Note: This essay is the seventh chapter of Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive filosofical treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, which can be ordered in electronic format for only $2.50 at http://www.lulu.com/content/140855. Free previews, descriptions, and information on A Rational Cosmology can be found at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/rc.html.

Almost no other concept has been either more elusive, nor its misinterpretations more damaging, than light. Twentieth-century fysics has built its most egregious fallacies on a series of errors with regard to this term. Understanding the truth about it is nonetheless indispensable to one's ordinary existence, given that light is required to fathom anything visually. While the specific-observational sciences can legitimately study the particular properties of light and the regularities with which it behaves, the fundamental classification of light belongs to filosofy and cosmology, as light is not only a ubiquitous observation, but, moreover, required for visual observation of all entities, a prerequisite for their full understanding. Thus, light can be said to be a prerequisite to ubiquitous observation.

Light is neither particle nor wave.

Much of post-Classical fysics has been directed toward the futile debate of whether or not light can be categorized as a "particle," a "wave," or some mixture of the two. This debate has led proponents of relativity and quantum mechanics to destroy the objective and valid meanings of the categorizations, "particle" and "wave," in the attempt to fit them onto a fenomenon which they cannot describe, namely, light. This turn of events is especially saddening, since the blind alley along which post-Classical fysics has ventured was brought about by a question that is not even the province of fysics to answer. Fysics has done immense services in studying fenomena of light reflection and refraction, as well as devising a system to quantifiably explain differences in types of light, the electromagnetic spectrum. However, when seeking to make metafysical classifications, it has tried to substitute a few extremely narrow and targeted observations about light for the broader, universal definition thereof, a characteristic of the empiricist-positivist fallacy. Had its particular observations instead been founded upon and reinforced by the rigor of filosofical logic, modern fysics would have avoided the pitfalls that caused it to reject the objectivity of the senses and of common sense.

Our insights into cosmology thus far, however, can quickly debunk the devastating particle/wave duality:

1) Light is not a particle. A particle is an entity. It should be recalled from Chapter III that matter is one of the ubiquitous qualities of entities. Mass is the measurement of matter, yet light is massless. Light is not an element on the periodic table, nor is it a subatomic particle, such as an electron. Light lacks mass, thereby lacking one of the ubiquitous qualities of entities, thereby not being an entity. Light also lacks all other ubiquitous qualities of entities, including volume and any measurement in any of the three dimensions. One could hardly say, "this beam of light is half a centimeter wide, twelve centimeters long and two centimeters tall." Thus, light thoroughly fails the test for being categorized as a particle.

2) Light is not a wave. A wave is a relationship of entities, a periodic disturbance of them. In order to travel from point A to point B, a wave has to encounter continuous entities to periodically disturb! Sound waves, for example, encounter such a continuity of entities in the form of air molecules. However, in a vacuum, where no such continuity is present, neither is there sound. Light, on the other hand, can be made manifest through a vacuum, an observation requiring no highly specialized study. One needs only look out into the night sky and realize that one is seeing celestial objects separated from the Earth by billions of kilometers of the near-total vacuum which is space. Yet, somehow, light enables one to see them nonetheless! The Sun is separated from the Earth by some 150 million kilometers of vacuum, yet its light not only is perceptible on Earth, but is the primary source of light here, and the precondition for all life on this planet. Thus, vacuum is not only no impediment to light, but light must be quite adept at transcending vacuum in massive quantities.

The objection might be raised that outer space is not a complete vacuum, but that the occasional gas molecule does appear there. However, there is certainly not a continuity of any type or combination of particles beyond the reach of a given planet's atmosfere, and a wave relationship, in order to be exhibited, requires a continuity of particles that exert contact forces on one another. Two hydrogen molecules five hundred kilometers apart will not produce a wave relationship. Thus, in order to transcend a vacuum, light cannot be a wave, but rather must be some other fenomenon.

3) Light cannot be both a particle and a wave. We have just proved that light cannot be a particle and that light cannot be a wave, and that the synthesis of these facts will yield the logical conclusion that it cannot be any combination of two categorizations that do not apply to it. Furthermore, we recall from Chapter VI that it is impossible for any existent to be simultaneously a particle and a wave, since a particle is an entity and a wave is a relationship, two different ontological categories that cannot be applied to the same existent. 

