Key words: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, alternative Theories of Relativity, cosmological doctrine, models of the universe, origin of the universe.
PACS’ Codes: 95.30.Sf , 98.80.Bp, 01.65.+g, 01.70.+w , 03.30.+p , 04.20.-q, 04.50.Kd
Abstract
Fundamental principles of the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (ETR) are the continuum space-time axiom, the Mach principle and the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuo. It is shown by Whitehead [1] and Iqbal [2] that these axioms and other physical concepts involved are not independent of the German cosmological doctrine which are incompatible with the Christian-English and Islamic cosmological doctrines. Similar to the method of evaluating the ETR done by Whitehead and Iqbal, we reevaluate the theory based on the Malay cosmological doctrine. It is shown that the present Einstein’s and Whitehead’s theory of space-time is not fully consistent with the corresponding Islamic-Malay cosmological doctrine. Views of Islamic scholars on the compatability of the Islamic cosmological doctrine with the Einstein’s Theory are refuted. It is shown that the Islamic and Malay cosmological doctrines are potentially useful in proposing an innovative theory of relativity.
INTRODUCTION
Criticism of a theory explicitly based on a different cosmological doctrine is very rarely made and hence a common criticism (implicitly within the same cosmological doctrine or paradigm) of a theory is fittingly refered to as a “normal criticism” (in line with the term “normal science” invented by the famous scholar, Kuhn [3]). A “normal criticism” is essentially based on observation and to fulfill the three aims and objectives of modern science: to provide good explaination of observations (or phenomena), to make good predictions, and to adopt or invent good mathematics for modeling the phenomena. Of course if we believe that science is not value free, as most philosophers do, every scientific theory is value laden or influenced by a cosmological doctrine or a Kuhn’s paradigm. As far as the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (ETR) is concerned, we know only Whitehead [1], Sellers [4], Hoyle et al [5], and Iqbal [2] had explicitly admitted that their work are motivated by their convictions on religion (Christianity or Islam), language (German or English) or ideology (materialism or aetheism), i.e some of those subjects which constitute the term “a cosmological doctrine”. Here we criticize the ETR vis-a-vis on different cosmological doctrines, namely the Islamic and Malay cosmological doctrines which have never been done before even though this work is in analogy with the work of Whitehead and Iqbal who have both criticised the ETR based on the Christio-English and Islamo-Indian cosmological doctrine respectively. Each of these type of criticisms may be refered to as “a cosmological doctrine based criticism”.
In our earlier writings (Shaharir [6],[7],[8], [9]), we have presented almost all aspect of normal criticisms as well as some flavour of cosmological doctrine based criticisms toward the ETR. There we have mentioned 8 alternatives to the ETR without details of the involvement of the cosmological doctrines or otherwise in each of the alternatives. Lately we have found that almost all of those alternatives are essentially have the same paradigm, only the geometrical model (the metric) of the space-time and the nature of the physical cosmological constant in the ETR are different and each of them is motivated by observations. The exception is the Yilmaz theory [10] which is discussed in section 2. A clear exception of different paradigm is the alternative theory known as “the aether theory” where one of the main axiom in the ETR, the absence of aether, is eliminated, but the motivation is not explicitly based on a cosmological doctrine. The other alternative which may be regarded as involving a somewhat new paradigm is the Logunov’s Relativistic Theory of Gravitation in which Lugonov and his colleagues [11] have shown that their space-time is somewhat different from that in the ETR. However their criticism on the ETR and hence their motivation for establishing their theory is still not based on an explicit cosmological doctrine.
MUSLIMS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETR
Other than Iqbal [2] Yilmaz [10] and Shaharir [6], no other Muslim writers who criticise the ETR. Other Muslims happily accept and many of course strengthen the theory by using specific verses from al-Qur’aan, or the Islamic teachings. This can easily be seen in every popular “Islamic” or Muslim webpages in the internet (under the name “Islamic science”) and books and articles which are too many to mention them here and readers may refer to Shaharir [12].
