Thread: The creation of light

This may have been discussed over inthe scientific forums but this topic comeswith a religious view and it would be best to discuss things here. here are some questions to guide posts, hopefully they will provide credible, honest links to back up their points.

The link I am posting here is a starting point, though i agree with the statement it made that 'light had to exist before their could be a ruler of it', i am not saying this is the definitive link. I certainly would like more information and hopefully people will not hide in scientific lingo or double speak but make sure everything is easy to understand.

http://www.truthnet.org/Genesis/Gene...f-Universe.htm

Questions:

1. does light need the sun to exist?

2. If so, why are there so many different light sources?

3. in common english, what makes light?

4. In alternative thinking when did light appear?

5. In alternative thinking, how did light come into existence?

let's start with those and see how this topic goes.

there is limited physics imput in the source you site:

matter and energy is made up of atoms

- Wrong

These components are protons, neutrons and electrons. Yet even, these components are composed of components, known as quarks.

- Wrong; electrons are fundamental particles (leptons).

Anyway;

1. No. 'Light' is made of photons, which are 'force carriers' of th electromagnetic force. So although the sun is not necessary, there must be some matter present with electromagnetic properties for the creation of light.

2. As stated above, light can be created by any particles with electromagnetic properties. This includes electrons in an atom de-exciting, which is why different objects are different colours. The particles would also generally have 'free' energy to release as photons, such as kinetic energy or potential energy (annihilation).

3. A movement of electromagnetic force, known as a photon. It can be expressed as either a wave or as particles.

4. When electromagnetism first appeared as a force; in the first billionth of a second or so after the big bang/creation.

5. See combination of the above answers; energy released from particles with electromagnetic properties.

the above post is ignored. reason: no links or references.

let's do this one right and post sources for support. it may be common kowledge to you but there are many who do not study light, thus resources are needed for verification and rebuttal.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

the above post is ignored. reason: no links or references.

let's do this one right and post sources for support. it may be common kowledge to you but there are many who do not study light, thus resources are needed for verification and rebuttal.

This is material that is taught in first or second year of secondary school. There is nothing here to rebut. If you have any education at all you would know all of this. But since you insist. (Ignorant turd)
1. Light - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
2. Why are there so many sources of light? That is a dumb question. Stars emit light as a a consequence of thermonuclear reactions occuring in their interior and their are a heck of a lot of stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars
Light from stars is reflected by many things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance
Sometimes it is absorbed and re-emitted.
3.If you want it in common English then you can hardly have the audacity to complain that no sources are quoted. (Ignorant peasant.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by archaeologist

the above post is ignored. reason: no links or references.

let's do this one right and post sources for support. it may be common kowledge to you but there are many who do not study light, thus resources are needed for verification and rebuttal.

This is material that is taught in first or second year of secondary school. There is nothing here to rebut. If you have any education at all you would know all of this. But since you insist. (Ignorant turd)
1. Light - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
2. Why are there so many sources of light? That is a dumb question. Stars emit light as a a consequence of thermonuclear reactions occuring in their interior and their are a heck of a lot of stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars
Light from stars is reflected by many things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance
Sometimes it is absorbed and re-emitted.
3.If you want it in common English then you can hardly have the audacity to complain that no sources are quoted. (Ignorant peasant.)

it is quite evident that galt is only about the insult . wikipedia is not a credible source.

so is that your game, archie ? you're going to dismiss any explanation (for whatever reason) that doesn't say god created light as described in genesis ?

dismissing drowsy turtle's reply for no references is totally disingenious, since his reply reflects common knowledge as is available in any physics textbook
if you want this to be such a thorough treatment of physics, why didn't you post it in that part of the forum instead of under religion ? afraid you'd get your fingers burnt ?

Wikipedia is a wholly credible source for basic information of the type you are looking for. In a study conducted approximately 18 months ago, reported in New Scientist and various other media, it was found to be as, or more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica and two other well established encyclopedias.

As with any source of information it should be cross checked. However, it provides an excellent first stop to get the gist of an idea and will usually provide a suite of references for deeper investigation.

Here are a set of primary references that deal with the fundamentals of light. There are direct links to each of the works.

References:
1. Hooke, R. Micrographia 1665
2.Newton, I. Opticks 1704
3. Maxwell, James Clerk, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field", 1865 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 155, 459-512.
4. Michelson, Albert Abraham & Morley, Edward Williams, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether", 1887 American Journal of Science 34: 333–345
5. Einstein, Albert , "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", 1905 Annalen der Physik 17: 132–148.
6. Einstein, Albert, "www.public.asu.edu/~dgilfill/pdf/articles/einstein_specrel.pdf+%22On+the+Electrodynamics+of+ Moving+Bodies%22]On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies[/url]", 1905 Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921 .

