Physicists attack cosmological model

You stated "Sounds much like my photons at rest".

All I am looking for is a simple URL pointing to the article where you have come to this conclusion.

No rants, no longwinded posts, no boasts about taking down webservers, a reference explaining how you have come up with your figure for your `photons at rest` is all I'm asking for.

Basically I'm working off the supposed expertise of team Hubble, by taking their photonic mass of 5.81e-66 / 9e16

That 9e16 factor is roughly the speed of light squared, of which I believe works nicely into the kinetic formula of KE = MV2.

Although, since there's a nearly endless borg like collective of souls that'll ignore any association of photon mass whatsoever, that intellectual swamp alone seems to have become the actual barrier to the speed of light.

Light speed is NOT an absolute constant, as my argument per something that supposedly offers no apparent mass which could exist as a constant, though obviously that's not inclusive of photons.

Now then, all we need to understand is how many of them photons at rest might actually fit within a given M3, say a m3 residing roughly 8% of the way towards Sirius should be within a fairly good gravity-well null point or zone of nearly nothing. If there should be something that's a wee bit darker than usual at such a location, it sands to reason that we've located upon a bunch of them photons at rest, as getting bunched up into a sufficient mass that we're not able to clearly see through.

If we understood how much mass a m3 worth of dark matter represented, as then we'd obviously have some notions as to what amount of energy and/or atomic Oort zones it would take as to re-activate and/or pass other photons (light) through said dark matter.

Are we talking billions of trillions/m3, or (trillions upon trillions)3/m3, whereas it seems at some point it's going to get more difficult to see through all of those resting photons.

Eventually I'll have to figure out how to publish this in a logical manner, although I have an ongoing agenda (hardly hidden) of getting folks to image as much as possible upon Venus, looking for those photons that are hardly anything but at rest, and of coming from somewhere they're not supposed to be at that.

Basically I'm working off the supposed expertise of team Hubble, by taking their photonic mass of 5.81e-66 / 9e16

ok... so you didnt work out the value then. Fair enough, can you give a URL or astro-ph reference to where team Hubble have established this mass? I've searched on hubblesite.org but couldnt find a reference to it.

It would be beneficial to read their paper no only to see the procedure but also to see their conclusions on the implications of the result.

Cheers,
~Al

This time I used GOOGLE search for: "Hubble+photon+mass" or "5.81+photon+mass"
www.signaldisplay.com/relativity.html
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-6/sh1.pdf
www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/is...v452n2/5273/5273.pdf

I'll trace back to where otherwise I've originally uncovered that 5.81e-66 gram or 5.81e-69 kg offered as one of those team Hubble constants. Though of various other estimates provided for the mass of a given photon, it seems dividing such by the speed of light (squared) is going to suggest upon the photon at rest mass.

So, in a sense I did in fact work out the value of a given photon at rest. I just don't have a specific number per how many of those resting photons might fit into a given m3 (I bet there's lots).

BTW; I understand there's "proof positive" that the speed of light and/or the energy wave of a given photon may travel much faster through certain substances, and otherwise managed down to a velocity of nearly zero speed under other conditions.

1) What on eartyh make syou think you were responsible for the ineptitude of our hosting company? I can tell you categorically that you had nothing to do with it. Talk about an over inflated ego.

2) www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/625-2.html
This is a purely theoretical paper. It does not claim the mass of the photon as a fact. It just PREDICTS a possible mass for the photon. In their abstract they say as much and actually use the word predict.

You are taking this paper completely out of context and trying to use it to support some other strange ideas.

I still don't see what this paper has to do with static electrons. Just becaue a photon has a rest mass does not mean that a photon can rest!

Science is always taking things out of context, much like Einstein took a number of things out of context when he worked at the department of patents. Perhaps I'm taking more than my fair share.

BTW; The matter of shutting down "irishastronomy.org" still lives. I was informed explicitly that it was of what I had posted that upset the irishastronomy.org space time continuum, and I believe that's a fact, even though I do not fully understand. Another fact remains, if nice folks wanted to access into "irishastronomy.org", lo and behold, oddly they still can't accomplish that simple task without utilizing an internet back door, at least that's what I have to do. I actually haven't done all that much to publish that fact, but perhaps I should.

I totally accept your argument;
"I still don't see what this paper has to do with static electrons. Just because a photon has a rest mass does not mean that a photon can rest!"

I'm certainly not smart enough to figure out what's what about the likes of photons nor dark matter, although I'm willing to give a number of folks, that at least seem to know what they're talking about, credit where credit is due. Since I hadn't previously seen a photon at rest stipulated as a specific value, perhaps that's why I offered my notions, which may or may not be sufficiently correct.

BTW No.2; Besides what you've offered, there seems to be a fair number of ongoing conjectures as to the mass of a photon, with few of those in agreement, of which I'm assuming that of whatever the stated mass is is based upon such a photon traveling along at light speed, thus dividing that given mass (of whatever amount) by a factor of c2 or velocity squared seems doable.

I actually do NOT agree with the Hubble 14 billion year old universe, however I haven't squat worth of expertise to offer, other than my consideration towards others having stipulated upon numerous timelines of the so called "Big Band", as well as those saying there's NO such thing as a "Big Bang" that seems to remind myself of the GR folks insisting that a photon, and thereby any number of photons, offers NO mass.