Yilmaz has involved in improving models for the universe based on the ETR since 1958 until the metric of the universe no longer implies the existence of a singular point (which allows the occurrence of the Big Bang and the Black Hole) and having the phenomenon of expanding universe. We regard the Yilmaz model as one of the version of a steady state model of the universe whose implication is essentially the same with the more well known model proposed by Hoyle et al. [5], even though the motivation for the models is different (Yilmaz was motivated by his determination to support the Einstein’s static model of the universe; whereas Hoyle et al. were motivated by their determination to uphold atheism). Both models are in contradiction with the Islamic cosmological doctrine since the models imply there is no beginning and no ending of this universe. The incompatability of Western models of universe (usually found in standard text books) with the Islamic teachings have already been discussed by Shaharir [6]. The apex of the Yilmaz work is his criticism towards the non-validity of the Einstein equation for the weak field (in the term of “the momentum-energy tensor”) and he replaces it with the term which he considered to be more correct. However the Einstein-Yilmaz equation is strongly criticized for its validity notably by Misner [13]. Whatever the case may be, the Yilmaz’s model, and the Hoyle et al’s model are ignored due to the ardent preference of the Western scholars for models which imply the existence of the Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe.
Among the elements of the ETR which are oftenly discussed favourably by Muslims are the constancy of the speed of light, E=m
, time dilatation, size contraction, causality principle, the Big Bang Theory, the expanding universe, and the positive relationship of science and religion. They use specific al-Qur’aanic (quranic) verses to support the validity and the correctness of those items from the ETR. However the non-suitability and non-appropriateness of the use of several al-Qur’aanic verses and the sufists experiences for upholding these ETR elements have already been discussed by Shaharir [8],[9],[12].
Western scholars reject the Einstein’s model of the universe simply based on consideration of interpretation of the Hubble observation in 1929, or the teachings of atheism but Iqbal based his criticism on his interpretation of his source of cosmological doctrine, al-Qur’aan or simply Islam. Western scholars very much agree with the interpretation of the Hubble observation that the universe is expanding, even though this interpretation receive criticisms until today. In fact recently Daigneault and Sangalli [14] give a review on the Einstein’s model of the universe and argue that the model should be readmitted, reestablished and improved. The Big Bang Theory (BBT) and its complementary, the Expanding Universe Theory (EUT) actually receive some strong criticisms since 1970’s including due to its compatability with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (DATE) in which the later receives even stronger criticism from those who subscribe theistic cosmological doctrines especially from Christian and Muslim scholars (Shaharir [9]).
The fate of the BBT and the EUT are the same as the DATE, that is two earlier theories are firmly recognized and praised as “the correct theory” , infact they are as if constantly supported by new evidence by evidence and the related scholars who are assumed to have proved the validity of the two theories have been given the highest honour, the Nobel Prizes (Penzias and Wilson in 1965, Mather and Smoot in 2006). This events really captivated Muslims through out the world as such that they further added the strength for supporting the BBT as if there is no more place for innovation, or the world have reach “the end of cosmology”! Meanwhile they are many Muslim scholars (too many to mention them here) who come to support strongly the BBT and EUT simply base on some verses in the al-Qur’aan. However it is interesting to note that the same verses of the al-Qur’aan have been translated-interpreted by others in a manner which do not seem to support the BBT and the TEU but these have not been highlighted so far. For examples, the translation-interpretations done by the Departmen Agama RI [15], Mahmud [16], Hamka [17], and more interesting by the first Malay translator-interpretors of the al-Qur’aan, Singkel and Baba [18]. It is also interesting to note that according to the other great Malay scholars in 17th century, al-Raniri [19], the creation of this universe does not show any form of Darwinian evolutionary process (only in 6 days, as literally mentioned in the al-Qur-‘aan) and there is no kind of the BBT occurs, instead the creation happens through God’s “tilik muhibbaht” (God’s deep lovingly look) or God’s “tilik hebat” (God’s great look). Comments by Hamka [17] also interesting where, based on a linguistic argument, he explains that this earth is originally separated from other celestial bodies, but all these separations (which would allow one to interprete it as the phenomenon of expanding universe) had already occurred. We find that this classical interpretation suggests that the steady state universe is more appropriate than the expanding universe, even though the term “steady state”here needs to be differentiated from those in the models of this universe developed by Hoyle et al. [5]and Yilmaz [10] mentioned earlier.
Iqbal [2] is the first Muslim scholar who dares to criticize the ETR simply based on his Islamic cosmological doctrine. This is discussed separately in the next section of this paper.