If you wish a more accesible exposition of the facts then this link from the University of St. Andrews Shool of Mathematics and Statistics is very good. It contains references to a further forty nine works. (The University of St. Andrews, founded in 1413, is the oldest of Scotland's universities and the third oldest in the English speaking world. As a source it is unimpeachable.)


"Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in night;
God said, 'Let Newton be!' -- And all was light."
(Alexander Pope.)

Edited: Added a direct link to Reference 6 above. Deleted the comment that reference 6 did not have a direct link.

Originally Posted by marnixR

so is that your game, archie ? you're going to dismiss any explanation (for whatever reason) that doesn't say god created light as described in genesis ?

dismissing drowsy turtle's reply for no references is totally disingenious, since his reply reflects common knowledge as is available in any physics textbook
if you want this to be such a thorough treatment of physics, why didn't you post it in that part of the forum instead of under religion ? afraid you'd get your fingers burnt ?

No, this is a theological based discussion. i do not care if you bring your version in just as long as you have links for contextual review. i am not going to take someone's word for it andi will be using links as well, which is why i put one in the first post.

dismissing drowsy turtle's reply for no references is totally disingenious, since his reply reflects common knowledge as is available in any physics textbook

do not care, if he had read the first post he would have known to use links. i made it very clear.

if you want this to be such a thorough treatment of physics, why didn't you post it in that part of the forum instead of under religion ? afraid you'd get your fingers burnt ?

why? 1. it is a theological based discussion, not a scientific one.
2. i am not omitting God from the discussion
3. discussions need to be serious and above board and without arrogance.
4. i have no intention of interfering in any of the forums over there

Wikipedia is a wholly credible source for basic information of the type you are looking for

1. you do not know what i am looking for.
2. those questions were just starters to give a little push in a direction i hope this will go
3. i do not care if hawkins submits information there, it will never be credible in my eyes.
4. stop assuming
5. if you cannot be adult about this please avoid the thread.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Originally Posted by John Galt

Wikipedia is a wholly credible source for basic information of the type you are looking for

1. you do not know what i am looking for.

I have understood that you are looking for answers to the questions you posed in your opening post and clarified through comment in your later posts. If this is not what you are looking for, then I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why you asked those questions.

If you do not tell us what you are looking for it is unfair to criticise for this lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

2. those questions were just starters to give a little push in a direction i hope this will go.

That's fine. The responses from Drowsy Turtle and myself were attempts to answer those questions. If they missed the mark that is most likely because you have not made clear what it is you are looking for. Certainly, Drowsy's straightforward overview, the Wikipedia article on light, and my list of classic references, together answer, or provide an entree to the answers for the questions you appeared to have asked.

If you meant to ask different questions, or have different questions in mind we can attempt to answer these when you pose them. Until then we can only go on the basis of what you actually do ask, in black and white, in this thread.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

3. i do not care if hawkins submits information there, it will never be credible in my eyes.

That is a strange statement. I do not understand what you mean by it. You seem to be saying that, despite asking us for "credible, honest links to back up (our) points", you will not be prepared to consider those links when they are provided. Perhaps you could clarify this apparent ambiguity.

4. stop assuming

The only assumption I have made is that you have asked genuine, honest questions, for a genuine, honest purpose. Was this a wrong assumption?

5. if you cannot be adult about this please avoid the thread.

I took a considerable amount of time to seek out the most important, classic studies on light and post them for you. I spent additional time to ensure that, where possible, I provided direct links to these studies. I explained why wikipedia can be considered - and is considered - to be a good starting source.

Finally, you has asked in your initial post for material that was "easy to understand". As noted, you had also objected to the validity of wikipedia as a source. I spent further considerable time in finding an accessible expostion on light that was easy to understand yet came with excellent academic credentials.

Would you please explain in which of these actions I have not behaved as an adult?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by archaeologist

3. i do not care if hawkins submits information there, it will never be credible in my eyes.

That is a strange statement. I do not understand what you mean by it. You seem to be saying that, despite asking us for "credible, honest links to back up (our) points", you will not be prepared to consider those links when they are provided. Perhaps you could clarify this apparent ambiguity.

i'm out of here - the "proof" that light is created by god can only be made by disallowing any alternative explanation that makes sense to 99% of the world's population, and when nothing else is left, claiming "you see ? it's the only explanation that makes sense" - to archie, that is

you should have named the thread "light as a religious concept", then at least i wouldn't have bothered replying

What an insane thread. Explain yourself Archie. John and others have gone out of their way to provide as good explanations with references as can be expected, but you find it acceptable to shoot down any attempt at answering your title question with unfounded suspicion, arrogance and gall. Stop being a hypocrite and explain what you are looking for more clearly. Fundamental Christian or not, you are not a very nice guy at all and you should be ashamed at yourself.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

No, this is a theological based discussion.