It is essential to note that, simply because light shares certain properties and behaviors also attributable to particles and waves, does not mean that it is a particle and/or a wave. It is merely similar to particles in some respects and to waves in other respects, just as a dog might be similar to a cat in the fact that it has four limbs and to a camel in that it has an elongated snout. This does not imply that a dog can also be described as a cross between a cat and a camel! Because it chose to discard filosofical considerations by the wayside, post-Classical fysics has conflated similarity with identity. Additionally, it has employed the empiricist-positivist fallacy, holding that a series of narrow, targeted observations about light, in which particulate or wave properties were observed, therefore implies knowledge of the fundamental identity of light, which can only be known on the more basic and universal level of ubiquitous observation.

Furthermore, the electromagnetic spectrum has been often employed to quantify various types of light so as to relate them to each other in magnitude. The unit of measurement for said spectrum has been either a frequency or a wavelength, implying a preconceived notion on the part of the fysicists designing the spectrum that light is a wave. Even though this designation has been shown to be incorrect, this does not mean that the quantitative relationships referred to on the spectrum are similarly incorrect. If yellow light is said to have a wavelength of 600 nanometers and violet light—one of 400 nanometers, the true statement in that claim is that the ratio of units of magnitude of yellow light to violet light is three to two. The error made is simply in the name of the unit, since the span of each unit is selected arbitrarily, and the magnitude of violet light could well be selected to be 400 of a unit thus defined, with the stipulation, as always, that the units be uniform and that their proportionality reflect the actual proportionality of the magnitudes of the existents they describe.  A similar error might be conceivable if another confused society decided to conflate time with mass, and measure time in kilograms. Though the unit of measurement might be wrong, the internal consistency of the time-measuring system might in fact be accurate. If a given period of time were said to have a unit of a kilogram, and a period of time twice as long—a unit of two kilograms, then the system can still give us an accurate tool for relating units of time to each other. It is only needed to substitute "second" or another appropriate name for "kilogram," and the system will work flawlessly.

The electromagnetic spectrum, furthermore, is a brilliant system for relating light to fenomena that would be measured on the same scale and by the same units (though not units of wavelength), including the commonly unexpected non-visible fenomena such as infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, and (the misnamed) microwave radiation. It is a tool for real information about light, and the refutation of the theory that light is a wave will do nothing to nullify the spectrum's validity and usefulness; it could be preserved in entirety, even with present magnitudes intact, provided that the name of the unit using which light is measured is adjusted so as to reflect the unique nature of light, distinct from either particles or waves.  

What Is Light?

Thus far, our discussion has concerned itself with what light is not, and we have shown prevailing scientific theories on the subject to be fundamentally flawed. However, we have not yet categorized light via its proper ontological designation, a feat possible now that prevailing fallacies have been swept aside.

It is instructive to take note of what we ubiquitously observe about light. First, light requires a source. There would be no light in the absence of stars, the Sun, light bulbs, candles, or some other entity that emits it. Second, light requires entities to reflect off of in order to be perceived. Light, as it is originally emitted, is not visible in itself, but rather must come into contact with another entity in order for its effects to be perceived. The type of light that reflects off a given entity will determine how the entity is seen. (I.e., white light reflected off a yellow wall will cause the wall to seem yellow. Blue light reflected off that same wall will cause it to seem black.)

Furthermore, the distance of the light source from the target entity will determine how light affects said entity. A candle will render the entities closer to it more visible than the entities farther away. It is also known that some sources of light (the Sun) are capable of illuminating at greater magnitudes and distances than others (the candle). Thus, whatever light is, it is quantifiable not only in its type (i.e., whether it is yellow, red, etc.) but also in its amount. Additionally, as shown earlier, light does not require continuity of particles in order to propagate; it can overcome a vacuum, i.e., the absence of a medium. On the contrary, it seems that, the more dense the medium, the less receptive it is to light. Light can propagate through gaseous media, and some liquids (such as water), but not through most solids. Knowing this information, which no individual could miss in the course of daily observation, it is possible to ontologically categorize light as a relationship between the entity which emits it (the source) and the entity which it affects (the target).

