Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>  news:1116947832.023125.90290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Great question, and compare the answers to it:  Light has no mass, but
> > it has a so-called gobbledegook "mass equivalent", and both are answers
> > which assume theory to be reality, although neither one admits to that.
> >
> > Beyond the math gyrations of Theoretical Physics, there is only one
> > alternative explanation, that which my model of the universe propounds:
> >
> > 1. The formula E=mc^2
>
> which is only valid for massive particles with rest mass m
> at rest in the frame in which the energy E is measured,
> and which is therefore not valid for light,
>

There is no such animal as "rest mass" because the universe is in a
state of expansion and so every object in it is in motion so no one can
measure "rest mass".  Oh, you can say you do when you measure a mass at
rest in the same in which E is measured (more gibberish), but that
makes no sense.  You can measure a mass at rest in a frame in which
another object exists that is moving in space at the same speed and
direction as your mass, which means that they are both moving at
constant velocity wrt each other, and you can't call that rest mass
because rest mass is a math construct useful for many things, but not
for saying what I think you're trying to say above, as that sounds like
you need sleep.  You have taken two objects from a frame where only the
two exist and projected them onto the entire universe!