The Grammarist has an opinion on this issue, writing that the difference between the two is as follows:
The verb shine has two main definitions: (1) to emit light (intransitive), and (2) to cause to gleam by polishing (transitive). As an intransitive verb (definition 1), shine makes shone in its past-tense, perfect-tense, and past-participle forms. As a transitive verb (definition 2), it makes shined.
He says that the following are incorrect uses:
- But the one that shined the brightest was simply topped with a perfect beurre blanc and a touch of caviar. [The Atlantic]
- What’s more, one of the numbers reflected light differently when Smith’s headlights shined on it. [Winnipeg Free Press]
The following are correct uses:
A 13-year-old boy needed hospital treatment after a laser pen was shone in his eyes in Eastwood. [BBC News]
A return trip to the store shone the light on what I needed: Leeks. [Denver Post]
Shearer doesn’t look like he belongs ensconced in dark-green leather and spit-shined oak . . . [Washington Post]
- They shined the marble. [National Post]
So if the verb is intransitive, you should use shone. If it is transitive, you should use shined. In your examples:
The light shined all throughout the night.
Here, shine is intransitive, since you're not talking about shining the light on something. So it may actually be better to say "the light shone all throughout the night".
In your second example, "He shined the light on the ball throughout the night" this is actually correct because the verb is transitive.
Prescriptivists like the Grammarist would say that no, you can't use shone transitively. However, in the argument that people could still understand a transitive shone, you could use it. It is up to you which side you'd want to take on this.