Does light have Mass?

Google expressed over 3 million points of view to you..........If you do not want to accept them, that is ok as well. I have no serious point of view, on space time equations.

Ok. Thank you.
I'll try to keep my questions on this matter (a pun) to others that have a point of view on it.
If anyone missed the conversation, we were discussing the current description of structures that says zero mass. I see it as someone adding a math problem coming out with the number zero and than describing structures made of zero mass. (Made out of nothing) . It sounds comical so I'm trying to understand how is zero mass still used to describe structures.

If someone is explaining a structure to you and in the middle they said "and this structure is zero inches long. The reason for this is because a structure 5 inches long combined with a structure -5 inches long. "
Wouldn't you question the -5 inch structure to exist?
Zero mass, zero volume, when giving the description of structures the number zero don't make sense to me.
Does it make sense to anyone else?

Imagine a pill bottle with 5 pills, and an antimatter pill bottle with 5 antimatter pills, they combine, and pills never were.

Do you follow?

Anti matter. Ok I'll challenge that theory.
That sounds like our -15 inches structure.
Does this anti matter has a negative volume too?

Imagine a pill bottle with 5 pills prescribed for schizophrenia, and an antimatter pill bottle with 5 antimatter pills prescribed for anti schizophrenia, they combine, and schizophrenia pills never were. However the empty bottle remains, as only the pills were annihilated due to the reaction?

Do you follow?

Yeah I think you are saying you believe in a structure with negative volume. (Giggles) could you explain how when it touches another structure how it magically disappears? Does it go to another Universe? How does it get there?

Being that physics deals with physical objects, should we put non physical structures in a more suited place? Like the fairy tale section?

You clearly need to watch more Star Trek.

I don't watch much tv .
I find that the world around me is much more entertaining.
So do you want to defend this point of view of yours about structures with negative volume being able to exist?

Pete, I have no clue as to what you are speaking about. You might want to tune into TV, for the Latuda and Abilify commercials. And Star Trek, beats this any day, even more so, if you believe in space time fluctuations in the neutral zone.

No. I do not believe in a "physical" description of any structure that the number for the volume is negative.
I find it comical to even suggest that non physical structures be part of physics.

Yes Pete, but will your denial of the obvious positive situation, effect your escape, into a world not of photons and electrons, but of cyber non-reality.

Hey do you think they should make a department called negative physics to keep all the negative volume structures. .. the whole negative volume Universe theories together?
That way we can describe the physical Universe.

Pete, forget the universe, you are missing all of the wonders of life here on the Earth. Have you ever seen a dolphin jump out of the water at sunset, or a humpback whale exhale it's last breath. Don't miss the beauty that is under your feet, for what you will never find in the cosmos.

It is isn't? Hey I love your first name.
I will open a topic next to discuss how dna evolved.
It will be an honor to hear your point of view there.
But this topic about using the number zero to describe a structure.

DNA controls all evolution, so it is impossible for it to have evolved. DNA was created with the computer that it controls, you. However sometimes, as in any computer program, the programming is not quite perfect, and issues arise.

Ok I just opened a topic to discuss DNA. Now we can leave this one for discussion of using the number zero to describe a structure.

well the question is "Does light have mass"? Of course one first has to know what is 'mass' and 'science' doesn't , and one has to know what is 'light' and 'science' doesn't.

Hence the question has no meaning.

Not true, science knows what both mass and light are on a fundamental Earth level, but the new questions, involve, where does mass come from in the first place. Enter the theoretical God particle that some unproven mathematical model demands, and must exist for the model to be correct, but as we know, the model does not need to be correct. There is work currently being done, apart from the supercollider, that seems to be indicating that quantum spooky entanglement, is actually an instantaneous transmittal of information, which crushes the light as top speed in the universe postulate, which means throw away all books and begin again. So the frustrating thing, is knowing that we as a race, are discovering, that the more we know, that the less of what we knew yesterday makes any sense. However, what is mass and or light, are not questions that necessarily have an answer, in the form that we are looking for, or might even understand, if presented with.