The nature of light as a relationship is evident in the fact that it takes an entity to produce and another entity to experience, thereby altering the qualities of the target entity and adding to it the attribute of visibility, among others. Since light is not a particle, it cannot simply be sent from one entity to another and then affect the target entity. There is no "sending" of light, but rather the relationship is directly between the source entity and target entity, without any entities that must necessarily be intermittent for the relationship to occur. Light is the name for the interaction at a distance which the source and target entities undergo. In that sense, there is quite a contrast between a wave relationship, such as sound, which requires the presence of billions of periodically vibrating molecules between the source and the perceiver, and light, which requires only the source and target entities. Though, like a wave, light is a relationship, in certain critical fundamental aspects, it is as far removed from waves as relationships can get.

To specify what sort of relationship light is, ubiquitous observation can also add that it varies inversely with distance (which fysics has verified to be an inverse square relation), that it is capable of varying both in type and intensity, and that it is the relationship which allows observers to see entities. Unlike sound, however, light does not require the observer, even though the observer requires light. The Sun continues to illuminate the entirety of the entities of Earth, even if a particular observer happens to be indoors and thus lack view of the Sun, or the vast majority of entities which are affected by it. The observer is merely a third party to the relationship, and his involvement in it (through the act of visual perception) is rendered possible by the primary interaction between the source and target entities.

Interactions among entities not spatially adjacent to one another are not, by the way, either inconceivable or in any manner filosofically excluded. A relationship only implies that multiple entities affect each other's qualities, not that they contact each other fysically. Indeed, fysics has demonstrated that numerous "forces at a distance," exist, including magnetism and the electrostatic force, which need not necessarily imply contact between source and target. Light, though not a force in itself, can nevertheless be classified as a relationship between two spatially separate entities without committing either a filosofical or a fysical error.

The objection might be raised to this model of light as a relationship at a distance that it does not account for such apparently simple fysical principles as the reflection and refraction of light, since, it might be claimed, only entities can reflect and refract. However, in order for all the known regularities concerning reflection and refraction to be true, light need not be an entity in itself. The Law of Reflection, for example, essentially states, "If a source entity is located at a certain angle of incidence from the target entity, it will also exhibit the relationship of light with any proximate entity that would be located at an angle from the target entity symmetric to the angle of incidence with respect to the normal line to the surface." This law merely states at which positions the relationship of light will affect entities, and how it will affect them. As for refraction, the only reason why such a fenomenon is even possible is because light has entered a certain medium, i.e., has obtained target entities which have their qualities altered by the light-emitting source. One of the alterations in the qualities of the medium which is the target entity is the appearance of a bent "beam," which is not independent of the medium, or superimposed upon it, but rather a visual manifestation of the relationship between the source entity and the target medium. Neither fenomenon, to be explicable, inherently requires the model of light as consisting of particles in itself.  

The "Speed of Light" 

Seeing as motion, along with its measure, speed, is a property of entities, and light is not an entity, it may be asked how this view of light is reconcilable with the conventional scientific notion that there exists a "speed of light," often thought fundamental in numerous post-Classical fysical calculations. At this point in the analysis, we should wish to neither advocate nor refute definitively whether or not the "speed of light" is a true or a false concept. Rather, we should determine whether it is a feasible one according to the ubiquitous truths we have hitherto explicated about light. If so, we should formulate a theory of how the idea of a "speed of light" might be explained by the understanding of light as relationship. Furthermore, this approach will enable us to determine precisely which parts of Einstein's relativity-based ideas concerning the "speed of light" are in fact flawed and can be ruled out by cosmological examination.

Conventional scientific wisdom will tell us that light in a vacuum "travels" at some 3*10⁸ meters per second, a quantity that has seemingly been verified by observation and experiment. This simple but misleading expression reinforces further the fallacy that light is an entity capable of "traveling." Since light is not an entity, it cannot "travel" or exhibit motion qua entity. A more appropriate word to use for the fenomenon of light emitted by a source entity "reaching" a target entity would be "transmitted." Light is transmitted from the source to the target, since transmission can occur with respect to other existents than entities. For example, a sound wave, a relationship, can be transmitted from the emitting device to the listener. Though this implies the motion of entities that partake in the specific relationship, the entities themselves are not transmitted; the wave relationship is. This example is instructive in demonstrating that relationships can indeed be transmitted. Furthermore, while waves are contact relationships, there exist non-contact relationships, as previously shown, and it is not inconceivable that such relationships can be transmitted at a certain rate. For example, charging by induction does not occur instantaneously; it takes time, however small, for electrons to migrate from one pole of an object thus charged to another. Yet charging by induction is a non-contact relationship between the object that charges and the object that is being charged. Since light is a non-contact relationship, and it is not impossible for such relationships to be transmitted, it is not impossible for light to be transmitted. The empirical sciences have suggested that such a transmission indeed exists, and this is perfectly within the bounds of rational cosmology.