THE ESSENCE OF THE GERMAN COSMOLOGICAL
DOCTRINES IN THE ETR
Like Christianity, Islam certainly has answers on these subjects normally raised in astronomy, cosmology or cosmogeny, particularly on the origin of the universe. Islam teaches her followers that the universe is created by Allah (hence there is the beginning) and certainly will be completely destroyed (by Allah) and that day is known by various name including The Last Day, The Reckoning Day, The Judgement Day and the most well known among Muslims is Qyamaht (literally means the Day of Standing). The living and the nonliving things, the observables and non-observables, the seen and the unseen (the angels/malaa-ikahts and the jins and the syaithans (also commonly known as satans, demons and ghosts) are all generically known as makhluk (literally means the God’s creation), in particular human being on this earth is the best possible makhluk and their destinies are subject to will of God known as Qadha’ dan Qadar (the concept of the Islamic Free Will which has emerged as a new Western problematic issue in modern science as shown by Murphy & Russel [20] ; Russel et al. [21]). Therefore, on whatever name being proposed in the modern scientific theory, in particular the ETR, a theory which implies that this universe is not created by any god, or irrelevance of any god, or the universe is without the Beginning, or without the End, the human beings is not created by god and not subject to the Islamic Free Will would certainly be rejected by Muslims
Whitehead’s criticisms [1],[22] on the ETR provide arguments that the theory is very much influenced by the German cosmological doctrine which he proves through his discussion on the basic terminologies, assumption and philosophy in the theory. This is already elaborated in Shaharir [23]. Einstein’s eagerness in discarding the aether (Ather in German, al-ather in Arabic) from his physics, we believe, is natural since the aether is an alient entity, an entity which is not found in his or even European cosmological doctrine but rather of Indian origin (akasa in Sanskrit which has been adopted by the Malayonesian at least in 7 century AD as discussed by Shaharir [24]. Therefore an aether theory as an alternative to the ETR is more acceptable to Indian and Malayonesian physicists who are still embracing their respective original cosmological doctrines.
Whitehead shows that the German values (implicitly found in the German terminologies originally used by Einstein in his Relativity Theory) are not compatible with Christian-English value system. He then created a new philosophy of science which he named it as the organism for the purpose of resisting the existing philosophy of science at the time (and essentially continues to exist until today) which he thought , and correctly so, as secular and aetheistic in nature. With the organism, Whitehead were able to establish a new formulation of the Relativity Theory which has a Christian flavour and many of the features in the ETR which he dislikes have been eliminated which includes the constancy of light, Mach principle, Cartesian dualism of the ETR (mind-body problem), cosmic religion, various paradoxes such as the grandfather paradox (challenging the free-will in Christianity) and the causality principle. From the perspective of mathematics, the Whitehead Theory of Relativity (WTR) is much more superior than the ETR because the former use only two axioms on the nature of space-time instead of 4 axioms in the ETR, in particular Whitehead does not prescribe the constancy of the speed of light (=the absence of aether) as an axiom. Those parts of the theory which are finally end up mathematically the same formula, WTR offers different approaches and interpretations. Whitehead of course received many criticisms as shown by Bahm [25]. However the preference of ETR over WTR in the mind of the Western physicists is not based on mathematical and physical factors, instead due to the dominant Western value system which is aetheistic, secularistic or areligious, or even Jewish in nature. In fact, as far as the atheism among Western scientists is concerned, Carroll [26] dan Mashelkar [27] survey can be used to support this conclusion since they have found that more than 90% of them are atheists.
CRITICISM ON THE CONCEPT OF TIME IN ETR BASED ON THE
ISLAMIC COSMOLOGICAL DOCTORINE
The second critic of the ETR based on a religious cosmological doctrine came from Iqbal [2]. However unlike Whitehead, Iqbal criticism did not receive attentions from appropriate scholars, axcept a few recently namely Maroof & Peerzada [28] and Ashraf [29]. The loyalty of Muslim scholars toward the Western science, in particular the ETR, is reflected by Maroof & Peerzada [28] where they dismissed Iqbal’s criticism essentially based on his strong sentiment toward Einstein and Iqbal’s credential as a non-physicist. On the other hand, Ashraf [29] just gives a noncritical evaluation of the Iqbal’s work on the nature of space-time and the universe. As far as the Western scholars are concerned, one can imagine that their standings towards Iqbal must be the same as towards Whitehead; after all Iqbal praised highly the work of Whitehead albeit with some reservations. Thus the Western scholars must have thought that it is not worth to comment the Iqbal’s work: anything which they have criticized the WTR must be valid for the Iqbal’s work. After all, unlike Whitehead, Iqbal did not manage to obtain any new formulation of relativity theory; it is just purely a criticism.
