I am not, I understand how light works. The same idea is true in thermodynamics, you cannot add "cold" to something, only diffuse energy. The sound analogy is only ineffective that the experience of the lightening is not circumstantial, it might be more appropriate to say that we hear the thunder, but we do not see any light. I would also dispute that it is not my "fuss" about the definition of a word, it is others' focus... on "empirical evidence". Perhaps that phrase should be defined.

 

I do not understand why I should receive a negative reputation score for a relevant argument.

 

"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

 

Does no one else that see the irony in the suggestion that my argument lacks this type of evidence?

 

I do not understand why I should receive a negative reputation score for a relevant argument.

 

 

Because you are posting ignorant drivel. Starting with "I understand how light works" (which is obviously not true) and it goes downhill from there.

 

 

Does no one else that see the irony in the suggestion that my argument lacks this type of evidence?

 

No.