Thus, the idea of a "speed of light" can be refrased as simply the idea that the relationship that light does not affect the target instantaneously, and is transmitted from the source at a certain rate. The transmission of light is dependent on the distance between the source and target, which, as earlier shown, is also confirmed by simple ubiquitous observation of everyday fenomena. The claim that there is a "speed of light" amounts to the assertion that a source entity 3*10⁸ meters away from the target entity and in a vacuum will affect the target entity one second from the time light was emitted. The measure of this fenomenon, currently expressed in meters per second, is not truly a speed, but rather a rate of relationship. To be more precise, rational cosmology can assert the prerogative of renaming the concept of a "speed of light" to a distance-dependent rate of relationship (DDRR) which light does indeed exhibit.

Like all relationships wherein one entity acts upon another, light does not occur instantaneously. It is, like all relationships, structured so as to be fathomable via reason, and thus retains certain consistencies; the rate at which it is transmitted is constant given a certain constant medium separating the source and target. When the nature of the medium changes, so does the nature of the transmission and its rate. Since any medium absent a vacuum must by definition consist of other entities, the effect of light upon those entities delays the effect of light upon the original target entity. This is a proposition which logic itself would suggest even in the absence of in-depth particular observation. Luminosity, that quality of the source entity which enables it to emit light, is finite in its measure in every entity that exhibits it. That is, no entity can emit an infinite amount of light at the same time. If, between the source entity and the entity originally designated to be the target, there exist other entities, those others will have a fraction of the source's luminosity expended on them. Furthermore, since the exhibition of any relationship, including light, takes some amount of time, the initiation of the relationship of light upon the farther target entity will be delayed due to the time it takes for the source entity to relate via light to the nearer entities of the medium between source and target. Since every different medium implies some difference in the nature of its constituent particles, the interaction of a source entity of a given nature with various different particles will imply various different effects dependent on the natures of the particles thus interacted with. For media of the same sort, the particles ought to be the same as well, and the source entity will interact with them in the same way, thus explaining why light always exhibits the same DDRR when transmitted through the same type of medium.

This deliberation should also suggest that, not only must light reach the target entity in a greater amount of time when traveling through some particulate medium than when traveling through a vacuum, but also that the target entity will be illuminated with the greatest magnitude when no entities occupy the distance between source and target, i.e., in a vacuum. In a vacuum, all of the source's luminosity must be imparted to the target, since there exist no other entities to be affected by it. This is why light is seen to be best transmitted to other entities in a vacuum (and is seen to be transmitted quite well in air as well), and is transmitted the poorest through opaque solids, which have the most molecules arrayed between source and target in the most rigid fashion.

How ought the DDRR of light be measured? It is true that light begins to affect an entity 3*10⁸ meters away from the source one second after emission, and that this proportionality holds no matter what the distance between the source and target. However, to measure the DDRR in meters per second implies the fallacy that light actually travels through the medium separating source and target. Light does no such thing; it is manifested in entities and entities alone. Where there is an absence of entities, there is an absence of light. If there is no entity 1.5*10⁸ meters away from a source, there will be no light there, even if a half-second had passed from the moment of emission of light. As earlier explained, the very occurrence of "beams" of light in particulate media is explained by the effects of the source on the many closely grouped molecules comprising the media. On the macroscopic scale of human vision, the result is perceived as a continuous "beam," when, upon examination in a narrower scope, it will be seen as an aggregate of discrete effects of light on each individual particle of the medium.

The best way to measure the DDRR is not, therefore, in units of velocity, but rather in an otherwise combined unit of distance and time. To state, for example, that a target is one light-second away from the source means that it is at such a distance away that it will exhibit light one second after light is emitted. The unit, "light-second," like all other denominations of DDRR measurement (light-minute, light-year, light-millennium—all conceivably useful), implies within it the dependence of the time of light's exhibition upon the distance between source and target. The very word "light-second" is shorthand for, "the distance separating a source and target such that it will take one second for the source to illuminate the target." This unit is similar to the unit for velocity in the sense that it involves both distance and time, but it does not involve them in the same respect as the unit for velocity, nor is it applicable to the same sorts of entities to which the unit for velocity is.

