Making TNT, while easy, is highly inadvisable. The stuff is acutely toxic, not merely explosive! Besides, you need concentrated nitric and sulfuric acid, which isn't exactly available at your local hardware store.

look, this is one of those cases where i have not the correct terminologies to say what i am thinking.

lets assume for the moment, that i realize the term "light" means energy, and "dark" means lack of energy. this i know. what i am saying is, there is a substance we cannot see, or yet detect that is dark and either as fast as light, or faster, cause the light energy, must push it out of the way to gain access to its location.

forget for a moment, that we are discussing dark=no energy, and substitute dark=unknown substance with no discernible measurements.

i am not arguing that the lack of energy is one of the definitions of dark, i am postulating that the word dark can have more definitions besides.

*sighs*

i wish i had enough schooling to make that more intelligible.

I understand what you mean Orph, it's just that there isn't much point in discussing it from a scientific perspective if it isn't detectable. You are postulating something like a fluid through which light has to push aside as it moves, right?

In order for this postulated "dark" to exist, it also must offer no Resistance to the movement of light, otherwise there would be energy loss in photon transmission through free-space, which is not the case. So either light does not interact with "dark", or they are connected in some way that causes them to move at the same speed and not impede each other. We can also postulate that "dark" has no mass, charge, or spin as other particles do, because otherwise we could detect it. What does that leave us with? It can't be matter or energy as we know them. Even the unfortunately named "dark matter" or "dark energy" could not account for it because both of these are detectable. Basically, unless you can come up with a mathematical theory the predicts the existence of "dark" you are left with precisely "nothing", which of course is what I believe it to be.

Oh, and for all of you babbling about the 90% of the universe we can't see: Just remember that current physical theory describes the 10% we CAN see to near perfection. It would be a grave mistake to think we know everything, but the unknown does not invalidate the known. Classical Mechanics is still entirely applicable to the macroscopic world. It was not invalidated for the framework in which it was developed just because Quantum Mechanics has supplanted it in the nanoscopic world of atoms. I believe we will see a similar transformation as new theories are developed. Relativity and the Standard Model will always be with us. They do not describe everything, but they describe most of what we know about for the present.