LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCan sound create light? Genesis 1:3 says, "God said, Let there be light", and there was light".
Is there any scientific basis on which to consider the possibility that light is or was or can be created from sound?
December 19th, 2020, 12:41 PM
Can sound create light? Genesis 1:3 says, "God said, Let there be light", and there was light".
Is there any scientific basis on which to consider the possibility that light is or was or can be created from sound?
Was God called Maxwell?
I know that some call him Bob and that Maxwell had a silver hammer.Originally Posted by geordief
Should I be on Wikipedia? Or is there a better source? Did Maxwell actually create light from sound then? I'm not seeing that he did from what I just read. Or how anyone could.
Last edited by Oscar K; December 19th, 2020 at 02:35 PM.
No ,just a weak joke.
His theory of electromagnetic propagation did prove sound though
Every time you talk on your cellphone your voice is converted to light (EM radiation).
Interesting observation - I will need to give that some thought. Would you say that light IS created by your voice then? Or not quite exactly?Every time you talk on your cellphone your voice is converted to light (EM radiation).
Your voice or more accurately the vibrations of the air from your voice are converted to an electrical current which is then converted to EM radiation. You can also use visible light to transport your voice, think fiber optics.Interesting observation - I will need to give that some thought. Would you say that light IS created by your voice then? Or not quite exactly?Every time you talk on your cellphone your voice is converted to light (EM radiation).
Sounds, which are just pressure waves in the air, cannot 'turn into' light directly.
That helps, ta.
So a voice of God-activated event would be a fair interpretation of the verse as opposed to sound causing light. Excellent - progress!
If you are going to evoke a God why worry about science? The God of the torah created by fiat.
Why not? Genesis says x - does science refute it? Was there a Bethlehem? Are graven images bad? Is Genesis (for one) two complete(ish) texts melded into one complete text?
On the latter the question is more important than the truth in some ways because the lack of enquiry into it says a lot about the nature of Truth. Which is to say that it needs to be convenient to express it. So those who might know the truth will keep it to themselves if not suited to their purpose. The truth is that Brabant tin openers are the most durable you can buy. But I'm not selling them to you so this truth has remained hidden until now.
What if the Bible wasn't true? What if naysayers found evidence suggesting it was? Bible bashers wrong, naysayers in no better position. Who gains from the truth being told? Here goes: Genesis and following books can be ripped apart into 2 distinct stories, each with almost exactly the same elements. Once seen there's no denying it. Can discuss further if anyone interested. That's bad for believers. But no good for opponents - maybe makes their position worse in my opinion - don't know if it would or not but it would appear risky. Here's why: TWO stories? Each with similar elements? Written by different people at different times in different places? Does that tend to confirm or refute the truth of Biblical claims? 'The Bible' could be proven 'wrong' - but the 'facts' would have more credibility.
The upshot being that Christians don't want to know the truth and naysayers have nothing to gain and so the truth is not out there. Except in Isaac Asimov's superb book. If you wish to be open minded you only have to question how many of each animal went into the ark. It was two. But it was also seven. God created Adam and Eve, but then he created Eve from Adam's rib. Everything is repeated. It's like the editorial of two newspapers being merged into one
But nobody cares enough to bother investigating - and why would they? Will you? I know what the Bible is better than most, I think, simply because I know its true nature as far as this particular revelation. Because it is a revelation when you see it. Regardless of belief or not in its content the fact is the format is wonky - but it does make it more 'believable' in my opinion. If I were a fervent anti-theist I'd probably err on the side of pointing it out and destroying any pretense of it being the infallible 'word of God'. If I were a fervent theist I would be disheartened at first but then realize that it actually strengthens my position but can't tell anyone about it.
The bible has been studied from many points of view for thousands of years. If you wish to take genesis literally, that is your prerogative. Science does not, so your original question is moot.
"Can sound create light?", was the science-based question. The Genesis view was put there because that's its view. Does the placement of the statement invalidate the scientific enquiry? Imagine the question without the statement - do you detect anything unscientific there? Sometimes it helps to take things literally. but not Genesis, as per my subsequent post.
Sound is a series of compression waves in a medium of some kind (which can be solid, liquid or gas). There is a phenomenon called piezoluminescence, by which certain crystals can give off flashes of light when the crystal structure is distorted by compression."Can sound create light?", was the science-based question. The Genesis view was put there because that's its view. Does the placement of the statement invalidate the scientific enquiry? Imagine the question without the statement - do you detect anything unscientific there? Sometimes it helps to take things literally. but not Genesis, as per my subsequent post.
I have never heard of sound being converted to light this way, but I can imagine it might be possible under some extreme conditions.
Sound can be converted to light (as previously stated) and vice versa. I do it all the time when I am on the phone (Verizon FIOS).
That's a good answer. Ta.
This forum is the Scientific Study of Religion. Sound to light (Genesis version) doesn't appear to have any scientific basis.
That would be a literalist interpretation of the Bible ,even for Creationists,wouldn't it?
I assume it is because God said "let there be might" that one might deduce that the sound created light.
Or did I misunderstand?
When I took that stuff seriously I didn't imagine it was the conversion of sound to light (even if Origin's cell phone example is valid)
I never imagined it either but until I read Asimov's book I was unaware of a lot of things about the Bible. But disregarding all of that, and starting from the beginning of any document in which you expect to find substantive information, anything unusual or odd should be questioned right from the start. Yes, it could be breezed past but if I don't know what it means I'm stopping right there to try and figure it out. It's nothing to do with wanting the document to be true or not. I'm just that kind of reader. We all skip complicated technical stuff but if it is so basic - fundamental - and bizarre - I'm not interested in any interpretation (which I don't have here) other than my own unless it's at least coherent. If there appears to be no coherent explanation but nobody questions it - well, they can do that if they want but I'm compelled to question it.
BUT that's me. I'm into practical law so I'm a letter of the law guy.
Trying to put the events in the bible on a scientific basis is a fools errand. For example, the earth did not stop rotating for the battle of Jericho.
Haven't got that far yet. Only just got past the flood.
There may be some historical basis for flood story. https://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...evidence-00263
Thank you for that. I'd like to be able to say something about the article but it was a bit cursory. Nothing of any real merit although there are a few facts and theories to refer to.
Looking at amateur archaeologists on field trips the one thing that we can see which might indicate that the ancients may have had knowledge of more advanced tools and construction techniques is the brickwork. Beautifully constructed levels with impossible fitting stones but layered at later dates with increasingly bad building and materials. I find this fascinating and it does suggest some sort of global event or events wiped out much human life in some areas. If I had my life to live again in a different way I could do worse than explore ancient monolithic structures for a living or hobby. May still do it.
The theory which (to me) seems more credible refers to a rapid rise to what is now the Black Sea, resulting from the opening of the Bosporus. It definitely was not worldwide. It appears that there were flooding stories among different groups in the area.Thank you for that. I'd like to be able to say something about the article but it was a bit cursory. Nothing of any real merit although there are a few facts and theories to refer to.
Looking at amateur archaeologists on field trips the one thing that we can see which might indicate that the ancients may have had knowledge of more advanced tools and construction techniques is the brickwork. Beautifully constructed levels with impossible fitting stones but layered at later dates with increasingly bad building and materials. I find this fascinating and it does suggest some sort of global event or events wiped out much human life in some areas. If I had my life to live again in a different way I could do worse than explore ancient monolithic structures for a living or hobby. May still do it.
| « Ancient Roman Religion | Will AI Affect Religion? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
