Does light have Mass?

I do not even try to understand space time, why bother? Seriously, all of the multiple PhD's who say that they do, all disagree, and the ones who seem successful, all write a book and try to capitalize on the ignorance of the public. Stephen Hawking is a prime example of this as he has now recanted his black hole nonsense. Pete, you do not understand, no one understands space time, Einstein himself recanted the static universe theory. While it is fine to be interested in universal cosmology, believing that you are going to solve anything, is irrational.....

Well I think the answers are in plain view. Fabric of space, Web of space, structure of space, resistance to other structures (having a speed limit implies there is something in the way), the force required to push mater past speed of light could be explained by an accumulation of this material.
What do you make of it? Just your personal belief. Do you think that space is a real structure? Like the old theory of it being a medium.

Pete, do you believe, that you are more intelligent, than Albert Einstein was, or at least that you are now in a favorable position, to solve all of the missing equations associated with the cosmological constant/mathematical universe/theory of everything?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

You have evaded the question, which is do you believe, that you can finish the mathematical equations, the Einstein has begun?

My point of view at this moment, revolves around that question.

I'm just looking for anything that was missed. I am not looking for credit deserved to those who dedicated their lives in researching the material.
And that is just to base my questions to understand points of views.

So you are looking for what Einstein missed, in his equations, which means that you believe that you have the ability to correct, or finish Einstein's, work.

Are you also working on the theory of everything, and looking for the God particle, that creates all mass?

Just looking for your point of view.
Do you think that space is a real structure or imaginary?

I know that space is real, I do not think this.

I know that my point of view on dark matter or energy, is inconsequential, to finding these things.

Thank you.
Do you think that it is a logical assumption to make, that a structure like a photon that has insulating properties, that when it hits certain structures and the heat is transferred , that part of the photon structure is left behind?

What are the insulating properties of photons?

Ooh geez there I go again. I thought I posted all the sites that had the research to base my questions, to understand point's of view. Let's see if I remember some of the parts of the top of my head. Let's see there is a quark, antiquark .. well let's make it simpler. Your outside ,a tiny structure coming from the sun, touches your skin and you feel the warmth it released.
Do you think is reasonable to assume that some residue is left behind after the heat is transferred?

I see math as a language to describe structures. In the current description it says that the entire structure is transferred.
Do you picture that occurring? Or do you picture something being left behind?

No because the Earth is bombarded by photons continuously.

So all parts of the structure (all the parts of a quark, antiquark, the heat itself, etc. ) gets transferred.
Even though the structure is durable enough to carry heat for billions of years.
It all gets transferred to the new structure.
Is that how you picture it occurring?

Trillions of earth masses are moving faster than the speed of light as the Universe expands.
Do you believe that leverage, would be the obvious to look at, when looking for the force required to accomplish this?

Like putting a grain of sand in a confined space is easy. Put many grains of sand, and it creates enough force to break the container.

Currently nothing is known to be traveling faster than light, though there is some current speculation that quantum spooky entanglement, as applied to quantum teleportation, might actually be instantaneous. Though a much farther distance than the 15 mile record for this will need to be achieved to record actual measurements of time so small.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4384

They kinda use the same words here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
But if the definition of dark energy is "a structure that is not at a state of rest" . Than that's not the structure I'm looking for.
I picture the structure of space to be at a state of rest and constantly accumulating.
That way there is no resistance as matter or other structures move in space. Because they would be just riding the expansion.
Does that seem logical to you?

Pete, there is no definitive definition of dark energy. It's a theory, just like dark matter, they are both created to fill a void in a mathematical equation that is also a theory.

Do you know the difference, between theory and reality?