Review of Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby, A New Astronomical Quranic Method for the Determination of the Greatest Speed c, https://www.quran.al-shia.org/en/Issues/07.htm by Arnold Neumaier https://arnold-neumaier.at/sciandf/eng/c_in_quran.txt The document observes that with a suitable meaning of the terms, (i) the equation [speed of light]*[sidereal terrestrial day] = [one thousand lunar years]*[months/year]*[moon travel time/month] is valid within the variabilities of the quantities involved. Based on this, it is claimed that (ii) the quran (verse 32:5) predicted this relation 14 centuries ago, and thus (iii) 'emphasises the unity of the physical world, the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity of the glorious quran for unbelievers.' (iv) Another quran verse, "a day in the sight of thy lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning" (22:47) is added as hinting at the same relation to 'emphasise the obtained value of the greatest speed c'. This summarizes the contents. A summary of my evaluation of it follows; details are given in the second part. *** 1 *** Equation (i) is devoid of a clear physical meaning: * The definition of the [moon travel time/month] as [moon orbit length] employed in equation (i) has no meaning as a distance actually travelled by the moon in a meaningful interval. * Equation (i) is only approximately valid; the 7 significant digit accuracy accuracy claimed is spurious since the other terms in the equation change with time and location and their value at the time and place the quran was written is not known to this accuracy. * The equation assumes (rather than predicts) the values of the speed of light, known already 90 years before the argument was proposed (1989). *** 2*** The prediction (ii) is a matter of exegesis that can be defended only by making use of considerable freedom in the interpretation of such a historical text. This makes it subjective and hence questionable. *** 3 *** The conclusion (iii) is completely unwarranted: * The equation is completely unreladed to special relativity. That the speed of light was finite was known before special relativity was proposed to explain it. * The validity of special relativity rests on a huge number of consistent observations, not on a single numerical coincidence between otherwise unrelated quantities. * The unity of the physical world shows instead in the consistency of a coherent physical theory with experiment, about which equation (i) is silent. The correctness of isolated and hidden claims that are open to interpretation says nothing at all about the authenticity of an whole book. *** 4 *** The same arguments - were they valid - would 'emphasize' the authenticity of the New Testament. * Indeed, the verse in (iv) is predated by essentially the same statement made in the New Testament (2 Peter 3:8) several centuries earlier. *** 5 *** Thus nothing of scientific or historical relevance has been shown in the paper. Numerical speculations like the one in this paper indeed crop up in all religions where people with enough time to search for coincidences feel a need to justify the authenticity of their sacred books. Such speculations are the decoy for the unfortunate people who desire a shortcut in their search for truth and life; and God allows them to be deceived until they are ready to look deeper. My advice to those reading this is to base their faith not on any 'proofs' of a philosophical or numerical sort, but on an assessment of how someone's life is affected by the consequences of someone's faith. Follow those whose life and work gives - even in adverse circumstances - most witness to the power of love. Learn by imitating their example, and your own life and work will be governed by this power, too. Arnold Neumaier * * * * * In the following more detailed discussion of the basic claims, verses from the Quran appear displayed and in double quotation marks "..."; passages from the above document are emphasized by single quotation marks '...', with my amendments in square brackets [...], and additional comments in two footnotes marked by * and **. Spelling errors in the original are corrected. 1. The basic claim: ------------------ 'The greatest speed c, denoting the velocity of light in vacuum, is hinted at in two glorious quranic verses relating this fundamental universal constant c with the motion of the earth-moon system.<< 2. The data given: ----------------- 'The length of the moon's orbit L and the time t of one terrestrial day are correlated in a marvellous quranic verse which describes a universal constant velocity of a certain cosmic affair as follows: "God rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels, to him (i.e., through the whole universe) in one day, where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning."(32:5) 'The quranic expression "of your reckoning" leaves no doubt as to our understanding of the year as the lunar year.' As I don't speak Arab, I cannot check the correctness of the translation, but here are alternative English renderings from several publicly available translations (for sources, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Quran): "He [god] directs the affair from heaven to earth, then it goes up to Him in one day, whose measure is a thousand years of your counting." (Arberry) "He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning." (Yusuf Ali) "He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon." (Pickthal) "He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count." (Shakir) Thus te author's explanatory addition '(i.e., through the whole universe)' seems unsupported by the text. 3. The interpretation of the data: --------------------------------- 'This affair travels, permanently through the whole universe between the heavens and the earth, so speedily that it crosses in one day a maximum distance in space equivalent to that which the moon passes during one thousand lunar year (i.e. during 12000 sidereal months).' This is just one of many possible interpretations. If `god' and `cosmic' were replaced by `an astronaut' and `important' (a semantically adequate substitution for getting at the meaning of the remainder) the most natural interpretation of the resulting statement would be an indication of communication times or the associated distances, combined with some information on different ways to measure the same time interval or distance from different