Speed of Light stated in the Quran?

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Speed of Light stated in the Quran?

A scientific-looking website show with mathematic and modern theories about cosmologies that

the Quran predicted the value of the speed of light.

 

How do they do? They took a quranic verse which says "angels ascend to God in 1 day whose measure is 1,000 lunar years".

 

They intepreted it as angels (made of light according to islamic beliefs) go to God in 1 Day, and the distance they travel is the one the Moon travels for 1,000 lunar years around the Earth.

 

(Let's admit they interpretation is good)

 

To these theologians, as angels are made of light, they must travel at the speed of light,

 

So they calculate lenght of Moon travel for in 1,000 lunar years and put it in the following equation of light speed:     Speed= distance/time 

=>    speed of angel= Moon's distance in 1000 years/ duration of angel travel (24 hours)

 

and then "Aleluya!" we find for the angels speed the value of lightspeed.

 

 

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm

 

Can you refute their concepts?

 

 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Good grief. I guess muslim

Good grief. I guess muslim apologists/creationists are as inept at... everything as their christian counterparts.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Without even looking at the

Without even looking at the page, I can say that with any calculation with many uncertainties, it's probably possible to fudge the numbers into something significant. 

Here's the actual verse, [Quran 32.5] "(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count."

Anyways, there's this. "Since we are considering 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day in free space (outside the gravitational field of the sun) then we have to remove the effect of sun's gravity on the Earth-moon system:"

There seems to be no justification for the removal of the sun's gravitational field. Part of their justification for their interpretation of the verse was that the people at the time counted lunar months. But, they would've been counting lunar orbits within the gravitational field of the sun, not in free space.

Also,

The distance traveled by angels = 12000 L' = 12000 x 3682.8 km/hr x 655.71986 hr x cos(26.92952225) = 25836303825 km

You have 12,000 lunar months in 1000 lunar years. Multiplying by 655.71986 gives you the number of hours (27.321661*24). Multiplying by the velocity of the moon, 3682.8, the hour units cancel and the equation gives you a distance in km. Why is this multiplied by the cosine of the angle of the revolution of the Earth/moon system around the sun in one lunar month? This is really confusing. Why did they use a lunar month in free space (I don't know how they got that number, btw, but this could be my fault) but then rely on the sun? Huh?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh wait did I grab the wrong

Oh wait did I grab the wrong verse... Which one are we using again?

Quran [70:4] The angels, with their reports, climb to Him in a day that equals fifty thousand years.

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Christians READ THIS! You

Christians READ THIS! You think you're the only ones who claim their holy book is a science textbook.

Why don't you and your sky daddy believing brethren get together and fight over whose holy book trumps modern science, then get back to us. I am quite sure Christians and Muslims can come up with a universal, falsifiable repeatable test that proves their daddy made all this science.

BTW Christians, if I were to let my brains fall out and allow myself to believe in a magical super brain with no body, the promise of getting tons of pussy in the afterlife is far more appealing. All you have is the promise of kissing daddy's ass. At least when Muslims delude themselves into violence they think they are getting some.

I'm sorry Muslims, your Christian friends have been pulling this back peddling crap long before you thought of it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I've heard this one

I've heard this one before.

It is such a blatant example of playing around with the distances involved until they find a way to combine them to get the result they want. That cosine bit is the most obvious example.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Here is their justification

Here is their justification why they take the cosine in their equation:

 

 Moon speed (around the Earth) isn't the same with and without Sun'gravitationnal effects

 


http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light/speed_of_light_12000.gif 


As we can see, a rotation of Earth-Moon system around the Sun for one synodic month is equivalent to an arc of 27° of the terrestrial orbit around the Sun. This angle (27&degEye-wink is the same as the one between Moon position at 1 sideral month and synodic month according to Earth frame of reference.
 

              http://www.speed-light.info/images/speed_of_light_12000.gif 

The vector "E" (beginning from the Moon) perpendicular to the segment Earth-Sun points to a different direction every synodic month.

  http://www.speed-light.info/images/speed_of_light_12000.gif


Thus from this "triangle" of vectors, they calculate mean Moon's speed E' around a hypothetic heliocentrically motionless Earth.



ll E ll=square root [ (E sin phi)² + (E')² ]

thus ll E' ll= ll E ll * cosine phi
= current Moon's speed * cosine phi
= 3680km/hour * cosine 27°

ll E' ll=3279 km/hour


So without Sun influence on Earth-Moon system,  Moon would revolve around the Earth at 3279 km/hour.

 

 

Also, they wanted to isolate Earth-Moon system from solar system because since it revolves around the Sun it has an acceleration thus is no more a inertial frame of reference, so by isolating it, measured lightspeed would be equals to C according to special relativity.

 

But the question remains: are their justifications correct and consistent with their thesis?


free_thinker
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, the fact that

Honestly, the fact that Christians and Muslims try to do the same ridiculous things to their holy books to prove their "scientific accuracy" is really useful.  Whenever a Christian talks about "Bible Science" I can just link them to http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html and ask them to refute those claims.  Then explain that they are doing the exact some thing.  Unfortunately, most of them are too lost in delusion to see my point and just give the old "mine is right, theirs isn't" - nevertheless, I still think it's a useful tool.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The direction in which the

The direction in which the moon is moving with respect to a particular point in the sky ("stars" does not define a direction) is changing continuously.

If the distance it moves in a specific direction is important, then the net distance it moves in that direction is the only thing which should be considered. 

IOW if they want to correct for the direction of movement being not being directly toward the 'star', they need to apply it to the whole orbit, including that half where it is moving away from the 'star'.

