[michaelrevans@mac.com]

The smallest, ultimate, indivsible unit of matter has 3-identical faces, 3-edges 2-vertices, has an inside and an outside, has spinability,conforms to Euhler's rule and is a regular solid. Go to: www.spaceclusters.com Comments invited

[Guille]

Is there experimental background for your theory?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by michaelrevans@mac.com The smallest, ultimate, indivsible unit of matter has 3-identical faces, 3-edges 2-vertices, has an inside and an outside, has spinability,conforms to Euhler's rule and is a regular solid. Go to: www.spaceclusters.com Comments invited

My comment is that this is totally wrong and the basic idea is flawed,how is it known that this is the ultimate unit???????

kind regards michael.

[michaelrevans@mac.com]

Light cannot be divided into a smaller unit. www.spaceclusters.org

the Idea is contained within the trion re' vessel. If you look at the physical models it is self evident. www.spaceclusters.org

The observer is contained within the observed.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michaelrevans@mac.com Light cannot be divided into a smaller unit.

The word 'light' isn't a unit or a quantity, so please explain what you mean by light as unit (is it that a ray is whole for it is a wave?).

Originally Posted by michaelrevans@mac.com the Idea is contained within the trion re' vessel. If you look at the physical models it is self evident.

This is not a valid argument, you must explain the evidence and say why the universe is as how you describe it.

Originally Posted by michaelrevans@mac.com The observer is contained within the observed.

Completelly true, but this is philosophy of science, not science itself.

[michaelrevans@mac.com]

Light is a quantity Light has form and is the basic building block of the universe. Go to www.spaceclusters.org

Light is the glue between all matter

[Guille]

I think the difference between your theory and the general idea in physics is that you give it a different philosophical view point, not that it is a different physical theory. Light is what objects repel and absorb, and eject on each other (they actually also eject other kinds of energies between them: they move each other, they heat each other, they give sound to each other...). So in that sense it is (said in a different way) the glue between matterial bodies.

[dleviwing]

michaelrevans;
Many have attempted to alter the meaning of scientific terms to suit their own ideas; few have been successful at it. If you are referring to light or EM radiation as made up of particulate forms called PHOTONS, then you are misinterpreting the physics. I recognize the eye of the artist in your view, but the eye of the scientist is more acceptable to me. The artist sees 7 primary colors in the visible spectrum, the scientist sees only 3. Your view is colorful, but not practical. Art is not measurement.

[michaelrevans@mac.com]

I am saying that light is a particle; light is not a wave; Light is a a regular solid. That when viewed from this dimension appears to be a wave and a particle. I am presenting the geometric parameters of physical light - photon. Tell me what is the geometric form of light?

You may be right. May I suggest a book that directly will address the question of art & science. The book is "Art and Physics" by Leonard Shlain M.D. You may find it interesting.

[dleviwing]

Are you referring to the frequency, wavelength, amplitude, phase, polarization, diffraction, refraction, interference, mass or energy; Maybe you are referring the geometrics of matter waves. Explain what you mean by geometrics of light since you don't seem to be talking about EM WAVES.

Though there is an art that emerges from natures wondrous structures and a form of mathematical beauty in her design, science is based solely on the ability to measure an quantify dimensional qualities of nature. Art can provide the imagery to assist the visualization of nature but it is not truly a part of the science; it is only another tool like the mathematics.