Like Whitehead, his contemporary scholar, Iqbal find that the ETR is not compatible with his religious conviction since the theory does give many things (in various forms of paradoxes) which contradict to Islam (or Christianity for Whitehead). Other point worth mentioning here is Iqbal’s effort to rectify the history of science on space and time which is the core of the ETR. Iqbal [2] reminds us that there were many scholar during the Islamic Civilisation who had proposed theory of time much earlier than the European scholars including the famous German scholar, Hegel who, we believe, had some influenced on Einstein.
Iqbal gives a review on several contributions of European scholars during his time and a generation before him regarding space and time which includes Bergson (a French scholar); Reichenbach (a German scholar); and two great British scholars during his life time, Whitehead dan Russell. As a result, he proposes a new theory of time which he regards time as taqdir (God’s plan), even though to a certain extent, he agrees with many things regarding the concept of time as proposed by Bergson and Whitehead. However, apparently Iqbal did not know the work of the Iranian scholar (in the 17th century) by the name of Mulla Sadr which we thought is more sophisticated than those formulated by the European scholars mentioned by Iqbal and more importantly by Einstein. This has been elaborated by Shaharir [23]. In short, the concept of time by Mulla Sadr is not fully realized in the ETR or WTR, and it is still somewhat different and potentially more functional than the taqdir proposed by Iqbal.
CRITICISM ON THE CONCEPT OF TIME IN THE ETR BASED ON
THE MALAY COSMOLOGICAL DOCTRINE
It is fair to say that the scholars in the Malay World, or Malayonesia, have not been following the ETR since its inception in early 20th century. Traditional Malayonesian religious study institutions known as Pondok (literally means hostel or even hotel) in Malaysia and Patani (Southern Thailand) and Pesantren (literally means the place for learned people) in Indonesia hardly aver known the ETR, even though they have been thought Ibn Hazm’s concept of time as articulated by Hassan Attar in the 19th century (Zaidi [30]. Ibn Hazm is one of the Islamic scholars who believes that time and space are insaparable. If they were also exposed to the ETR, surely some of them would mention or even praise or criticize itu. However, even in the sixties, as shown by Awan [31], a well known pondok scholar in
However the Malayonesians do have a unique concept of time which has not been compared with any other concept of time in other civilization and in particular with the time in the ETR. Recently Shaharir [23] has elaborated on this issue and concluded that “time” in the Malayonesian cosmology is not only insaparable with space but also depends on the nature of the medium where the time is evolves. This is almost identical to the Mulla Sadr’s concept of time, a Muslim scholar in the 17 century A.D mentioned earlier, and of course similar to, but not fully with, the time in the ETR.
In an inscription found in Jawa Island (but in Sanskrit) dated around 8 century AD was translated into English by de Casparis in 1950-s and recently back into modern (Malaysian) Malay by Alinor [32] and it is found that the concept of time in the Sanskritised-Jawa (the most dominant Malayonesian ethnic group), the words for describing various “periods” or “tenses” are found, some of which survive until today. The words are purvvante (=last ancient time) which means “the past” (the present Malay word, “purba” is from the word purva), aparante (=an indefinite after some times) which means “the future” (the present Malay word “nanti” is believed to be from this word as the component of this word, apara (=indefinite, unbounded, unfathomable, or nonmeasurable), and ante (= final or after sometimes). However there is no term for “now”, “present” or “current” since such word found in the inscription is the combination of the two above words: purvvaparante (=ancient-future), and there is a word for “part of the present”, namely varttamanah (which can be recognized as a present Malay expression “warta manusia” which literally means “existing” or “human record”) in the same paradigm as the word anagatah/anagata/anagatam for “part of the future” (which can be recognized in terms of the present Malay “akan datang” but with the slightly different meaning, namely “next” or “in future”. This later finding based on the inscription is in contradiction to Asmah [33] who claims that the present Malay expression “akan datang” is not the original Malay expression but a translation of the English word “next”. There is also another word for “part of the past”, namely atitah/titam (which we believe the present Malay word “telah” comes from). Thus we can conclude that for