On May 4, 3:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.

I was just quoting the standard model. Photons indeed
do have mass since they are always traveling at the speed
of light through a medium. If a photon ever slows down to
zero, that's when its mass goes to zero. No particle with
a non-zero rest mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

I never, never said that "energy does not require mass"!

What I said was that ZERO energy does not require mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

HMMmm
The big bang started with energy being supplied to mass at zero
temperature
What supplied that energy has not been determined but it was energy
provided to mass, possibly hydrogen since it is first on an element
list, that propelled the parts of the broken initial mass. The initial
energy can only be provided back per Newtons laws is by all mass
returning to the initial point of rest. Therefore since a boundary was
formed around every piece of mass that was emitted since it generated
its own environment it is impossible for all boundaries to return to
the original point as the environments generated within each boundary
fills all the space around the original point of action. Thus unless
all boundaries decay to nothing, which means all energy now be zero,
it still leaves us with the initial mass to be accounted for that was
the carrier of the initially supplied energy! In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.
I have a feeling that scientists today are getting close to assigning
different
names to the same parts by viewing the same but from different vantage
points ie a cluster of particles having a different name to that of
its parts.
Art