Creation of light without a sun?

[ProtoGlenn]

Is there a general consensus on how this was done?  Because if not, I have a theory that fits it perfictly.

[Solitary]

Light was not created, it just is, with photons of energy.

[Munch]

Be interested to see what this theory is new guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU6rp2HfE8M

[ProtoGlenn]

I got into a debate about creation being flawed on a youtube video.  And while we can dumb every other flaw down to something men would have understood back then, I've yet to see anyone do the same for the first creation of "light".

How is it possible to have light, it be attributed to day, and not have a sun?  Looking from a perspective that the stars, sun, and moon, were later created as mere "lights" placed in the vault of the sky, and that the sun was to govern over a "light" of day that was already created, you can tell that this light of day and sun are treated as if they are not the same.  So if you look up in the sky today, you can attribute it to being day without having direct sunlight, when you have a complete overcast of the sky.  And I'm sure Moses was able to see that when he blocked direct light from the sun, it would cast a shadow, but still be visible because of this "light" of day.  His view was that the whole sky being lit up during the day was a "light" all it's own, and the sun was only a "greater" light.

[josephpalazzo]

Is there a general consensus on how this was done?  Because if not, I have a theory that fits it perfictly.

If a photon field is created, you'll get light without the sun.

[Mike Cl]

I got into a debate about creation being flawed on a youtube video.  And while we can dumb every other flaw down to something men would have understood back then, I've yet to see anyone do the same for the first creation of "light".

How is it possible to have light, it be attributed to day, and not have a sun?  Looking from a perspective that the stars, sun, and moon, were later created as mere "lights" placed in the vault of the sky, and that the sun was to govern over a "light" of day that was already created, you can tell that this light of day and sun are treated as if they are not the same.  So if you look up in the sky today, you can attribute it to being day without having direct sunlight, when you have a complete overcast of the sky.  And I'm sure Moses was able to see that when he blocked direct light from the sun, it would cast a shadow, but still be visible because of this "light" of day.  His view was that the whole sky being lit up during the day was a "light" all it's own, and the sun was only a "greater" light.

Welcome, Glenn.  Usually I hope for a long stay................................but do you even know what type of forum you are posting to?  I tend to think not.  You seem to think that the babble is correct in any of it's statements, especially the creation stories.  It is a myth, a legend borrowed from other myths and legends.  It is a story thought up to explain the 'why' of the natural world of that time.  You seem to think it factual.  And it has no more fact behind it than Paul Bunyan does.  You think Moses was a real person--and he was no more real than Fred Flintstone.   You really want to 'debate' about cartoon characters????

[ProtoGlenn]

If a photon field is created, you'll get light without the sun.

I don't understand what a photon field is.  Is it a light that is strong enough to be a light that makes ups daylight, and is this photon field still making up our daylight?  Because Christians often say that god sustains his creation, I'd assume if he created this photon field, that we'd be able to see it still.

[ProtoGlenn]

Welcome, Glenn.  Usually I hope for a long stay................................but do you even know what type of forum you are posting to?  I tend to think not.  You seem to think that the babble is correct in any of it's statements, especially the creation stories.  It is a myth, a legend borrowed from other myths and legends.  It is a story thought up to explain the 'why' of the natural world of that time.  You seem to think it factual.  And it has no more fact behind it than Paul Bunyan does.  You think Moses was a real person--and he was no more real than Fred Flintstone.   You really want to 'debate' about cartoon characters????

How did anything I write lead you to believe that I believe in the bible at all?  I said I got into a debate about the bible, not that I believed any of it.  My stance on it is that it is a man made religion, and the very idea of the god in the bible to also be man made.  And by pointing out the logical errors in creation were made by Moses' point of view on how things worked back in that time, makes there "god" an idiot or Moses is trying to explain away what he doesn't understand with "because god".

[Termin]

 Basically

  When and electron gains energy it moves to a higher energy level, then drops back to the ground state releasing its excess energy as light.

Wiki has a good list of what can create light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_light_sources#Mechanoluminescence

[ProtoGlenn]

Basically

  When and electron gains energy it moves to a higher energy level, then drops back to the ground state releasing its excess energy as light.

