[Just thinking (OP)]

Yes we do.
For example, we consider the light that falls on the solar panels of a satellite and provides it with power.
Why do you make categorical statements which are so obviously wrong?

If we have photons travelling through a clean vacuum they emit no light so why call photons light when they emit no light.

[Just thinking (OP)]

    A big misconception ...

... is your attempt to redefine light.

No, I am redefining the photon.

[Colin2B]

they emit no light so why call photons light when they emit no light.

No photons emit any electromagnetic radiation of any form.

[Just thinking (OP)]

No photons emit any electromagnetic radiation of any form.

I would like to know why photons are referred to as light? And why say they move at the speed of light and yet they are referred to as being light that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train very strange.

[Bored chemist]

No, I am redefining the photon.

A big misconception ...

[Bored chemist]

that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train

I.e. perfectly correct

[Bored chemist]

I would like to know why photons are referred to as light?

Because they are.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Because they are.

I thought no light is the definition of darkness and photons are dark so where is the light in that.

[Bored chemist]

photons are dark

No, they aren't.

[Just thinking (OP)]

No, they aren't.

So if photons are eliminated why can't we see light travelling through the vacuum of space?

[Bored chemist]

So if photons are eliminated

They aren't.

[Just thinking (OP)]

They aren't.

OK, I have no idea where this is going. Photons are radiation they have little to no mass and they are not light until they make contact with a light sensitive cell.

[Kryptid]

Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.

My topic states that it is light that we see I have used the word light a number of times I have not denied that we see light and use light so why do I have to redefine the word light to you.

You have already redefined it.

[Origin]

Really?  4 pages discussing if light is real?

[Bored chemist]

they are not light until...

Yes they are.

[Just thinking (OP)]

I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.

OK, I found something in the dictionary . com photon, a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. and not a word about light to be found. Dictionary . con I never use it but I believe it is the most reliable source of snake oil on the net.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Yes they are.

How.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Really?  4 pages discussing if light is real?

Hang around and you might learn something.

[Just thinking (OP)]

You have already redefined it.

There is no light coming from a photon so there is nothing to redefine.

[Colin2B]

I would like to know why photons are referred to as light?

They aren’t. Only a very specific band of frequencies is called light, not the photons themselves. Other frequency bands are called eg, radio, microwave, UV etc. This has been explained in previous posts. Don’t be mislead by shorthand terms, more correctly the photons in the spectrum of light should be called light-photons, when we talk of photons we are referring to any part of the emr spectrum.

And why say they move at the speed of light and yet they are referred to as being light that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train very strange.

it just happens to be the most common example. All emr travels at c. Call it the speed of emr if that suits you better.

So if photons are eliminated why can't we see light travelling through the vacuum of space?

You can if you are looking at a star. Other photons/light rays travelling across your field of vision are missing your eye, so you don’t see them.