the theory of probability and other 1stochastic statistical notions that were themselves developed as branches of Real analysis. It is widely assumed in many fields of the natural sciences and engineering that stochastically-based models began with the quantum theory in the early 20th century. This chapter brings out that, on the contrary, this modeling began with efforts in the 19th century, starting in the 1870s, to render social sciences more rigorous. Indeed, at the time, those taking this up believed this would make the social sciences as rigorous as physical sciences, based on what Newton’s laws of motion appeared to be. (Because of this peculiar turn of development in the actual history, this chapter necessarily makes some references to key moments in the social sciences—outside research and engineering in the natural sciences—to base knowledge of the truth on laws of chance.) The chapter concludes that problems posed in present scientific and technological developments, both for science and for society as a whole, can only be solved by addressing the long-term. This entails shifting beyond the current discourse and thinking based on elaborating everything tangible in the present. That discourse is has been an undeniable accomplishment of scientific enterprises since the 17th century up until now. However, what is needed today is a science of intangibles. Alongside all tangible elements of a phenomenon, this must explicitly incorporate consideration of elements that may not be expressed at a tangible level until some future point, but which are nonetheless prefigured in the phenomenon’s present state. Where should the search for the foundations of such a science start? This chapter locates some fascinating precedents for such foundations in Eastern cultures that have been too long underestimated or marginalized as nothing but religious hocus-pocus.
Why should we study history, particularly in the context of technology development? Is history useful for increasing our knowledge? The issue here is not whether new knowledge accumulates on the basis of using earlier established findings, with the entire body of knowledge then being passed on to later generations. The real issue is: On what basis does an individual investigator cognize the existing state of knowledge? If the individual investigator cognizes the existing state of knowledge on the basis of his/her own re-investigation of the bigger picture surrounding his/her field of interest, that is a conscious approach, one which shows the investigator operating according to conscience.
If, on the other hand, one accepts as given the so-called conclusions reached up to now by others, such considerations could introduce a problem: What were the pathways by which those earlier conclusions were reached? An investigator who declines to investigate those pathways is negating conscience.
Such negating of conscience is not a good thing for anyone to undertake. However, the fact is there was, for a long time external or surrounding conditions, asserting an undue or improper influence on this front. What if, for example, there existed an authority (like the Church of Rome, during the European Middle Ages) that stepped into the picture as my-way-or-the-highway (actually: rack-and-thumbscrews) Knowledge Central, certifying certain conclusions while at the same time banishing all thinking or writing that lead to any other conclusions? Then the individual’s scientific investigation itself and reporting would have been colored and influenced by the looming threat of censorship and/or the actual exercise of that censorship. (The latter could occur at the cost of one’s career and “pato” [=“personal access to oxygen”].)
Against this mere interest on the part of the investigator to find something out, mere curiosity, won’t be enough. The investigator him/herself has to be driven by some particular consciousness of the importance for humanity of his/her own investigative efforts. Of course, the Church agrees—but insists only that one has to have the Church’s conscience (“everything we have certified is the Truth; anything that contradicts, or conflicts with, the conclusions we certified is Error; those who defend Error are agents of Satan who must be destroyed”).
This would account for Galileo’s resorting to defensive maneuvers (claiming he was not out to disprove Scripture)—a tactic of conceding a small Lie in order to be able to continue nailing down a larger, more important Truth. Why mix such hypocrisy into such matters? Because it had worked for other investigators in the past. What was new in Galileo’s case was the decision of the Church at that time not to permit him the private space in which to maneuver, in order to make of him an example with which to threaten less-talented researchers coming after him. The worst we can say against Galileo after that point is that once an investigator (in order to get along in life) goes along with this, s/he destroys some part of her/his usefulness as an investigator. This destruction is even more meaningful because it is likely to change the direction of the conscience pathway of the investigator, for example, leading him/her to pursue money instead of the truth.
The historical movement in this material illustrates the importance of retaining the earliest and most ancient knowledge. However, it leaves open the question of what was actually authoritative about earlier knowledge for later generations. The unstated, but key point, is that the authority was vested in the unchanging character of key conclusions. That is to say, this authority was never vested in the integrity and depth of probing by earlier investigators and investigations into all of the various pathways and possibilities.
