Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. Science / History / Prophecy
  3. Science
  4. A Theory on the Speed of Light Based on 32:5

A Theory on the Speed of Light Based on 32:5

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Science
19 Posts 6 Posters 456 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    Rev_John
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    Peace Reverend,

    If no ratio can be appended to C, does that mean it isn't relative to anything? That is, can it not be measured in any way other than in a vacuum?

    Well yes, it can be measured anywhere, but the standard speed of light is used in many equations because the matter in space is so far apart, you can use the speed in a vacuum with only a small error %

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • U Offline
      U Offline
      uq
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      I see.

      So what's your take on the above post (the first post)? Are any formulae not right? Are there any invalidities in the equations?

      Or is the entire theory based on unwarranted assumption?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • R Offline
        R Offline
        Rev_John
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        I see.

        So what's your take on the above post (the first post)? Are any formulae not right? Are there any invalidities in the equations?

        Or is the entire theory based on unwarranted assumption?

        Most theories are based on some assumptions. The speed of light ( at 3x108m/s) is based on the assumption that a vacuum actually exists.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • U Offline
          U Offline
          uq
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          The universal standard measure of its speed would be in a theoretical vacuum. I see.

          It thus makes sense that if the Quran were to imply the speed of light (directly or indirectly) it would surely be an absolute measure, not one which is relative.

          So it wouldn't be wise to think that verse 325 is in actual fact referring to c when it speaks of "the affair".

          What do you think?

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • R Offline
            R Offline
            Rev_John
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            The universal standard measure of its speed would be in a theoretical vacuum. I see.

            It thus makes sense that if the Quran were to imply the speed of light (directly or indirectly) it would surely be an absolute measure, not one which is relative.

            So it wouldn't be wise to think that verse 325 is in actual fact referring to c when it speaks of "the affair".

            What do you think?

            If you think that the Quran is absolute then no, but if you think it is open to interpretation then yes.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • U Offline
              U Offline
              uq
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              I see your point.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R Offline
                R Offline
                Rev_John
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                I see your point.

                yay peace

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D Offline
                  D Offline
                  Diem
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  Arent the verses that say "x number of days of human time = y number of days of god time" metaphorical? Otherwise you would have to admit to a contradiction.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • W Offline
                    W Offline
                    WayFinder
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    You might want to watch this video bros

                    http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcxIMnc5-nU&feature=fvw

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Offline
                      L Offline
                      liquiddharma
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      Since the presence of the sun changes the geometrical properties of space and time, we must screen out its gravitational effect on the earth-moon system.

                      So,
                      The angle traveled by the earth-moon system in a month, equals;
                      ? = month * angle / year
                      = 27.321661 * 360 / 365.25636
                      = 26.92848

                      So,
                      L = V cos ? T
                      Which is the velocity component (V? = V cos ?);

                      I'm pretty sure this is not how you "screen out its gravitational effects". To do that would require an equations incorporating the speed of light equation Energy=Mass*speed of light squared. The people who made this formula just found a bunch of numbers that happen to fit, and made up a meaning.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        FAR
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        Which verse?

                        325

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Users