Light - Isn't it reasonable to consider the possibility that there may be different kinds of light?

I'm no scientist, so I don't know technical terms. So, please bear with me as I try to posit my question.

I see God created light on day 1. I see stars and planets created on day 4. We see galaxies far far away colliding in what would seem to be the distant past, if that light had to traverse the space in-between. If light and stars and objects that lights bounce off of (planets and such) were created on different days, then is it so unreasonable to consider the possibility that there are at least two different kinds of light? I know we said that if God had created the light between the stars and Earth, then events that appear to have occurred could not have since there has not been enough time that it would have taken for that light to reach us.

But what if there's another kind of light? One that maybe exists without traveling. One that is ever-present, so-to-speak. One that is transparent, that displaces the darkness, making it possible to see things of which the illumination of has not yet reached us. What if there is a kind of light that does not necessarily illuminate things, but instead only makes it possible for the light created on day 4 able to illuminate things? Couldn't it be possible that there is a yet to be discovered form of light that does not have the same properties of light as we understand it, that could make it possible to see distant things without needing to wait for the light from day 4 to travel to us? I mean after all, even using our great telescopes, if the light has not had enough time to reach us, what is it we are seeing through the lens? And what is it that the light on day 1 was lighting if it wasn't everything, including the darkness (sort of). We say Space is dark, but it's really not! The absence of something to see is not necessarily the same as the absence of light!

Which brings up another thought. If I stand at the end of a 186,000 mile long hallway, and someone turns on a light  at the other end of that hallway, I have to wait for that light to travel the distance of the entire hallway to be able to see the person at the other end. But, what if someone turns on the lights simultaneously between there and here; would I not be able to immediately see the person at the other end, or do I still need to wait that same amount of time before seeing them?

Views: 162

Comment

You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by Charles Martin Jr on April 9, 2015 at 4:39am

I'm not sure about the DVDs, but Dr. Humphreys' Starlight and Time is a book - very short, very quick and easy read (even though it deals with relativistic physics!).  As far as your "dark-room" analogy, we can't see in a dark room because there's an absence of visible light, but because the levels or too low for our unaided eyes to pick it up.  So night vision goggles don't detect a different light, they just - for lack of a better phrase - magnify the existing light, allowing our eyes to register it. 

You mention the "kind of light that travels in waves."  Well, light behaves as two different entities:  waves, and photons.  These aren't two kinds of light, it's all the same visible light, it just behaves differently, depending on the circumstances. 

To be honest, your classification of light that doesn't need to travel is a bit confusing.  If I'm misunderstanding you, please let me know, but it seems as if you think there may be a kind of light that we can see, but that doesn't need to move through space in order to reach our eyes?  If that's the case, then you're talking about a physical impossibility.  That would be like asking if there is a transport that will take me to Hong Kong without having to travel through physical, three-dimensional space.  Even a Star Trek-like transporter device would have to move us through physical space.

I think we're over-analyzing the meaning of "light" on Day 1.  God created light, the wave/photon light with which we are all familiar (I'd have to check, but I believe the word in Hebrew is the same for "light" on Day 1 as it is on Day 4), because "light" is an entity in and of itself.  What was that source?  We don't know, but it was probably Him, as you alluded to earlier.  Then, He created, not a second kind of light, but a different source of light on Day 4.  Same light, different sources.

While I admire your thought process, and willingness to explore new ideas, may I offer a word of caution?  What you're employing here is a theory that is based on two practices: 1) Adding an interpretation to the Scriptures that isn't there, and 2) Relying on a theoretical science that has absolutely no observable evidence.  This is a dangerous game to play, because it allows us to, essentially, claim the Bible says whatever we want it to say.  So, while postulating is good, postulating without regard to information is not.  I'm not trying to put you down, just caution you on wild speculations.

Comment by Dan on April 7, 2015 at 7:55am

Ok, I found something on YouTube by Dr. Humphreys about Starlight and Time, but it's only 20:35 minutes long, and when I look up the video (which I cannot afford - I'm disabled and have very limited income) on Amazon, there are four videos totalling about 140 minutes long. So, I'm not sure how to find the rest.