In medieval Europe, the resort to experimental methods did not arise on the basis of rejecting or breaking with Church authority. Rather it was justified instead by a Christian-theological argument, along the following lines:
These “means” are then formulated as the starting point of what becomes the “scientific method”. So, as a result (combining here the matter of the absence of any sovereign authority for the scientific investigator’s conscience, and the Christian-theological justification for certain methods of investigation that might not appear to have been provided by any previously-existing authority), even with scientific methods, such as experiments, the conscience of an investigator who separated his/her responsibility for the Truth from the claims of Church authority—but without opposing or rebelling against that authority—could not ensure that his/her investigation could or would increase knowledge of the truth.
There is another feature that is crucial, regarding the consequences of vesting authority in a Central Knowledge-Certifier. For thousands of years, Indian mathematics were excelling in increasing knowledge, yet nobody knew about its findings for millennia outside of the villages or small surrounding territories—because there did not exist any notion of publication of results and findings for others. Contrast this with the enormous propaganda ascribing so many of the further advancements in the New Science of tangibles to the system that emerged of scholarly publication and dissemination of fellow researchers’ findings and results. This development is largely ascribed to “learning the lessons” of the burning of the libraries of Constantinople in 1453 (by those barbaric Ottomans, remember), which deprived Western civilization of so much ancient learning (…)
The issue is publication, and yet at the same time, the issue is not just publication. Rather, it is, on what basis does publication of new findings and research take place? Our point here is that publication will serve to advance knowledge in rapid and great strides, if and only if, authority is vested in the integrity and depth of probing by earlier investigators and investigations into all the various pathways and possibilities. Otherwise, this societal necessity and usefulness for publication becomes readily and easily subverted by the Culture of Patents, the exclusivity of “intellectual property”, or what might be described today as “Monopoly Rights”.
If & only if, we put first the matter of the actual conduct of scientific investigations and the “politics” attached to that conduct (meaning: the ways and means by which new results are enabled to build humanity’s store of knowledge)—then & only then—can we hope to reconstruct the actual line of development. With the actual knowledge of this line of development, for any given case, we can then proceed to critique, isolate and eliminate the thinking and underlying ideological outlooks that kept scientific works and its contents travelling down the wrong path on some given problem or question. The issue is not just to oppose the Establishment in theory or in words. The issue is, rather to oppose the Establishment in practice, beginning with vested authority, regarding matters of science and the present state of knowledge in integrity and depth by probing earlier investigators and investigations to date, into all the various pathways and possibilities of a given subject-matter.
2.3 Delinearized History of Time and Knowledge
The starting point is important in this discourse. However, all starting points are arbitrary. However, according to a well-worn notion, “if you don’t know where you’re going, any path can take you there.” (This idea has been recorded among peoples of different times and places—in the U.S., by the U.S. baseball celebrity, Yogi Berra, of the late 20th century to the Arabian Desert, attributed to the Quran). This section sets out to investigate the notions of delinearized historical rendering of scientific and technological developments. This process has become firmly established in the world’s thinking as entirely Western, if not indeed overwhelmingly based upon the United States., Our starting-point? It is the synthesis, over the five centuries that followed the life of the Prophet Muhammad, of ancient learning by the Muslim scholars inspired by Islam. During the period of post-Thomas Aquinas (father of doctrinal philosophy), cognition in Europe, the work of Islamic scholars continued and today, if one just searches in Wikipedia, one will find: Ibn sina (Avecina) is named the father of modern medicine and alchemy, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the father of secular philosophy and Education, Ibn Haitham (Alhazen), the father of modern optics. Al-Kindi (Alkindus) is the father of information technology, Ibn Khaldoun, the father of social sciences, Al-Khwrizm, the founding father of algebra and mathematics, and Al-Farabi is named the father of epistemology and metaphysics. Yet, all of them are listed as either polyscientists or polymath. In addition, all of them are considered to be inspired by the prophet Muhammad. This is truly an unprecedented event in human history and only goes with the latest work of Michael Hart that ranked Prophet Muhammad as the most influential world leader. Who is second in that list? That would be Sir Isaac Newton, the man who wrote more on Christian doctrine than on science. His Church wasn’t based in Rome; it was the Church of England, headed by the Monarch. The transition from “religion” to “politics” wasn’t even subtle. Some of our recent work only begins to touch upon the original theories of Islamic scholars who could have served humanity only if they were not altered with the intent of fitting a conclusion new scientists were trying to come up with in order to satisfy the Church, the Government, or the Corporation. Newton was unique because he satisfied the Church and the Monarch simultaneously. It was possible because the Head of the Church of England was also the Monarch (true until today). While Newton had no reason to challenge the first premise of the Church that he belonged to, others (e.g. Russian scientists, Einstein) didn’t dare question the first premise of anyone, but most notably that of Newton’s. If they did, they were quickly called “anarchists”.
