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.
  • U Offline
    U Offline
    uq
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Peace,

    I came across an interesting article a few years ago whose author seemingly managed to derive the speed of light from a given Quranic verse. I?ve lost the link to the web page, so I?ve reproduced the article here; I?ve contracted it for the sake of brevity.

    Now, I?m no mathematician, in fact, my knowledge of maths is elemental. So perhaps any mathematicians out there could review the formulae and correct any mistakes. It should be noted that the author of the article makes a fair number of assumptions, the applicability and validity of which will be left for the reader to think through.

    As I understand it, the theory hinges on the assumption that ?one thousand years of your reckoning? is to be understood in terms of the lunar year. Then, put simply, the author, to find the speed of the unknown (i.e. ?the affair?), uses the distance of 12,000 revolutions of the moon about the earth, then divides this by the sum of seconds in one sidereal day, which gives the same speed as that of light traveling in a vacuum.

    The author bases his theory on the following verse

    ? rules the affair from the heavens to the earth. Then travels to Him, in one day where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning.? (325)

    He then infers the following

    ?Your reckoning? refers to the Arabic calendar, i.e., the lunar calendar, which is sidereal.

    Now, ?one thousand years? = 12,000 months.

    So, this ?affair? travels so fast that it crosses in one sidereal day a distance in space equivalent to that of 12,000 revolutions of the moon about the earth (i.e. 12,000 sidereal months).

    So,
    Distance traveled in one (sidereal) day = 12,000 revolutions of the moon around the earth;

    So,
    Ct = 12000 L
    C = speed of affair;
    t = a sidereal day;
    L = distance covered by moon in one (sidereal) month;

    So,
    To determine the velocity of the moon (and therefore the distance covered in a month);
    V = 2 Pi * R / T
    This is the formula to determine the angular velocity of an object, using;
    R = radius of earth-moon system (384264);
    T = sidereal lunar month (655.71986);

    So,
    V = (2*3.1416)*384264/655.71986 = 3682.07km/hr
    This velocity is commonly acknowledged.

    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 ?);

    Deducing, Ct = 12000L;
    We get,
    Ct = 12000 V cos ?T

    So;
    C = 12000 V cos ? T/t

    Giving;
    C = 12000 * 3682.07 * 0.89157 * 655.71986 / 86164.0906
    = 299792.5 km/s

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • L Offline
      L Offline
      liquiddharma
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      This looks like jibberish to me. Why not tell us the result before compensating for special relativity? I'll tell you why it doesn't - because special relativity makes almost zero difference. You have to be right next to a black whole for gravity to make the tiniest fraction of difference to distance and time.

      The circumference of the moons orbit is 2,411,528 km

      The speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s

      There is no relationship between these two numbers. It fills me with suspicion of who makes these things up to mislead people.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Offline
        L Offline
        liquiddharma
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        See - this is where it jumps.

        So,
        V = (2*3.1416)*384264/655.71986 = 3682.07km/hr
        This velocity is commonly acknowledged.

        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.

        All it does is work out the velocity of the moon - half the calculation is just something you can google for! Why is it compensating for special relativity without performing any calculation beforehand? It's entirely from beginning to end trickery designed to confuse.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • U Offline
          U Offline
          uq
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Liquiddharma,

          So, the moon makes an orbit of 2,411,258 km per lunar month?

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            FAR
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            This looks like jibberish to me. Why not tell us the result before compensating for special relativity? I'll tell you why it doesn't - because special relativity makes almost zero difference. You have to be right next to a black whole for gravity to make the tiniest fraction of difference to distance and time.

            The circumference of the moons orbit is 2,411,528 km

            The speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s

            There is no relationship between these two numbers. It fills me with suspicion of who makes these things up to mislead people.

            The relationship is described in that verse.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • W Offline
              W Offline
              WayFinder
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              The relationship is described in that verse.

              Which verse?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R Offline
                R Offline
                Rev_John
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                The speed of light is measured at 3x108m/s in a vacuum. but varies depending on the density of the substance it is passing through, i.e. it is slower as it passes through our atmosphere, water, any density, etc. As it is now known that there is no such thing as a vacuum (even in space) no ratio can be appended to it.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • U Offline
                  U Offline
                  uq
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  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?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • 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