(March 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: What kind of light bulb would you like an explanation for incandescent, florescent, HID or LED? Not that it really matters as they all required stars to exist first in order for the elements they are composed of to be created by nuclear fusion.

And no I don’t believe gravity, the creator of stars, is capable of producing a light bulbs....

Put another way, after the initial formation of matter and prior to the birth of the first stars, the universe was composed almost entirely of hydrogen, with trace amounts of helium and lithium. In the conditions present at the time, the only means that light could be produced is via nuclear fusion of hydrogen. Therefore, under those conditions, no stars = no light. The elements needed to produce light by chemical or other means (e.g. via oxidation / combustion) were not present at all until the youngest stars died as supernovas, and even longer until they were present in significant amounts. (Even today, the universe has vastly more hydrogen and helium than all of the other baryonic matter combined by a large margin).

An open question I do not know the answer to is whether or not light was emitted during the period of matter/anti-matter annihilation when the energy budget of the universe was primarily from photons. As this occurred when the universe was ~10^-6 seconds young and was over in the blink of an eye (on human timescales, much less cosmological ones). Somehow, I doubt this is what Genesis is talking about.

Additionally, from my perspective, while there are still unanswered questions as to the nature of the universe prior to the BB, and the cause thereof, the answer 'goddidit' is wholly unsatisfying until such time as a) all avenues of inquiry are exhausted and/or b) the existence of a creator deity is demonstrable. In the figuring-shit-out department, science speaks to me louder and clearer than any preacher ever could.

And to the OP, who I have long since given up any hope of presenting anything resembling evidence, your pet hypothesis lacks anything resembling credibility because you've made no attempt to demonstrate that it might be so, much less that it's the most likely explanation. The burden of proof is firmly on your shoulders. Science has show it's work, now it's your turn if you want to be considered anything more than a joke.

Until then, "Nice story, bro."

The embryo Universe was indeed filled with light for the first 300,000 years. This was a direct result of the insanely hot plasma state of the Universe post BB, causing the electrons to be moving too fast to attach to any nucleus. Light waves were being continually scattered by the charged particles they encountered, effectively trapping them and creating a dense foggy sea of light (as it has been rather lyrically described). Only when the temperature had fallen to the point where electrons began being captured by hydrogen and helium nuclei (an event known as recombination) could the Universe became transparent for the first time. The light waves were able to pass unhindered through space and have done so ever since, although due to the expansion of the Universe they have been stretched well into the infrared range.

And, as C/D pointed out, this all happened long before anyone was around to see it, much less be evolved enough to write it down.

(March 23, 2012 at 11:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The embryo Universe was indeed filled with light for the first 300,000 years. This was a direct result of the insanely hot plasma state of the Universe post BB, causing the electrons to be moving too fast to attach to any nucleus. Light waves were being continually scattered by the charged particles they encountered, effectively trapping them and creating a dense foggy sea of light (as it has been rather lyrically described). Only when the temperature had fallen to the point where electrons began being captured by hydrogen and helium nuclei (an event known as recombination) could the Universe became transparent for the first time. The light waves were able to pass unhindered through space and have done so ever since, although due to the expansion of the Universe they have been stretched well into the infrared range.

And, as C/D pointed out, this all happened long before anyone was around to see it, much less be evolved enough to write it down.

That must have been the moment when God said "let there be light".

(March 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: And no I don’t believe gravity, the creator of stars, is capable of producing a light bulbs....

And how do you know that like a tootsie pop has a soft, chewy center, a black hole singularity isn't an HID bulb?

---

(March 23, 2012 at 10:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: the universe was composed almost entirely of hydrogen, with trace amounts of helium and lithium.

Just a nitpick, the trace amount of lithium is correct but the trace of Helium was over 20%.

(March 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Which would be great if you had answers.

It would be even nicer if the clown had the intellectual honesty to realise when he doesn't have any answers, just broad-faced assertions.

(March 24, 2012 at 8:06 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(March 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Which would be great if you had answers.

It would be even nicer if the clown had the intellectual honesty to realise when he doesn't have any answers, just broad-faced assertions.

The good part about putting him on ignore is that I can still give you guys an amen for your good points without the aggravation of listening to his tortured logic.

What does it mean when a user is 'condemned'? Temporary ban?

(March 24, 2012 at 7:49 am)Phil Wrote:

(March 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: And no I don’t believe gravity, the creator of stars, is capable of producing a light bulbs....

And how do you know that like a tootsie pop has a soft, chewy center, a black hole singularity isn't an HID bulb?

---

Gravity is too strong for an arc to jump the gap....

So by reading all of your comments it seems you ALL have taken the easy way out and not actually addressed the question I asked.

My question was: "If We Can Develop Light Without The Need of Creating A Star, Then Wouldn't It Be Possible For The Being That Created The Stars Could Also Create Light Without The Need For Creating A Star?"

Their are only two possible answers to this question, of which none of you who chose to respond even approached. It seems when you all are faced with a simple obvious reasonable answer, you'd all rather opt of the question but still participate by attempting to trivialize and dismiss the comment that forces reasonable logical thought, rather than address you own folly for not seeing the obvious.

If any of you had the stones to say yes or even no i would have pointed to scripture that says God Himself radiates light, and that would have concluded a Biblical perspective of a very legitimate question.

Why do you all hold me to a different standard than you hold yourselves? What if I had skirted one of your questions?? Just look at how you all react when I simply ask you to define the parameters of the "evidence" you all seem to be looking for. This is a legitimate scientifically based question. (In order to define a variable, one must understand the standard in which it is measured.) Yet you all over look this fact when your arguments run out of spite and harp this point when i ask for something you should be able to provide. Yet when you have an opportunity to provide a direct answer you falter and fail even after I reduce the question to yes or no.(Completely defining the parameters for you again something you all have Failed to do for me) Again why am I held to a standard that you all fail to achieve yourselves?

I am not preaching here as none of this pertains to anything religious. I am simply trying to force the bar of these conversations up a few notches to where you force me to play. May I humbly suggest if you can not participate on this level on a given topic, sit this one out and let those who can do.