points of view. But then the argument given would imply that god is located at the distance travelled by light in one day! Even assuming that this part of the interpretation given is legitimate, it is still very unlikely that this matches the sense of "of your [the arab's] reckoning" at the time when 'the arab people use[d] the lunar system* in their calculation of time. The quran addressed them in the only language they could understand without upsetting their habits.' Assuming, as the author does, that the quran took such care of the habits of the arab people to be understood by them, it is difficult to see why it hasn't also expressed, in a way understandable** to them, the information claimed to be contained in this verse, namely: 'we conclude that the cosmic affair, mentioned in the previous quranic verse, is identical to light and all similar cosmic affairs travelling in vacuum with this maximum speed' Instead it took 14 centuries to find this out: 'This interpretation has been suggested by zindani, a. and dezahf m. (1989), organization of scientific miracles c_ quran, muslim world league makka- kingdom of saudi arabian.' That the truth claimed to be in verse 32:5 of the quran - was not known before 1989 - although the quran 'addressed them [the arabs] in the only language they could understand' supports much better the much more likely hypothesis that it is a projection of modern man into the old documents. ---------------- * However, the "Dictionary of Islam" by Thomas Patrick Hughes, Kazi Publ., writes on p. 696: ... in the year A.D. 412, the Arabians introduced a system of intercalation, whereby one month was intercaleted into every three years. (See M. de Perceval, vol. i. p. 242). This system of intercalation existed in the time of Muhammad; but it is related that, at the farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet recited the khutbah on the Day of Sacrifice, and said: "A year is twelve months only, as at the time of the creation," and thus again introduced the lunar year. (See Mishkat, book xi. ch.xi.) And Yusuf Ali writes in his qur'an commentary, footnote 1295, commenting on Sura 9:36: ... it may be noted that the Arab year was roughly luni solar like the Hindu year, the months being lunar and the intercalation of a month every three years brought the year nearly but not accurately up to the solar reckoning. From the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (A.H. 10) the Islamic year was definitely fixed as a purely lunar year of roughly 354 days, the months being calculated by the actual appearance of the moon. Thus it appears that rather than addressing 'them in the only language they could understand without upsetting their habits', the quran did not hesitate to upset the arab's habits regarding their measure of time. This would not invalidate the remainder of the argument if Sura 9:36 could be taken to define the language on this point. The latter Sura was probably revealed several years before Sura 32:5 and Sura 22:47 (inferred from Yusuf Ali's comments on Sura 32:23 and Sura 22); so one would have to assume in addition, that the meaning of these Suras would have been intended to be obscure at the time of revelation. ** I learnt that the word light and the word speed were ordinary Arabic words. Why would God not say the speed of light is like.... if he wanted to make a real proof for the origin of this info? Why obscure it so much that only a great effort - that needs 14 centuries to be discovered - can construct a calculation that involves the speed of light? 4. Identification of the "affair": --------------------------------- This is justified in the document by observing that the above interpretation reduces to the equation [speed of light]*[sidereal terrestrial day] = [one thousand lunar years]*[months/year]*[moon travel time/month] in short, c * t = 1000 * 12 * L. To prove the equation, the document quotes the following figures and relations, which allow one to check the equation by an easy calculation. c = 299792.458 km/s (speed of light) t = 23 hr, 56 min, 4.0906 sec = 86164.0906sec (one sidereal terrestrial day) T = 655.71986 hr = 27.321661 days (one siderial lunar month) Y = 1 year = 365.25636 days (one revolution of earth around sun) R = 384264 km (average radius of lunar geocentric orbit) V = 2 pi R/T = 3682.07 km/hr (average orbital velocity of the moon) alpha = T/Y*360 degrees = 26,92848 degrees (angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun during one sidereal month) L = V cos(alpha) T (mean length of moon's orbit around the earth) The problem here is with the definition of L, which, according to the above, should be a precise definition of the 'maximum distance in space equivalent to that which the moon passes during' one lunar month. Obviously, this distance depends on the reference frame used to observe the moon. The author quotes the quran, "god is the one who created the night, the day, the sun, and the moon. each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (21:33). The straightforward interpretation is that the right point of reference should be the center of mass of the earth, since the sun is describes as travelling in an orbit (around the earth, as was tradition at that time). However, the authors interpretation of this is, surprisingly, 'Here an essential scientific fact is clearly stated, namely, the existence of the earth's, sun's and moon's orbits' though the earth was not at all mentioned in that verse. The only way to make sense of all three orbits mentioned by the author is that the orbit of the sun is the relative motion of the sun with respect to the center of the galaxy. However, this orbit is completely ignored in the calculation. Instead, the center of mass of the sun is taken as the intended reference frame: 'the earth, and consequently the moon's orbit, have travelled some way around the sun'. And instead of specifying clearly the reference frame used and then calculating a proper arclength along the moon's path in this frame, the author gives meaningless, apparently deep physical arguments: 'This validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity is considered in the present work because the constancy of the velocity c needs absolute space (vacuum). To attain vacuum in the Einstein's sense of this word. it is not sufficient just to eleminate from a volume of space every atom, molecule and particle, it is necessary also to get rid of the