ameen
But when specifically talking about the the alteration of the day and night and the sun and moon and my theory encompasses not the entire universe rather only the four objects, wouldnt it be incorrect to say that the sun revolves or is in an orbit? And your further argument revolves around the relativity of the universe right?
i didnt get that.. could you explain that a bit further?
Peace sNOVA
No ... even if you look at just the Moon, Sun and Earth you cannot conclude that the Moon strictly goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun. It is convenient to say so because the points that the Moon and Earth revolve around and in turn the Earth and Sun revolve around together are close enough to be considered the centre of the Earth and centre of the Sun. What I am saying is that even today we know something to be true yet we resort to the pragmatic or simple way of describing it. Likewise to say that the Sun has an orbit it true, but as mentioned earlier the intent of this ayat is most likely to be as perceived by the eye which means the word translated as orbit is better translated as cycle or cyclic motion. On star charts you will notice that this is how we represent the path of the Sun and other moving object through the sky using the constellations as reference points. These are called ecliptics and there is another line on these maps called the Astronomical Equator or simply the equatorial line. The effect is that charts today are also drafted in a Geocentric sense because Geocentricity in term of maps and bearings and spotting events in space still has it's uses. To see on the maps that the solar line or other planets are traversing through the constellations in wave like patterns a person may conclude that we believe the planets to be moving through those constellations, but the truth is we don't we use that to make observational measurements.
The same can be said of the ayat. The ayat is not to be considered as a matter of explanation of what is happening in 3D space, rather the ayat is to be used as a means to determine calculations of the moon cycles - i.e. phases and may be moonsets as well, and solar cycles such as seasons and the daily solar shift. The thing about this is that since then until now these have not changed. Then the moon cycle lasted 29 or 30 days and today it is still the same.
Let's say on Day 1 the sun is setting at exactly West and the moon somewhere above it at 15 degrees South West at an inclination of 12 degrees. The following day the point of sunset may be different with respect to the stars behidn it, but they cannot be seen. rather when the sun sets this can be seen. However, also the moon will be closer at the same point in time. The following day brings it closer still until it overtakes it. Notice the sun never overtakes the moon, but the moon overtakes the sun in the sky for the same time difference.
This is not the explanation but an explanation of the verse.
When it comes to night and day the day and night are consecutive as mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps in times of eclipses people thought the night was outstripping the day, this may be clarification for that. Also, if we use the idea that we are looking are lunar cycles i.e. phases of the moon, we can see that even when the sun is above the horizon the moon can be seen, but it may be that the very thin waxing crescent is made invisible to see when the sun is high. There are a number of possible explanations to these verses but to apply our own criteria on them is not the fault of the Qur'an but our own self-centered fallacious perspectives.