They probably tried to use the total actual distance travelled by the Moon around its orbit, which would be a more straightforward interpretation, but that didn't quite work, so they fished around till they came up with this 'correction'. But either movement in the specific direction counts or it doesn't. And if direction counts, it should be irrelevant whether it is in the 'gravitational field of the Sun'. Any correction should logically be with respect to the direction of the target star, not the Sun. The Sun's gravity actually extends indefinitely away from the Sun.

But that wouldn't get them anywhere near the figure they want...

It is so fucking dishonest.

I was involved in a long thread back on Infidel Guy with a Muslim bringing all these lame attempts to push this line of all these Scientific facts hidden in the Quran, which were later to be found when man discovered them independently, to serve as 'proof' of the divine inspiration of the text. This was one example which came up.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Thank you all for your

Thank you all for your answer.

   By the way,

didn't you notice how it's funny that it's almost always post-facto we are told that such Holy Book foretold such scientific concepts?

 

Quote:

Honestly, the fact that Christians and Muslims try to do the same ridiculous things to their holy books to prove their "scientific accuracy" is really useful.  Whenever a Christian talks about "Bible Science" I can just link them to http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html and ask them to refute those claims.  Then explain that they are doing the exact some thing.  Unfortunately, most of them are too lost in delusion to see my point and just give the old "mine is right, theirs isn't" - nevertheless, I still think it's a useful tool.

 

 

The website you quoted make the following kind of claim:

verse X says "...." but this is what science has recently discovered; and that was unknown at the time of

Quran's revelation. =>So, how could an illiterate man write such a thing.Therefore, Quran is from nobody but God.

 

However, they forget that such verse may have multiple potential interpretations.

                       *some verses can allude to ancient myths (eg: man created from clay, and earth and heaven initially united)

                        * others may be a plain observation of nature.

                        * Others used to be understood as metaphors.

 

anyway, they choose the meaning they want.

 

Dr.Bucaille uses the same reasoning. When he saw that some translation of the Quran contains scientific error,

he dissmissed them by saying "a good quranic translator have to know both classical Arabic AND MODERN SCIENCE".

In fact, he is implying that:

IF one wants to grasp the intended meaning of the Quran, the last one MUST necessarly be translated/interpreted according to modern science.

 afterwards, they are astonished that the Quran contains allusions to scientific facts and no errors.

Petitio principii in its purest form. with this kind of analysis, you may find "scientific miracles" in any book you want.

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
This suggests that God has

This suggests that God has some definite location, somewhere within the Solar System, past Pluto. He might be living on an asteroid.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


TheRationalizer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
My proof the speed of light is NOT in the Quran

 This claim is so convoluted, it is blatantly retrofitted.

I spent a while looking into this claim. It took so long not because it was difficult to disprove, but because it was in such error it was difficult to decide where to start Smiling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFtEzw36weE

It's in two parts.


TheRationalizer
TheRationalizer's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-03-24
User is offlineOffline
It's clearly fake

 I spent quite a while investigating this claim.  It didn't take so long because it was hard to disprove, rather because it was so flawed I just couldn't decide where to start!

 

I created a 2 part video in which I prove mathematically that the forumla used in this claim is utter rubbish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFtEzw36weE

 

Sorry to post a video link, but to explain all the errors in text would be very laborious Smiling

"Thou art not, for thy Lord's favour unto thee, a madman"
~ The voice in Muhammad's head.

http://www.YouTube.com/TheRationalizer


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
TheRationalizer wrote: I

TheRationalizer wrote:

 I spent quite a while investigating this claim.  It didn't take so long because it was hard to disprove, rather because it was so flawed I just couldn't decide where to start!

 

I created a 2 part video in which I prove mathematically that the forumla used in this claim is utter rubbish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFtEzw36weE

 

Sorry to post a video link, but to explain all the errors in text would be very laborious Smiling

Great video, and completely off-topic, your accent is awesome.


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Hello TheRationalizer. I saw

Hello TheRationalizer. I saw your video, good job but it's a pity you didn't refute in detail the velocity vectors argument (i put the picture of that in the topic) for cosine 27


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
TheRationalizer wrote: I

TheRationalizer wrote:

 I spent quite a while investigating this claim.  It didn't take so long because it was hard to disprove, rather because it was so flawed I just couldn't decide where to start!

 

I created a 2 part video in which I prove mathematically that the forumla used in this claim is utter rubbish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFtEzw36weE

 

Sorry to post a video link, but to explain all the errors in text would be very laborious Smiling

I'm not normally one for puns, but the one at the end of the second video was solid gold.  Great set-up.  I did have a question, though.

It's been a while since I took geometry, so I don't recall, but isn't the cosine of an angle measured in degrees?  If so, isn't there another problem with the formula as presented by the believers, namely that it gives us a number that is measured in degrees per km/s?

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:It's been a

Kavis wrote:
It's been a while since I took geometry, so I don't recall, but isn't the cosine of an angle measured in degrees?  If so, isn't there another problem with the formula as presented by the believers, namely that it gives us a number that is measured in degrees per km/s?

No. Cosine of an angle is dimensionless. Consider cos(x)=adjacent/hypotenuse.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:It's been a

Kavis wrote:
It's been a while since I took geometry, so I don't recall, but isn't the cosine of an angle measured in degrees?

Cosine of an angle is dimensionless. It's the angle itself that is often in degrees. You use degrees to measure angles.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:No. Cosine of an

KSMB wrote:

No. Cosine of an angle is dimensionless. Consider cos(x)=adjacent/hypotenuse.

butterbattle wrote:

Cosine of an angle is dimensionless. It's the angle itself that is often in degrees. You use degrees to measure angles.

My mistake.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.