Hubble photon mass at rest = 5.81e-66/9e16 ?

voyager; "This makes absolutely no sense because if there are atoms present t hen it is impossible to have zero gravity. Atoms have mass so they cause gravity"

Good grief; now you're suggesting that there has to be somewhere that not even one atom exist per m3.

Don't take my notions so freaking absolute, after all, I'm not as smart as yourself.


2) voyager; "You cann't have photons at rest in free space! The only way ot have zero gravity is to have a vacuum and in a vacuum light (i.e. photons) travel at the speed of light. So the answer is none becaue you cann't HAVE any photons at rest in a zero gravity m^3"

OK, that's in agreement with my argument that perhaps photons can't exist without the atom.

BTW; I never stipulated absolute zero gravity. The closest thing I'm suggest upon is of a gravity-well null zone between big galaxies, or perhaps somewhere between us and Sirius/abc, and I believe that's a spot roughly residing at 8% of the distance towards Sirius.


3) how many fully energised photons per spectrum or community of spectrums are there per m3?


Photons seems to have a minute (quantum string) worth of mass with at least one dimension while at rest, perhaps two dimensions while flying through or conducting through space at 3e8/m/s, or at some other speed depending upon the medium or waveguide at hand, and of a possible quantum third dimension if being frequency modulated(FM) and well as amplitude modulated(AM).

If there's a known number of active photons/m3, and if those were of non-active photons (at rest), then how many of those insignificant little suckers would fit/m3?


4) voyager; "photons don't rest!", is this the truth and nothing but the truth?


5) If there is a conduction mode of photons taking place, then perhaps photons don't actually travel about?


6) voyager; "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant", but lo and behold, you just stipulated there's no such thing as zero gravity and thereby no such vacuum within a vacuum.


7) I already knew that part, but say at the gravity-well null point between us and Sirius, or at some other God forsaken place in the universe; how many atoms/m3 exist.

voyager; "Errr ... I never said photons have mass, they are massless particles"

So you and Brian O'Halloran are of those thinking team Hubble is simply chuck full of it, about their 5.81e-66 gram per photon?

Does that mean that team Hubble's 14 billion year old universe is in the space toilet as well?

BTW; I'm still assuming there's quite a good ratio of photons/atom. Is there any viable notion as to how many?

2) voyager; "You cann't have photons at rest in free space! The only way ot have zero gravity is to have a vacuum and in a vacuum light (i.e. photons) travel at the speed of light. So the answer is none becaue you cann't HAVE any photons at rest in a zero gravity m^3"

OK, that's in agreement with my argument that perhaps photons can't exist without the atom.

What???

How does that agree with your argument at all? I have not said ANYTHING that could even be remotely interpreted as meaning that photons could not exists without atoms. THat is like saying cars cannot exists without chalk! What are you basing this totaly bizare idea that photons need atoms on?

3) how many fully energised photons per spectrum or community of spectrums are there per m3?

Photons seems to have a minute (quantum string) worth of mass with at least one dimension while at rest, perhaps two dimensions while flying through or conducting through space at 3e8/m/s, or at some other speed depending upon the medium or waveguide at hand, and of a possible quantum third dimension if being frequency modulated(FM) and well as amplitude modulated(AM).

If there's a known number of active photons/m3, and if those were of non-active photons (at rest), then how many of those insignificant little suckers would fit/m3?

OK, 1) there is no evidence what so ever that photons have any mass at all. Infact there is circumstancial evidence to the contrary.
2) Photons obey the laws of quantum physics, they don't really have dimensions in the classical sense.
3) What on earth is an "active photon" and what on earth makes you think there is such a thing as an "inactive photon". Have you any basis for this wildflight of fancey at all? If not then I argue that all the dark mater is caused by a particle called the Barton which I just made up now and will decide the properties of later as I see fit but with as much scientific basis as your "inactive photons".

4) voyager; "photons don't rest!", is this the truth and nothing but the truth?

Ok, in the domain we are discussing (i.e. interstelar and intergalactic media), yes.

5) If there is a conduction mode of photons taking place, then perhaps photons don't actually travel about?

"conduction mode"? What on earth are you talking about. I get the distinct impression that you are just making up words and phrases to sound inteligent. If you cannot make your poinbt in plain simple english using words and phrases that an honours phyiscs graduate like myself can understand then I would tend to conclude that you don't have a valid point to make.

So you and Brian O'Halloran are of those thinking team Hubble is simply chuck full of it, about their 5.81e-66 gram per photon?

I would put my faith in the following result:
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/625-2.html

This states that an UPPER LIMMIT on the mass of a photon is of the order of 10^-51, in other words we KNOW it has to be smaller than that mass. There is still good reason to assume it is zero.

www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/625-2.html
Does that mean that team Hubble's 14 billion year old universe is in the space toilet as well?

BTW; I'm still assuming there's quite a good ratio of photons/atom. Is there any viable notion as to how many?[/quote]

Can you provide a reference to the results from this "Team hubble" you keep on mentioning, I'm not aware of thier work so I'd like to read about it.

I don't understand this idea of a ratio of photons to atoms. That is like asking for a ratio of butterflies to potatoes per square mile of soil. You can go take that ratio in a thousand different places and you will get a thousand different answers!