There is no inherent limit to motion in the universe.

It has been hitherto shown that it is not only quite conceivable, but also necessary, that the relationship of light have a rate at which it occurs. However, this rate does not at all imply the motion of light or that light is an entity that can move or have a speed. Yet Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the assertion that, not only is light an entity that has a speed, but also that this speed is the only absolute in the universe, and that all of space and time is relative to this single "speed of light." Especially significant was Einstein's rejection of the notion that any absolute motion could exist aside from the "motion" of light, to which every other motion is relative. Einstein also postulated an idea held by subsequent fysics as sacred, that no entity can travel at a faster rate than light "travels."

For refuting the foremost idea, that of the "speed of light" as the only absolute, it will suffice to refer the reader to the entirety of the present treatise up to this point. It has already been shown that all entities must have ubiquitous qualities which are quite absolute and, moreover, prior to and independent of any particular fenomena. Furthermore, in Chapter V, it has been shown that not only is all motion absolute, but that the absolutism of motion is a necessary precondition for accurately understanding which entity is actually in motion. If the position of Entity A changes relative to that of Entity B, say, in that A and B are now closer than before, it still remains to be explained whether A moved toward B, or B moved toward A, since the implications of each answer are almost always quite different from those of the other. Thus, the DDRR of light, while it may be an important fenomenon, and perhaps indispensable for understanding the behavior of the ubiquitous relationship known as light, is not necessarily a determinant of the other qualities and relationships exhibited by an entity. An entity´s time, for example, is independent of its motion, or any other fysical change it undergoes, even though the concept of time is needed to define and understand motion in the first place. Similarly is a source entity´s DDRR independent of its other fysical qualities and relationships, such as mass, volume, the spatial dimensions, or time and motion, even though light (along with the manifestation of a given DDRR for such a relationship) is needed for human observers to visually perceive entities in the first place. An entity in the dark, and unperceived, continues to exhibit the same mass as before, provided it was not altered in other ways. It continues to accumulate time uniformly, no matter what else happens to it. Existence exists independent of the observer, and every concept in it ought to have its applications delimited to include only its proper referents. The DDRR is a tool for explaining the behavior of light and everything pertaining to light. It does not account for anything outside of light and pertaining to the remainder of the universe. 

For the second Einsteinian fallacy, that nothing can "travel" faster than light, a logical refutation will, again, suffice. It has been shown that light does not "travel." Light and motion are quite distinct fenomena, each independent of the other. Thus, the fact that the relationship of light exhibits a fixed nature in specific media, as it logically should, has absolutely no bearing on what motion may or may not occur on behalf of entities. Just as time is independent of mass, so is motion independent of light. The fact that an entity weighs two kilograms does not limit how long it can exist. Neither does the fact that an entity can emit light to affect a target entity 3*10⁸ meters away from it in one second at least exclude that entity, or any other entity in the universe, from moving at rates as large as their natures allow. It ought to be recalled that the universe has no inherent qualities or relationships qua universe. Thus, it also cannot have "built-in limitations" on the behaviors of entities, except as ordained by the particular natures of the entities involved. An entity's mass, volume, or spatial expanse can conceivably limit how fast it can travel. Every entity in existence has limitations on its motion, defined by the constituent qualities of that entity and the medium through which it travels. However, there can be no limitations on how fast anything can move aside from that thing's own capacities and surroundings.

Thus far, all the entities observed in the universe have not been able to reach rates of motion anywhere near the alleged "speed of light," because their natures restrict them to this extent. Not even human technology has yet produced entities capable of attaining velocities a small fraction of 3*10⁸ meters per second. Therefore, Einstein's suggestion seems outwardly plausible, because it has not yet been empirically disproved. But such a support for it is specious, since, simply because an idea has not been empirically demonstrated false, does not imply that it has been proved conclusively. Furthermore, the logical arguments on which rational cosmology is based all tend toward a rejection of Einstein's blanket assertion as unsubstantiated by fact and unwarrantedly claiming omniscience. Einstein has essentially stated that, no matter what heights of ingenuity man might reach, no matter what fysical qualities he might impart upon the entities he designs, he will never be able to surpass some arbitrary speed barrier, imposed, not by the natures of the entities that he has designed to move, but by a collective designation (the universe) wrongly viewed to have any properties in itself. 

The harm of Einstein's error is seen less in immediate fysical impacts as in the deleterious effect on the mindset of individuals, who thereby come to think that all their efforts to improve their lives will ultimately be capped by some non-entity, non-quality-based limit beyond their control. Just as the doctrine that the entirety of existence will someday end debilitates man, because it reduces the ultimate purpose of his actions to futile nothingness, so does the idea of an insurmountable "cap" on motion inhibit him, posing before him the specter of an inevitable eventual terminus to his ability to accomplish.

In fact, though this will likely not occur for some time, it is quite conceivable, whatever the mechanics involved in this feat might be, that some vehicle might someday be devised that would travel at a faster rate than the rate at which the relationship, "light," occurs. This will bear some interesting fysical implications, such as the fact that an entity that departs from a source of light to a target will reach the target earlier than the target can become illuminated by the source. Indeed, this traveling entity will, unless illuminated by other light sources, remain incapable of being seen by observers at the source during some portion of its motion. However, just because a fenomenon cannot be directly seen, does not mean that it cannot occur. Just because motion under certain circumstances cannot be visibly observed, does not mean that it does not happen, nor that we cannot employ other, less direct, indicators to verify and fathom its occurrence.

Color

Now that the cosmological underpinnings of the fenomenon of light have been explained, it is possible to rationally analyze the type of existent that the concept of "color" denotes. It is ubiquitously known that not all entities react to light in the same way. Aside from an entity's spatial contours and motion, the entities that light illuminates exhibit another property that allows some of them (or parts of them) to appear differently than do others to the observer. This is a property intrinsic to the entities, even though light is needed to make it accessible to the eye, as demonstrated by the manner in which this property will be exhibited given various types of illumination. A ball called "red" will appear red under white light, black under blue light or green light, and red under red light. Fysics has explained this to mean that the ball absorbs blue and green light (and any combination thereof) and reflects red light into the eye of the observer. Whenever red light is present, it will reflect only red light, and only of a certain specific "wavelength" (a misnamed unit, as previously explained) that denotes the "shade" of red the ball possesses. The ability to reflect only red light is a property possessed by the ball, independent of what sort of illumination it is presently subjected to. Other balls might be blue or green, and thus have entirely different abilities to reflect only blue or green light, and not red light, as the former ball. Other balls still might have the ability to reflect two fundamental types of light and therefore be colored violet, or yellow, or orange, or to reflect all light and therefore be colored white. This difference among the balls cannot be explained by merely stating that they are subject to the same, or to different, types of light. Color is thus not a relationship, as no other entity is involved in determining it other than the entity exhibiting it (within the given frame of reference, which treats each ball as an entity in itself). Rather, color is a quality, i.e., that which an entity has and is measurable, via the electromagnetic spectrum.

Color is different from sound in that, while sound requires an observer (a listener) to be fully manifested, color does not. The quality of "the color red" merely informs us that the entity is capable of reflecting only red light. In total darkness, the observer will not be able to see the red entity, but the entity will remain capable of reflecting only red light, nonetheless, even though no red light currently exists for it to reflect. Since color is existentially independent of illumination, it is not dependent on being seen to exist. The ability to reflect red light, when red light is present, does not change when different types of light are present.

It is instructive to note that this definition of color as a quality intrinsic to entities means that an entity's color does not necessarily equal its present appearance of color, i.e., its appearance under the light that happens to be emitted by an available source. A black entity (which does not reflect any light) is quite different from an entity that simply appears black merely because the type of light it has the ability to reflect happens to be absent. The true indicator of an entity's color is its appearance under white light, i.e., light that combines all measures of the electromagnetic spectrum and thus necessarily includes all the types of light the entity could possibly reflect. Thus, it is always possible to objectively know an entity's color by illuminating it with white light, even though the illumination itself does not equal the color.

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to organizations such as Le Quebecois Libre, Enter Stage Right, the Autonomist, and The Liberal Institute. Mr. Stolyarov is the Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

Order Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.lulu.com/content/140855. You only pay $2.50 for 81 electronic pages of in-depth reasoning. Free previews, descriptions, and information on A Rational Cosmology can be found at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/rc.html.