As an example, the Nobel Prize winning work of Albert Einstein, is noteworthy. Our recent book (Islam et al., 2010), pointed out how Einstein’s work simply took Maxwell’s rigid sphere model as true and how Maxwell himself took that model from Newton. Consider how Ibn Haitham took the model of Aristotle and deconstructed it based on simple logic. He discarded Aristotle’s conclusion that light has infinite speed and reconstructed a model that, until today, served as the only model that can distinguish sunlight from artificial light. While it is well known that sunlight is the essence of life and that artificial light is something that is used to torture people, Einstein’s theory or any other optic theory cannot explain scientifically how this is possible. In addition, Ibn Haitham undid another one of the old theories, which is that something that comes out of our eyes makes it possible for us to see. Instead of that theory, he introduced the notion of something entering your eye that makes it possible to see. This “something” was later proclaimed to be a photon. This notion was correct, but the denomination as well as the attribution of various properties made further research on the topic of light characterization impossible. For instance, because this theory postulates that all photons are alike and do not have mass, the source of light cannot have an impact on the quality of light, leading to the same difficulty that made it impossible to discern between sunlight and artificial light. Whereas, if Ibn Haitham’s theory was used correctly, one would be able to correlate the toxic nature of the light source (e.g. power-saving light) with long-term impacts, such as breast cancer, brain dysfunction, and numerous other reported correlations. This would also unravel the science behind skin-cancer causing chemicals that are often included in suntan or sun protection lotions. Another example is worth mentioning here, which is a recently touted new form of energy-saving light. This light was excellent in energy savings as well as producing the “white light” effect. However, it was also performing the so-called “belly dance”. When the source was sent to the International Space Station for a probe, it was discovered that the “belly dance” subsided or disappeared. Gravity was found to be the reason behind the belly dance. Could this be explained with existing light theories? Of course not, because if photons have zero mass, how could gravity affect them? This paradoxical modus operandi continues when it comes to dark matters (infinite mass, but no energy) and dark energy (infinite energy, but no mass) in the realm of the discussion in Cosmic physics.
So, what is the catch here? Ibn Haitham didn’t read Aristotle’s work to believe in it. He read the theory, used the criterion on truth and falsehood and was able to decipher true elements from the volumes of work. Einstein didn’t dare use the same logic about Maxwell’s “laws” or he didn’t have the criterion that Ibn Haitham was equipped with. Einstein was not a Christian, but he certainly was a believer of Eurocentric philosophy. This fundamental inability to discern truth from falsehood (called Furqan in Arabic), is missing from European new science or social science. As a result, what we see is constant confusion about everything that governs our daily lives. The article by Sardar (2009), talks about the philosophy that drove the mindset of Eurocentric scientists.
These questions are not new, but what is new in this report is the realization that the answers to these questions could have been found hundred years ago and the environmental, technological, and moral disasters of today could have been averted if we didn’t resort to doctrinal philosophy. Instead of looking at our previous scientists with contempt, as though they were somewhat inferior human beings, if we took their natural cognition processes and continued with the theories that they had advanced, we would be living in a different world.
At the PDO Planetarium of Oman, Dr. Marwan Shwaiki recounted for us an arrestingly delinearized history of the Muslim contribution to the world’s scientific and technical cultures. What follows is our distillation of some of the main outlines:
Human civilization is synonymous with working with nature. For thousands of years of known history, we know that man marveled at using mathematics to design technologies that created the basis of sustaining life on this planet. In this design, the natural system had been used as a model. For thousands of years, the sun was recognized as the source of energy that was needed to sustain life. For thousands of years, improvements were made over natural systems without violating natural principles of sustain-ability. The length of a shadow was used by ancient civilizations in the Middle East to regulate the flow of water for irrigation—a process still in existence in some parts of the world, known as the fallaj system. At nights, stars and other celestial bodies were used to ascertain water flow. This is an old, but by no means an obsolete, technology. In fact, this technology is far superior to the irrigation implanted in the modern age that relies on deep- water exploitation.