the Sanskritised Malayonesian “time” does not have the concept of “present” (or the current Malay word for it,“kini”). However Asmah [33] believes that the original Malayonesian concept of time is actually based on “present” or the original Malay word for it is “la” (which is still widely used among some ethnic groups in Malayonesia, such as the northern part of the Paninsula of Malaysia, Iban in East Malaysia (with the variation “ila”), and the Patani Malay (Southern Thailand). The Malay word “lani” (=la+ ni) and “kelak” (=ke+la(k)), are obviously, according to Asmah, came from “la”. In fact, we may add to the list: most probably the Malay word “telah” (=past) come from te+la after all not from atitah mentioned earlier. In the ancient Khmer (which we believe almost similar to the ancient Malayonesian known as Funan) compiled by Pou [34], the word la or lani was in the form of idani (said to be from Sanskrit), and ilu (said to be from the Mon, an indigenous ethnic group in
Whitehead, while criticizing the ETR did mention that the lack of emphasizing the “present” time is one of the weakness of the theory. He believes that it is the nature of a human being to be concious of the “present” only, and hence a theory which does not accommodate this human value is not a correct theory. However his own relativity theory also fails to materialize this notion of time. Other European scholars (until only recently) of course do not bother Whitehead’s opinion because such concept of time is not part of the Anglo-Saxon or even European Cosmological doctrine. However, partly due to the failure of the ETR and the changing philosophy of time among European philosophers in particular Husserl and Heidegger (Germann philosophers), discussion on the nature of “period of time” [35], many Western scholars now believe that the “periods” does not consist of (in English) past, present dan future; or in German, Vergangenheit, Gegenwartig and Futur but only “present” or Gegenwartig. Other terms are derivatives of the “present” or not real, a myth or simply do not exist. How far the concept of time in the Malay cosmological doctrine which is apparently parallel to the new trend in the Western concept of time could spur the progress in the development a new relativity theory should be an interesting question to be answered. It would be even more interesting to compare these new findings with the concept of time as articulated by Iqbal, or even with the concept of time expounded by the a group of Islamic scholars during the Islamic Civilisation, known as the mutakallimun , even though it is already rejected by Iqbal [2].
REFERENCES
1. A.N. Whitehead, Principle of Relativity, Reprinted 2004,
2. A.M. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, edited and annotated by M.Saeed Sheikh, N.Delhi: Adam Publishers & Distributors, 2004. Its first ed. is 1934.
4. R.W. Sellers, Jour.Philosophy 55: 25-41 (1946); Philosophy of Sci. 13: 177-195 (1946); Philosophy of Sci. 23: 75-81 (1956)
5. F. Hoyle , G. Burbidge and J.V. Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology : From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality , Camb.Univ. Press, 2000
6. b.M.Z. Shaharir, Pengenalan Sejarah dan Falsafah Sains, 2nd ed., Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan
7. b.M.Z. Shaharir, Dinamik Sebutir Dua Zarah Klasik: Penjana Sains Matematik, Peguam Bela dan Penjana Nilai Serta Kontroversinya Sepanjang Zaman, Bangi: Pusat Pengaj. Sn Matema, Universiti Kebangsaan
8.. b.M.Z. Shaharir,. Kelemahan Teori Kenisbian Einstein dan Mekanik Quantum, a book which will be published by the the Akademi Sains Islam Malaysia (ASASI), K.Lumpur 2008 (in Malaysian Malay)
9. b.M.Z. Shaharir, Teori Deguman Besar dan Teori Alam Semesta Mengembang: Sebuah Sorotan Penilaian Baru Mengikut Perspektif Barat dan Islam, a paper presented at the Wacana II ASASI with the cooperation of Jabatan Sn Nuklear, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. It will be published by the Akademi Sains Islam Malaysia (ASASI) as an occasional paper 2008 (in Malaysian Malay)
10. H.Yilmaz, Phys. Rev.111(5): 1417-1426 (1958); Phys. Rev. Lett. 27(20):1399-1402 (1971); Annals of Phys.: 179-200 (1973); New Theory of Gravitation, in. Proc. 4th Marcel Grossman Meeting Gen. Relativity, edited by R. Ruffini, Rome Univ, Italy, 1985; Hadronic Jour. 9(6): 281-291 (1986); Nuovo Cimento B 107: 941-960 (1992); Did the Apple Fall? In Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, edited by M.Barone and F.Selleri N.York: Plenum Press, pp. 115-124; Ann New York Acad Sc. 755: 476-499 (1995)
11. A.A. Logunov, Theoretical and MathematicalPhysics 70: 1-12 (1987); A.A. Logunov, Y-M. Loskutov, and M.A. Mestvirishvili, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 73: 1132-1148 (1987)
12. b.M.Z. Shaharir. Jawhar 4(1); 2007.(in Malaysian Malay)
