🚀 go-pugleaf

The problem with your model is that it presumes that light is granular.
Since light exhibits traits of both matter and wave form, there is a high
degree of likelihood that neither model is adequate to explain the finer
qualities of light. Each of these two models only hold to explain those
characteristics where light and the model agree. You cannot choose one of
the two models and expect it to accurately predict or explain the kind of
detail you are attempting here.

Consider what happens to your argument if you use the wave form model of
light. Talk about sound and silence and try to figure out where the edge of
a sound wave might be at various points in space. It doesn't work. The
model doesn't work that way.

I am relatively certain that a photon does not really exist in the literal
form of a tiny ball (with mass) of light. Instead, light simply consists of
something that responds to gravitational force and which has a small, but
measurable momentum, like mass. That does not imply that it consists of
photons which have a unit size or volume or that it has a point in space
all its own such that there is a photon in one spot, but if you move a
little to the left, you  have a spot which doesn't have a photon in it, but
a little farther to the left you hit another photon from the same light
source...

The particle model of light simply is not that good.

-- 
Will 

Karl Easterly <Big_...@msn.com> wrote in article
<01bbebd2$64f5a3e0$063b2499@emporess>...
> 
> Fellas, Fellas, Fellas, and the occasional Gal.
> 
> Lets think about this for a moment.
> 
>   Darkness, as oposed to non-darkness, is the absense of that which
> produces the non-darkness (ie.. light, brilliance, photons, etc....).  To
> define the situation in which it exist is to define a point in space
where
> no photons exist at a given instance in time.  If all points in space
> contain a photon then all points in space are in a state of non-darkness.

> Now, to define a point in space in which no photons exist is to say that
> these points are removed from all pathways of all sources which produce
an
> incedent photon toward these points, or that all times at which a photon
is
> to arive at any point along any path are removed to define the times that
> these points are in darkness.  
>   Now consider a photon, the originator of what we define as light, is
> quanitized in time and space.  In other words it has temporal and spatial
> dimensions.  And consider that these diminsions are localized, or known
to
> some arbaritary precision.  Unless this precision is know to an infiniate
> degree, or known exactly to infinate precision, then there is a region in
> which we do not know if the photon exist or does not exist.  No matter
how
> small this uncertainity is, it is always enough to hamper us from knowing
> exactly when a point close to this boundry of what we call the photon is
in
> the same place as the photon or slightly outside the photons boundry. 
But
> if we assume that the boundrys are sharp and have an exact edge, both
> leading and trailing edge, then we can deduct the nature of the motion of
> darkness.  However this IS an assumption...!
> 
> 
> someone else can finish this, I am tired and want to sleep....
> 
>   
> 
>