Then why the **** even bother asking for evidence?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i do not care if you bring your version in just as long as you have links for contextual review. i am not going to take someone's word for it andi will be using links as well, which is why i put one in the first post.

The link you provided appeared to be written by some christian teenager from his room, independant of sources and mostly incorrect. Yet wikipedia, written and pier reviewed by a number of experts worldwide, is not good enough?

I've had enough of this topic after 2 posts. I'll save my breath, with talking science to you.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What an insane thread. Explain yourself Archie. John and others have gone out of their way to provide as good explanations with references as can be expected, but you find it acceptable to shoot down any attempt at answering your title question with unfounded suspicion, arrogance and gall. Stop being a hypocrite and explain what you are looking for more clearly. Fundamental Christian or not, you are not a very nice guy at all and you should be ashamed at yourself.

The explanation is that archy is going out of his way to troll The Science Forum with his religious superstitions with the apparent goal of antagonizing what he sees as the so-called "secular science" proponents (a term that exists only in his mind, apparently).

Please note that his behavior and trolling efforts with this thread are being monitored and recorded.

skinwalker would be wrong, i do not troll and have no idea what that is. he again is lying because of his hatred.

i am not continuing with this thread as it seems to be impossible to have a discussion when one side refuses to place credible links and references to back up their points.

i was hoping for a decent interesting time of exploration but instead a few people derail the topic by harping on minute points and twisted what was said.

That is a strange statement. I do not understand what you mean by it. You seem to be saying that, despite asking us for "credible, honest links to back up (our) points", you will not be prepared to consider those links when they are provided. Perhaps you could clarify this apparent ambiguity.

case in point. the above. i did NOT generalize my statement, i was specifically talking about wikipedia. the need to generalize and cause problems is clearly on the opposing side here.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

skinwalker would be wrong, i do not troll and have no idea what that is.

I believe it has been explained to you in more than one thread. If it has not and if you are interested, a quick google search should lead you to an explanation.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

he again is lying because of his hatred.

That is quite a serious allegation. Can you prove it?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i am not continuing with this thread as it seems to be impossible to have a discussion when one side refuses to place credible links and references to back up their points.

I have made a sincere and time consuming effort to provide a wide range of links. These links seem to have been accepted by everyone else as being credible. I am still trying to determine what you find incredible about them. If you will explain that I shall do my level best to offer something that meets your requirement, but if you walk away that will obviously be impossible.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i was hoping for a decent interesting time of exploration but instead a few people derail the topic by harping on minute points and twisted what was said.

That is a strange statement. I do not understand what you mean by it. You seem to be saying that, despite asking us for "credible, honest links to back up (our) points", you will not be prepared to consider those links when they are provided. Perhaps you could clarify this apparent ambiguity.

case in point. the above. i did NOT generalize my statement, i was specifically talking about wikipedia. the need to generalize and cause problems is clearly on the opposing side here.

I am sorry you think this was twisting your words.
1. I clearly stated that I did not understand your statement. I found it strange. I can expand on those two remarks. I found it ambiguous. I could see all sorts of possible meaning in it, yet could not settle on any of them as being the probable meaning.
2. Since I was assigning no clear meaning to it I was certainly not twisting your words.
3. I offered you my best guess as to what you might mean. It should have been clear that this was a guess since I had a) already said I did not understand what you meant, b)I clearly stated that you seemed to be saying, not that you were saying, and finally c) I asked you to clarify the ambiguity.
4. No twisting of meaning, but a simple request for clarification. How was that request greeted? With allegations of harping on minute points and twisting words. Archie I think you might wish to reconsider your response on this.

Further, you accused me of failure to behave like an adult. I ask you again, which of these following actions was not adult behaviour?
I took a considerable amount of time to seek out the most important, classic studies on light and post them for you. I spent additional time to ensure that, where possible, I provided direct links to these studies. I explained why wikipedia can be considered - and is considered - to be a good starting source.

Finally, you has asked in your initial post for material that was "easy to understand". As noted, you had also objected to the validity of wikipedia as a source. I spent further considerable time in finding an accessible expostion on light that was easy to understand yet came with excellent academic credentials.

You may wish to consider that the time I have devoted to trying to meet your request and to answer your questions deserves the courtesy of a proper response. Will you grant it?

i will take this topic to another forum to get the discussion i want, so don't trouble your little heads over this. i was hoping for a decent adult discussion but got derailment instead.

