I wanted to cite the arguments of Aquinas from the Summa Theologica in which he tries to say that light is not material.

In his medieval system, aesthetics precedes science so that what seems most pleasing to their intellectual bent is assumed to be true. Now he first says "Two bodies cannot occupy the same place simultaneously. But this is the case with light and air. Therefore light is not a body." This is not a very good argument because light and air do not reside in the same points of space as the other but can nonetheless be in the same general area according to our perception.

He then goes on to say that light from the Sun to the Earth must be instantaneous, which actually just goes to show how he doesn't understand physics and mathematics.

"Nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. It must also be borne in mind on the part of movement that whereas all bodies have their natural determinate movement, that of light is indifferent as regards direction, working equally in a circle as in a straight line. Hence it appears that the diffusion of light is not the local movement of a body."

None of these are good arguments and he is using philosophy to analyze physics. This was the tendency of the times which regarded Aristotle's aesthetics as primary over truth.

Aquinas goes on to say that although it can be argued that "every sensible quality has its opposite, as cold is opposed to heat, blackness to whiteness" it "is accidental to light not to have a contrary, forasmuch as it is the natural quality of the first corporeal cause of change, which is itself removed from contrariety." This is based on the idea that the stars are quasi-supernatural.

The medievals were as interested in light as the moderns. In the Middle Ages the only things in the universe closer in substance to God then the heavenly bodies were human souls.

I think the main mistake of the scholars of this period was that they had a particular liking for very specific abstract forms of philosophical think and this prevented them from trying experiments and testing what the universe really was. In a way, this was Christian philosophy resisting the pull of materialism and the the idea that we get our knowledge of the world from science. If it wasn't for thinkers who rejected scholasticism, such as Descartes and Galileo, this would have prevented the rise of the modern technological world, for good or for bad — Gregory

Light is electric and magnetic, presenting itself as particles while being a wave through the reality of spacetime — Gregory

And the properties of light are electricity and magnetism — Gregory

So light is a color? — Gregory

In a way, this was Christian philosophy resisting the pull of materialism and the the idea that we get our knowledge of the world from science. — Gregory

The adjective 'medieval' has become a synonym for brutality and uncivilized behavior. Yet without the work of medieval scholars there could have been no Galileo, no Newton and no Scientific Revolution. In God's Philosophers, James Hannam debunks many of the myths about the Middle Ages, showing that medieval people did not think the earth is flat, nor did Columbus 'prove' that it is a sphere; the Inquisition burnt nobody for their science nor was Copernicus afraid of persecution; no Pope tried to ban human dissection or the number zero.

"every sensible quality has its opposite, as cold is opposed to heat, blackness to whiteness" it "is accidental to light not to have a contrary, forasmuch as it is the natural quality of the first corporeal cause of change, which is itself removed from contrariety." — Gregory

If it hits you you really think it will only be colors hitting you? — Gregory

We can see light — Gregory

You need to study more — Gregory

You need to study more — hope

I have not presented myths. — Gregory

You don't write like you know very much. Start with this: — Gregory

That said, agree that Aquinas speculations on the nature of light don't deserve to be considered scientific, although, on the other hand, light does seem to occupy a special place in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

I quoted Aquinas's arguments on why he thought light was immaterial. Just as people quote and criticise Aristotle's physics.. — Gregory

It's just a general thread about medieval thought. If you don't like it go away — Gregory