13. C.W. Misner. Nuovo Cimento B 114: 1079-1085 (1999).
14. A. Daigneault and A. Sangalli. Notices AMS 48(1): 9-16 (2001)
15. Departmen Agama RI, Al-Qur’an dan Terjemahnya, Yayasan Penyelenggara Penterjemah/Pentafsir Al Quraan. PT Intermasa. New ed. 2002; first ed.1971. (in Indonesian Malay)
16. Y. Mahmud, Tafsir Quran Karim, Klang: Klang Book Centre, 1993. Originally published in
17. Hamka, Tafsir al-Azhar. Yayasan Nurulislam, 1965/1983-84 (in Indonesian Malay)
18. A.R. Singkel and D. Baba, Turjuman al- Mustafid, 1671. Reprint in Singapura 1951 (a Copy could be obtained from Dr. Muhammad Alinor PPSM, Univ. Keb
19. N.al-D. al-Raniri N. al-D., 1046H (c.1636M). Badaa’ Khalqis Samawati wal Ardh. (in Jawi Malay), 1046H (c.1636M), in Jawi Malay. Available in
20. N. Murphy and R.J. Russel, Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action,
21. R.J. Russel, N. Murphy and A.R. Peacocke, (ed.), Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Devine Action,
22. A.N. Whitehead, Process and Reality, reprinted 1978,
23. A.N. Whitehead . Science and the Modern World. The New American Library
24. b.M.Z. Shaharir. Model Alam Semesta Rumpun Melayu Zaman Pra-Islam dan Zaman Perlihannya. Seminar Etnomatematik Alam Melayu I, 21 Nov. 2007, organized by KuPeLEMA (Kumpulan Penyelidiikan Etnomatematik Melayu), INSPEM, Universiti Pertanian
25. A.J. Bahm, Process Studies 2 (4): 301-305 (1972). Also available at http:// www. Religion-online.org/ showarticle. asp?title=2331. (5 June 2007)
26. S.M. Carroll,. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists? Article presented at the God and Physical Cosmology: Russian-Anglo American Conference on Cosmology and Theology, Notre Dame, January/February 2003. Available at http:// pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html. (10 Oct. 2005)
27. A. Mashelkar, The Hindu, online
28. M.S. Maarof and M.Peerzada,. J.Islamic Science 19(1-2): 165-170 (2003)
29. S.E..Ashraf, A Critical Exposition of Iqbal’s Philosophy, N.Delhi: Adam Pubs & Distributors, 2003
30. b.M.Z. Shaharir. Bahasa Jiwa Ilmu: Kes Teori Kenisbian Einstein. Sem Sn Komputer & Matematik KUSTEM 7-8 Nov. 2006 (in Malaysian Malay)
30. M.A. Zaidi (private communication) 2005
31. D. Awan, Muqaddimah al-Hday’aht” (in Jawi Malay). Printed in
32. M.b.A.K. Alinor, Teks Kosmologi Tertua Tamadun Melayu. Seminar Sejarah, Falsafah dan Polisi Sains dan Teknologi. 29-30 Disember 2005, K.Lumpur: Jabatan Pengajian Sains dan Teknologi, UM dan DBP, 2005. (in Malaysian Malay)
33. Hj.O. Asmah, Malay Perception of Time, K.Lumpur: Akademi Pengajian Melayu Univ.
34. S. Pou , Dictionnare Vieux Khmer-Francais-Anglai. An Old Khmer-French-English , Dictionary,
35. Heidegger on time, http://tribes.tribe.net/thinkingplace/ thread/ 8b396927-cd81- 4aa7-8fee-1e773485bbea. 1 July 2006; M. Berman, Phenomenological Inquiry: A Review of Philosophical Ideas and Trends 21 (1998). Availabale at http:// www. resourcesforchristiantheology.org/content/view/190/37/ (7 June 2007) ; E. Husserl, On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time (1893-1917).
Shaharir b.M.Z.
Jabatan Matematik, Universiti
e-mail: Shaharirzain711@hotmail.com
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar