Is there anything sensible about photons? Intelligent Design Theory results in scientific proof that light is electromagnetic waves and that photons do not exist. If an atom is heated until it gives off light, how many photons will that atom release before it runs out of photons? Or do you think that photons are emitted or reflected from every cold object that we also can see?  Every object emits or reflects light in every direction. Each object must emit an infinite number of photons in a steady stream to be solid light in every direction. This infinite number of photons that take up all space must be striking each other as all objects emit photons in every direction. So no coherent light can ever reach our eyes, as the photons must all be bouncing off each other in every direction. Does any of this make sense? Are we suffocating in the sea of photons that we are immersed in? To pass this test, just say, "No!"

There is one other problem with those nonsensical photons: The vanes on the Crookes' radiometer turn in the opposite direction that they would if photons were bouncing off the white side of the vanes and being absorbed by the black sides. Only an electromagnetic hypothesis -- a concept of electromagnetic waves of light makes a sensible explanation. Electromagnetic waves heat the black side of the vanes and cause the vanes to rotate as they heat the gas in the partial vacuum of the radiometer. A perfectly evacuated radiometer does not rotate. And this is not what they teach us in school. There is no dual nature of light.

Photons, if they existed, would have to travel at the speed of light. This means according to Einstein that photons have infinite mass. Today's scientists conveniently skirt this problem by giving photons no mass. How can something exist, if it doesn't exist? How can a radiometer rotate if the photons impinging on it have no mass? Hence, we have Einstein's concepts about the speed of light and the mass of moving objects and justification of the existence of nonexistent photons. Today's scientists have a bad habit of confusing just about everything, if anyone ever pays attention.

In the case of light being electromagnetic waves, it is possible according to Setterfield's discovery (Chapter 3), for electromagnetic waves to transfer from one molecule to another instantaneously. The slowing of the electromagnetic waves are related to the inertia required to get a molecule vibrating when it is subjected to the radiation and the number of gas atoms or molecules that the light transfers those vibrations to as it passes through a medium.

The concept of photons was derived from two misconceptions. The first was the Michelson-Morley experiment that falsely concluded that the speed of light is constant. This experiment was flawed because the receiver of the light always traveled in the same direction and with the same velocity as the emitter of the light. Thus, no matter what velocity the emitter was traveling, the receiver would always both add and subtract that velocity from the calculation. Red shift of stars is a contradiction of the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The second misconception was that light has discrete differences in frequencies. This was mistakenly interpreted to mean that light must be emitted as particles. A look at the structure of an atom shows that the discretely different frequencies that electrons in atoms are allowed to vibrate are a result of the region of the atom in which that electron resides.