Also, I'm not sure what dvd is being referred to in reference to Dr. Lisle, whom I think is a hero of the faith. But, that of course makes me worry for his sake. He's young and very outspoken, and in the "limelight" and I've so often seen too many in his position let their guard down and succumb to temptations of one sort or another. (Although never having been in the limelight, I must confess that I am guilty myself of that very thing). He's seems very humble; I hope and pray that he never loses that because I respect him a whole lot! But I'm off topic now.

Thank you both for your replies. Can you recommend some titles by these Drs. for me to search for, and especially if you know of anywhere these resources are viewable for free?

Now, having said that, so far I'm a few minutes into the video, but right off the bat Dr Humphreys has already stated that the answers lies not in light, but then mentions that light travels in waves; but, that presupposes only that kind of light, the kind we know travels in waves. That's what I mean about asking if it's possible that there is a yet to be discovered different sort of light, one that does not traverse time and space in the same manner as light as we know and understand it; or that maybe just is and has no need to travel. Light that maybe doesn't "shine" in the sense that we understand it; i.e. like when we point a flashlight at the wall it forms a pattern of light being reflected off the wall. But, instead a light that just exists without "illuminating" something, but instead only makes it possible to be seen without the need to wait for the light reflected from the object to reach our eyes.

We cannot see the walls in a dark room because of the absence of light; but light isn't really absent. If we put on the right kind of assistive device we can see the walls and everything else in the room without the need for flipping on the light switch. That same light was reaching, but we couldn't see the walls. Well, we can see very distant galaxies, given the right lens. But maybe we need to drop our presupposition of the need for light to traverse the space inbetween, and consider whether there could be something we're missing, possibly because we haven't been searching for it. God created objects that give off light on Day 4, and that light travels, illuminates, shines, reflects, travels in waves, etc. But he created something called light on Day 1 that possibly may not have any of those properties, but that makes it possible to see things far off without the need for the light shining from those things reaching our eyes. The whole universe/cosmos already contains light, and always has since Day 1! In a sense, and without trying to deify the Day 1 light, we see things far off because light is!

Comment by Charles Martin Jr on April 6, 2015 at 2:42pm

Okay, you ask an interesting question regarding a "second" kind of light.  First of all, there are different kinds of light, as light is only a part of an entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.  So infrared light, x-rays, visible light, etc. are all part of the same thing.  What I suppose you meant, however, is if there could be two kinds of visible light - that is, obviously, the light we see.  While I suppose it's possible, it's not really necessary, and here's why:  all visible light that we see is the same, regardless of its source.  So, in other words, I see light coming from the sun, but I can also turn on a lamp in my home, and see that light as well.  Two completely different sources, but the same light.  Here's the important thing:  the sun isn't light itself; it's only a source of light.  So God, without having created the sun or other stars, could still create light, it just simply had a different source (most likely, as you pointed out, Himself).  Same light, different source.

As far as distant galaxies and their visible light, Joe pointed out Dr. Humphreys' work, and I second that.  If you don't feel like watching a DVD, you can read his book, Starlight and Time.  Well worth the read.

As far as your hallway question goes, It should take half a second to see them at the other end (because it would take your light an entire second to reach them, or their light an entire second to reach you, but both lights would meet in the middle halfway through that time, or half a second.  At least, I think so.  It's been twenty years since I took Physics, so. . . .

Comment by Dan on April 5, 2015 at 9:45am

Thank you for your reply, and I realize that both the Creationists and the Evolutionists have the problem of distant starlight. I guess what I'm trying to ask is that isn't possible that the light on day one could resolve that problem if it is a different sort of light, with possibly different properties than light as we know it? If the light on day one was different than the light bearing objects created on day 4, then isn't it possible that the reason we can see those distant objects is because of the light on day 1 and not the light from day 4 (although technically I suppose because of both working together).

Suppose the objects on day 4 were not light bearing, but were instead some other sort of objects. What if we could still see those objects even though they give off no light themselves, nor reflect light from objects that give off light (since for this hypothesis there aren't any), because of the light from Day 1. Isn't it possible that we're seeing things not because of Day 4 light, but because of day 1 light, that illuminates the entire cosmos (whatever that is), and is not necessary to wait for it to travel to our eyes?

The problem with this analgoy is that there is such a thing as darkness, or the absence of light. If we are in a room with no windows or doors, and someone turns off the lights, we cannot see our hand in front of our face because of the absence of light. But the universe is not a windowless or doorless room. It is an expanse that we are told has been lit (or lighted) on Day 1.

Isn't it possible that that light could be different from the kind of light we are familiar with, the kind from Day 4, and that could make it possible to view all objects in the universe regardless of distance and time?

Furthermore, and a different question: do we have to wait for the light from an object to travel to our eyes to see it, or could the light from a different object make it possible to see another object of which its light has not yet reached us? What I mean is this: say there is a light-giving object that is 100 light-years (or approximately 588 trillions miles) away. Say the universe as we know it is only 25 years old, for the sake of this question. Here we are on the Earth with the Hubble telescope (we progressed in technology really really really quickly - :)) looking into the depths of space. If we had to wait for that light to reach us, from my understanding, we would have to wait another 75 years before we could see it.

But say there is another light-giving object between the first and ourselves, but this one is only 50 light-years away, but the light of which reaches as far as us, and on the other end, reaches as far as the light from the first object has travelled so that the two lights at that end touch; so that there is a complete stream of light between the 100 ly away object and ourselves even though its own light hasn't itself reached us yet. Is it possible that just because of the existence of light between the farthest two objects, even though the light from either hasn't itself reached the other, that the light from the object inbetween reaching both objects could make it possible for the object on either end to see the other "through" the connecting light without the need for the light from the first to traverse the complete distance to us? Is it possible that we can see the first object because of the light from the second reaching both us and the light from the first, and without the need to wait for the full 100 lys to expire? Because if that is possible, then as I've mentioned before, Space is filled with light; couldn't it be possible that the light from all the objects in the universe connecting together make it possible to see things of which its own light has not reached us yet, but that we see because we can see through the other connecting light?

Two distinctly different questions: one is about the light from Day 1 being a different kind of light from Day 4, and that makes it possible to see everything in the universe without the need for the light from Day 4 to travel the distance in-between.

The other is that couldn't it be possible to see everything in the universe now (given a strong enough telescope) because we may be looking through all the light from all the light-bearing stars and galaxies in between?

You see, I understand that it could be seen as deceptive if God had created the light in-between the stars and ourselves because that would mean that events that we see that have happened wouldn't really have happened. But that is beginning with the presupposition that we had to wait for the light from those events to reach us before we could see them! That doesn't sound like a Biblical presupposition to me!

Is it possible that that isn't the case? If, as God told us he did, he lighted the Cosmos on Day 1, then everything in the Cosmos should be visible, given the right magnification on our lens. I think had Adam had the Hubble Telescope, he would have been able to see the very farthest galaxies on Creation Day 6 (day 1 for him) as we see today, granted with six-or-so thousand years less history. Wouldn't that mean that the events that we see happening out there are not events from imaginary distant years past, but instead, could be relatively current events? And, shouldn't we be evaluating them as such? Do we really believe the universe is only a few thousand years old or not?

These are just ideas that I can't help but wonder, given our Biblical Christian worldviews. Thank you very much for any further feedback anyone can offer!

Comment by Joseph "Joe" K. O'Lear on April 4, 2015 at 6:47am

I think dealing with this as two separate questions is more fruitful Q1 different kinds of light yes the original light was not sunlight as the sun was created later as a Biblical example there will be no sunlight in the new earth as God will be its light Rev 21:23 and 22:5 both address this. Q2 is distant starlight this is a question yet to be resolved for both the creationist and the evolutionist for the evolutionist the issue becomes the uniform temp of the universe that we see should not be possible  for the creationist Drs Jason Lisle and Russell Humphreys, both experts is this field have excellent DVDs on this subject

Comment by Dan on April 2, 2015 at 7:14am

Thanks, but I'm not sure I have anything more to offer than just the question itself. It's just something I've been wondering for a few years, and I don't know enough to know whether it could even be possible. I would think so, since we are discovering things all the time that we thought we knew definitively yesterday.

I appreciate your reply, and I look forward to yours and anyone else's feedback.

Comment by Charles Martin Jr on April 2, 2015 at 5:07am

Interesting ideas/questions!  I do not have time to respond now, but I will aim to do so in the very near future!  Can't wait for this discussion!  It should be fun!

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service