For thousands of years of known history, stars were used for navigation. It was no illusion, even for those who believed in myths and legends: stars and celestial bodies are dynamic. This dynamic nature nourished poetry and other imaginings about these natural illuminated bodies for thousands of years. The Babylonians started these stories, as far back as one can see from known history. Babylonian civilization is credited with dividing the heavenly bodies into 12 groups, known as the Zodiac. The Babylonians are also credited with the sexagesimal principle of dividing the circle into 360 degrees and each degree into 60 minutes. They are not, however, the ones responsible for creating confusion between units of time (seconds and minutes) and space (Zatzman, 2007). Their vision was more set on the time domain. The Babylonians had noticed that the sun returned to its original location among the stars once every 365 days. They named this length of time a “year”. They also noticed that the moon made almost 12 revolutions during that time period. Therefore, they divided the year into 12 parts and each of them was named a “month”. Hence, the Babylonians were the first to conceive of the divisions of the astronomical clock.
Along came Egyptian civilization, which followed the path opened by the Babylonians. They understood even in those days, that the sun was not just a star, and that the earth was not just a planet. In a continuous advancement of knowledge, they added more constellations to those already identified by the Babylonians. They divided the sky into 36 groups, starting with the brightest star, Sirius. They believed (on the basis of their own calculations) that the sun took 10 days to cross over each of the 36 constellations. That was what they were proposing, thousands of years before the Gregorian calendar fixed the number of days to some 365. Remarkably, this latter fixation would actually violate natural laws; in any event, it was something of which the Egyptians had no part. The Gregorian “solution” was larded with a Eurocentric bias—one that solved the problem of the days that failed to add up by simply wiping out 12 days (Unix users can see this for themselves if they issue the command “cal 1752” in a terminal session).
It was the Greeks—some of whom, e.g., Ptolemy, travelled to Egypt to gather knowledge—who brought the total number of constellations to 48. This was a remarkable achievement. Even after thousands more years of civilization and the discovery of constellations in the southern sky,—something previously inaccessible to the peoples to whose history we have access—the total number of constellations was declared to be 88 in 1930. Of course, the Greek version of the same knowledge contained many myths and legends, but it always portrayed the eternal conflict between good and evil; between ugly and beautiful; and between right and wrong.
The emergence of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula catapulted Arabs to gather knowledge on a scale and at a pace unprecedented in its time. Even before this, they were less concerned with constellations as groups of stars, and far more focused on individual stars and using them effectively to navigate. (Not by accident, star constellations’ names are of Greek origin, while the names of individual stars are mostly of Arabic in origin.) In the modern astronomical atlas, some 200 of the 400 brightest stars are given names of Arabic origin. Arabs, just like ancient Indians, also gave particular importance to the moon. Based on the movement of the moon among the stars, the Arabs divided the sky and its stars into 28 sections, naming them manazil, meaning the mansions of the moon. The moon is “hosted” in each mansion for a day and a night. Thus, the pre-Islamic Arabs based their calendar on the moon, although they noted the accumulating differences between the solar and lunar calendars. They also had many myths surrounding the sun, moon, and the stars. While Greek myths focused on kings and gods, however, Arab myths were more focused on individuals and families.
Prehistoric Indians and Chinese assumed that the Earth had the shape of a shell borne by four huge elephants standing on a gigantic turtle. Similarly, some of the inhabitants of Asia Minor envisaged that the Earth was in the form of a huge disk, carried by three gigantic whales floating on the water. The ancient inhabitants of Africa believed that the sun sets into a “lower world” every evening and that huge elephants pushed it back all night in order for it to rise the next morning. Even the ancient Egyptians imagined the sky in the shape of a huge woman surrounding the Earth, decorated from the inside with the stars. This was in sharp contrast to the ancient Greek belief that the stars were part of a huge sphere. Ptolemy refined the ancient Greek knowledge of astronomy by imagining a large sphere with the stars located on the outer surface. He thought that all the planets known at the time—Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn—were revolving within this huge sphere, together with the sun and the moon.
The ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, assumed that the orbits of these celestial bodies were perfectly circular and that the bodies would keep revolving forever. For Aristotle, such perfection manifested symmetric arrangements. His followers continue to use this model. Scientifically speaking, the spherical model is nothing different from the huge elephant on a gigantic turtle model and so on. What precipitated over the centuries following Ptolemy, is an Eurocentric bias that any of the models that the Greeks proposed were inherently superior to the models proposed by Ancient Indians, Africans, or the Chinese. In the bigger picture, however, we know now that the pathways of celestial bodies are non-symmetric and dynamic. Only with this non-symmetric model can one explain retrograde motion of the planets—a phenomenon that most ancient civilizations even noticed. Eurocentric views, however, would continue to promote a single theory that saw the Earth as the centre of the Universe. In Ptolemy’s word: “During its rotation round the Earth, a planet also rotates in a small circle. On return to its orbit, it appears to us as if it is going back to the west.” Of course, this assertion, albeit false, explained the observation of retrograde motion. Because it explains a phenomenon, it becomes true—the essence of a pragmatic approach which led to the belief that the Earth is indeed the centre of the Universe—a belief that would dominate the Eurocentric world for over thousands of years.
The knowledge gathered about astronomy by the ancient Chinese and Indians was both extensive and profound. The Chinese were particularly proficient in recording astronomical incidents. The Indians excelled in calculations and had established important astronomical observatories. It was the Arabs of the post-Islamic renaissance that would lead the world for many centuries, setting an example of how to benefit from knowledge of the previous civilizations. Underlying this synthesizing capacity, was a strong motive to seek the truth about everything.
Among other reasons for this, a most important reason, was that every practicing Muslim is required to offer formal prayer five times a day, all relating to the position of the sun in the horizon. They are also required to fast one month of the year and offer pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime, no matter how far away they resided (as long as they can afford the trip).
Most importantly, they were motivated by the hadith of The Prophet that clearly outlined, “It is obligatory for every Muslim man and woman to seek Knowledge through science (as in process)”. This was a significant point of departure, diverging extremely sharply away from the Hellenized conception that would form the basis of what later became “Western civilization” at the end of the European Middle Ages. Greek thought from its earliest forms associated the passage of time, not with the unfolding of new further knowledge about a phenomenon, but rather with decay and the onset of increasing disorder. Its conceptions of the Ideal, of the Forms etc., are all entire and complete unto themselves, and—ost significantly—they standing outside Time, truth being identified with a point in which everything stands still. (Even today, conventional models based on the “New Science” of tangibles unfolded since the 17th century disclosed its debt to these Greek models by virtue of its obsession with the steady state as what is considered the “reference-point” from which to discuss many physical phenomena, as though there were such a state anywhere in nature.) Implicitly, on the basis of such a standpoint, consciousness and knowledge exist in the here-and-now—after the Past and before the Future unfurls. (Again, today, conventional scientific models treat time as the independent variable, in which one may go forward or backward, whereas time in nature cannot be made to go backward—even if a process is reversible.) All this has a significant, but rarely articulated consequence for how Nature and its truths would be cognized. According to this arrangement, the individual’s knowledge of the truth at any given moment, frozen outside of Time, is co-extensive with whatever is being observed, noted, studied, etc.
The Islamic view diverged sharply by distinguishing its beliefs, knowledge (i.e., some conscious awareness of the truth), and truths (or actuality). In this arrangement, the individual’s knowledge of the truth or of nature is always fragmentary and also time-dependent. Furthermore, how, whether or even where knowledge is gathered cannot be subordinated to the individual’s present state of belief(s), desires or prejudices. In the Islamic view, a person seeking knowledge of the truth cannot be biased against the source of knowledge, be it in the form of geographical location or the tangible status of a people. Muslims felt compelled to become what we term as “scientists” or independent thinkers—each person deriving their inspiration from the Qu’ran and the hadith of Prophet Muhammad. Hence, they had no difficulty gaining knowledge from the experience of their predecessors in different fields of science and mathematics. They were solely responsible for bringing back the writings of Greek Aristotle and Ptolemy and the Indian Brahmagupta in the same breath. Neither were they their role models; they were simply their ancestors whose knowledge Muslims didn’t want to squander. They started the greatest translation campaign in the history of mankind, to convert the written works of previous civilizations into Arabic. In due course, they had gained all prior knowledge of astronomy that enabled them to become world leaders in that field of science for five successive centuries. Even their political leaders were fond of science and knowledge. One remarkable pioneer of knowledge was Caliph Al-Mamoon, one of the Abbasite rulers. Some one thousand years before Europeans were debating how flat the Earth is, Al-Mamoon and his scholars already knew the earth was spherical (although—significantly—not