Well, then. Elvis has left the building. With that, we can either continue the thread without him. The primary topic has been thouroughly answered and addressed, so the underlying sub-topic of religious trolling at Science Forums is still open for discussion.

I suggest this is a mechanism by which the believer seeks out known critics to test either his prowness and ability to hold his own or to see what success he can have with the mindless and ignorant type rhetoric from religious dogma and superstition, particularly from the fundamentalist and literalist cults of Christianity.

Its also possible that the religious troll (and I'm speaking in general terms now, since archy isn't the first/last of his kind) envisions himself as a "warrior" of his faith, steeped fully in delusion(s) of granduer. Perhaps such a person gets an ego boost or some self-gratifaction. I think that some of the religious trolls that come here actually do see themselves as "winning" their debates and "scoring" against the "godless heathens of materialism" regardless of the level of failure they actually acheive or the ignorance they display.

I don't know... I'm just thinking out loud. Since archy has left the thread, if you guys want to continue, feel free. If not, just let it die a natural thread death.

so the underlying sub-topic of religious trolling at Science Forums is still open for discussion.

you would be off topic and distorting what was taking place.

I suggest this is a mechanism by which the believer seeks out known critics to test either his prowness and ability to hold his own or to see what success he can have with the mindless and ignorant type rhetoric from religious dogma and superstition, particularly from the fundamentalist and literalist cults of Christianity.

you would be wrong and this looks like a self-serving, ingrown discussion not an honest investigation or objective discussion. you are only looking for what you want to hear.

Its also possible that the religious troll (and I'm speaking in general terms now, since archy isn't the first/last of his kind) envisions himself as a "warrior" of his faith, steeped fully in delusion(s) of granduer. Perhaps such a person gets an ego boost or some self-gratifaction. I think that some of the religious trolls that come here actually do see themselves as "winning" their debates and "scoring" against the "godless heathens of materialism" regardless of the level of failure they actually acheive or the ignorance they display

start your own thread and it looks like your mind is already made up, you are just looking for confirmation of your point (using insulting words that are against the rules)

I don't know... I'm just thinking out loud. Since archy has left the thread, if you guys want to continue, feel free. If not, just let it die a natural thread death.

i am keeping an eye on this because i did start it and still hope there could be a good discussion , but it seems that people are unwilling to discuss from a theological viewpoint, which shows many things.

plus gives a reason why it was derailed from the second post on.

John, I think you have asked too much of him. He is responding in classic idiot fashion by defaulting to indignation and stubbornness when confronted with too much to handle intellectually. His whole persona is a response to not being able to accurately gauge the world around him, so he has resorted to sticking to one set of rules and "knowledge" in an effort to slave off the constant insecurity he must have been dealing with. Actively trying to look at the world outside of the comfort blanket he has surrounded himself with is something he is not willing, or sadly even able to do.

the problem is, archaeologist, that there really is only one theological (which really is the wrong word for you, you clearly mean christian) explanation for the origin of light. And that explanation is that God created light. I say it's Apollo's chariot. I always was fond of greko-roman gods. Or possibly Ra's Boat. Never know if it's really Egypt that had the right idea.

I favor the idea that Ptah masturbated it all into existence.

I went back over Galt's first post and then i reviewed mine and feel that i may not have communicated what i was looking for, of course i may well have placed it on the wrong website as well.

i have been looking at his links from his non-wikipedia post and it will take me too much time to do my own side of the argument work because some people instead of pinpointing the small quote they wanted and providing a link, decided to do the 'bury in paperwork' strategy.

so i will put this down to i asked the wrong people to have a decent discussion. i am going to save a couple Galt's links for future use so his work wasn't wasted.

Just a bit off topic, but how exactly was the sun created in Norse Mythology? Was it made out of Ymir's head by Odin?

not once have I seen a real refutation by arch for the last month or so. I just kinda realized that, he use to have a few here and there. What happened?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Just a bit off topic, but how exactly was the sun created in Norse Mythology? Was it made out of Ymir's head by Odin?

You know, this would be a great place to take the thread, the creation of light in the different creation stories. I honestly know jack about norse mythology, but I do have a book on creation myths, I'll puruse it once I find it and see what I can dig up.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

1. does light need the sun to exist?

No, light exists because god exists. Only god will decide when light no longer is required to exist.

2. If so, why are there so many different light sources?

God decided that in order for everyone to read the bible, light had to be made readily available.

3. in common english, what makes light?

God makes light.

4. In alternative thinking when did light appear?

When god decided to make it appear. We don't question god's decisions.

5. In alternative thinking, how did light come into existence?

God waved his finger and light came into existence.



These ARE the answers Archy was looking for.

These ARE the answers Archy was looking for.

you would be wrong but it was funny.