Wiki has a good list of what can create light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_light_sources#Mechanoluminescence

None of that explains a light strong enough or even sustained for long enough to be a light source to light up the sky and be considered "daylight" without a sun.  In fact, that first creation of "light" had no visible feature to describe other than it was separate from the darkness of night.  And Mechanoluminescence, might be the best interpretation of how Moses described this "light" of day.  He considered the backdrop of the sky during day, as a light of it's own.  And he had to add that into creation, as basis for cataloging creation by time through the passing of days.

[aitm]

The sun is dying, as are all stars. Yes, there are others you know. Many many others. They are all dying. God cannot sustain them as he does not exist.

[ProtoGlenn]

The sun is dying, as are all stars. Yes, there are others you know. Many many others. They are all dying. God cannot sustain them as he does not exist.

That's a good point, I'll have to remember that the next time I get into a debate and they bring up that god sustains his creations.

[josephpalazzo]

I don't understand what a photon field is.  Is it a light that is strong enough to be a light that makes ups daylight, and is this photon field still making up our daylight?  Because Christians often say that god sustains his creation, I'd assume if he created this photon field, that we'd be able to see it still.

Well, it's an egg-chicken situation: which came first the photon field or the photon particle? I'm afraid that science has no answer. But I was answering  the question in the title, Creation of light without a sun? Now how a photon field would be created, I have absolutely no clue. BUT QFT says that in addition to photon fields,  there are quark fields, electron fields, neutrino fields, Higgs fields, and so on. Particles are excited states of ripples of these fields. So, no word on which one was created first, fields or particles. But all that shows is that whoever wrote the bible was a fucking ignorant!

[ProtoGlenn]

Well, it's an egg-chicken situation: which came first the photon field or the photon particle? I'm afraid that science has no answer. But I was answering  the question in the title, Creation of light without a sun? Now how a photon field would be created, I have absolutely no clue. BUT QFT says that in addition to photon fields,  there are quark fields, electron fields, neutrino fields, Higgs fields, and so on. Particles are excited states of ripples of these fields. So, no word on which one was created first, fields or particles. But all that shows is that whoever wrote the bible was a fucking ignorant!

My question also asks how it ties into being considered light of "day".  Can what you just described to me be a source of light that rotates around our planet and provides the planet with sustained daylight like the sun does in actuality (*edit: not that the sun rotates around us at all)?  Or is this just diversion tactic by bringing up unrelated science to explain nothing.  If you have read the bible and understand where I'm deriving my question from, you'd know I'm talking about the "light" described as being daylight without a sun.  And since this light was moving across the sky with night following it and later this "light" returning to track time, can this science that was brought up be related at all?

*Edit: Also, I'm looking to discredit the fallacious creation theory, by showing the inaccuracy of their knowledge of science during that time.  You seem to proposing a much higher scientific explanation, of something I know very little about and am not sure if it ties in with what the debate is about at all.

[josephpalazzo]

My question also asks how it ties into being considered light of "day".  Can what you just described to me be a source of light that rotates around our planet and provides the planet with sustained daylight like the sun does in actuality?  Or is this just diversion tactic by bringing up unrelated science to explain nothing.  If you have read the bible and understand where I'm deriving my question from, you'd know I'm talking about the "light" described as being daylight without a sun.  And since this light was moving across the sky with night following it and later this "light" returning to track time, can this science that was brought up be related at all?

Theoretical, one could have a photon field that could spread throughout everywhere in space. But if one goes along with GR, you can't have matter/energy without space-time, and vice-versa.  So a universe with just a photon field would be kind of weird. Now the sun is on a fusion cycle by which it combines matter (hydrogen), fused it into a heavier element (helium), and the difference between the masses of these two elements is converted to light (photon particles) which spread out through out space, and the earth happens to be in the path of those photons. That creates our daylight. But the sun, and all the stars, are late comers into the universe - they formed billions of years after the so-called inflation period according to the Big Bang theory. So photon fields were around way before our sun.