gravitational field. Therefore we have screened out the effect of the solar gravitational field on the geocentric orbital motion of the moon' This is pure nonsense. To the accuracy c is determined by the claimed calculation, the gravitational field of the sun doesn't affect the speed of light in free space; it only causes a tiny deflection very close to the sun. If one eliminates the effect of the solar gravitational field, there is no revolution around the sun and the measure of years becomes inappropriate. On the other hand, would the the author take his argument seriously, he'd also need to screen out the terrestrial gravitational field; but if one eliminates _all_ gravitational fields there is no orbital motion left! With these bogus arguments he justifies the averaging method that leads to the above formulas: 'L is the inertial distance which the moon covers in co-revolution around the earth during one sidereal month, i.e., L is the net length of the moon's orbit due to its own geocentric motion, without the interference of its spiral motion caused by the earth's revolution around the sun, i.e., L is the lunar orbit length excluding the effect of the solar gravitational field on the measured value.' Thus the definition of L now arrived at has an intrinsic ambiguity completely uncharacteristic of god: God '(in arabic allah: the one and only god, the creator)' must have loved invariance principles because theyrule the physics on earth and in the heavens. 5. The consequences drawn are not conclusive: -------------------------------------------- 'This astonishing result emphasises the unity of the physical world, the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity of the Glorious quran for unbelievers.' This conclusion, while it may reflect the authors feelings, is not based on the facts exposed in the document. The unity of the physical world does not show in numerical coincidences between otherwise unrelated quantities, but instead in a coherent interrelation of laws and facts that add insight into the working of the universe. What is the use of knowing c * t = 1000 * 12 * L ? Even if accepted as true, it is an isolated fact, not helping us to understand the universe. Furthermore, there is nothing relativistic about the 'new relativistic interpretation of this quranic relation'. The equation is completely unrelated to special relativity; the equations mentioned follow from elementary geometry, and the references in the text to relativity could be dropped without affecting the logical chain of arguments. But that relativity is mentioned gives the text of course a much more scientific feel, an important decoy if one wants to lure our modern, science-credulous folks into accepting something they would otherwise be suspicious of. Also, the authenticity of an whole book cannot rest on the correctness of isolated and hidden facts that are open to interpretation. One part of a book can contain facts and another part be erroneous. Even the best modern physics books, and especially those for laymen, contain together with lots of truths a good number of inaccuracies or even outright falsehoods. And any book can quote a truth, without making the whole book true. 'This new law deduced in the present work is important so far as it confirms the law of conservation of momentum in the earth-moon system. Moreover it implies the influence of the tidal effect and the gravitational change factor on the this system.' The paper contains no new law, only an equation that does not allow anything to be predicted from it except this equation itself. Nothing at all in the arguments involved in the derivation of the equation is related to either conservation of momentum or tides or gravitational changes; therefore it cannot confirm or imply these things in any significant sense of the words. But again, mentioning it impresses many people by its scientific appearance. 'According to Dirac's cosmology, the universal gravitational constant g must be variable in time!' Dirac's cosmology is a speculative minority view in physics, stated here as a fact, without any relation to the remainder of the argument (except to impress the uninformed reader). There is no theory of gravitation that embeds Dirac's speculations into a common framework with the part of general relativity confirmed by experiment. The equations quoted after this statement are true but lead nowhere except to a wish that 'Correlating the last three equations, further studies in cosmology may be prompted and facilitated'. But they serve the rhethorical goal of making the arguments more seductive to laymen and casual readers. 'This work proves the universality and constancy of the fundamental constant c as the greatest cosmic speed and reveals the glorious quran as a holy book worth studying with meticulous analysis since its author is the creator of the universe.' Universality is proved by physical experiments with precisely functioning clocks and other devices, not by some speculations such as those in this paper. Constancy is a matter of definition, after having accepted the framework of relativity; there is nothing to prove. And, indeed, the present paper proves nothing in these respects. The creator of the universe should be able to provide the scholars of his holy book as a result of their meticulous analysis not with questionable numerical pastimes demonstrated in this document, but with the power to live and understand. 6. Epilogue ----------- I think only a minority of physicists would subscribe to this exaggerated statement by the author, 'It will come as no exaggeration if one says the story of the determination of the velocity of light is a concise history of physics.' According to the analysis just given it should read instead: A concise history of physsics lists powerful facts rather than -as here - vague coincidences. Bu it will come as no exaggeration if one says that the story of 'A New Astronomical Quranic Method for the Determination of the Greatest Speed c' is a typical overassessment of the importance of the discovery of a minor coincidence in the sea of possible relations between physically meaningful numbers and semantic interpretations of ancient texts. Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier Faculty of Mathematics University of Vienna, Austria https://arnold-neumaier.at/sciandf.html https://arnold-neumaier.at/sciandf/eng/claims.html https://arnold-neumaier.at/sciandf/eng/bookofgod.html