Wow, good for you! Thanks for the Ad hominem attacks!
IÃ‚Â´m sorry if you think that was an ad hominem attack, I apologize but it was not meant to be one.
The problem I think you have is that in your imagination, something with no mass is non-existant, or something like that. I donÃ‚Â´t know how you get to this conclusion but it is simply wrong.
You could actually weight photons. Not directly but with restrictions you put on their behavior.
Demanding for a picture of a single photon is really childish. ItÃ‚Â´s like asking what temperature has an atom.
It is not yet proven, that photons have no rest mass but it is very save to say the rest mass lies below at least 1,8*10^-33 g. Some measurements put the limit a lot of orders of magnitude lower.
The problem is with photons having a mass is that you canÃ‚Â´t use the coulomb potential any more for calculating electrostatic interactions, but the consequences with that would be measurable.
Molecules are moving if there is heat in the substance, because heat IS molecules moving. The heat is created because the molecules rearrange their electron orbitals to alter their energy level. The lowering of the energy level of the molecules releases heat, which is transferred into faster moving of the molecules or emitting photons :-)
How do Chemical Reactions that create heat, create heat without friction? Are their molecules not moving? Are you serious?
If your picture with friction would be right. The friction generating heat would slow down the molecules, wouldnÃ‚Â´t it? But heat IS the moving of the molecules, that doesnÃ‚Â´t fit donÃ‚Â´t you think?
I donÃ‚Â´t get it. Now you say light has no mass? what is it?
Me, I state that light is constant inside a Vacuum. I follow all the rules, but light is slowed down through a medium, and I have faith that through the zero mass of Photons that lightspeed will slightly remain constant after the medium, but not completely because we don't live in a true vacuum.
Well you heard about the 2. Law of Thermodynamics? Energy can never be created nor destroyed only change itÃ‚Â´s "type". So how should a photon release itÃ‚Â´s energy if there is nothing to release it to? There has to be a mechanism.
This also creates more problems for the Atheist. How does light remain constant? How does it keep it's energy? This is truly on the edge of the supernatural, because natural laws can't explain it.
If light hits matter it interacts with the electrons of the molecules by elevating the electrons to higher energy levels. Thats why things are colored.
All these things are covered with the natural laws and they demand the photon to be massless and to keep itÃ‚Â´s energy until it hits matter in a specific way.
This is all really junior high grade physics.
All this has not yet anything to do with special relativity. These are the foundations, right, but they are part of electrodynamics and other physic before Einstein.
I do partially agree with the old ideas, but I like to think for myself, instead of being traped by the Dogmatic control of people who spew hate to those who try and think logically outside the rediculous box of Special Relativity.
Nobody spews hate, but i think i feel a lot of hate in your posts for the kind of physic you donÃ‚Â´t understand. Nobody is hindering you to think for yourself but i think you havenÃ‚Â´t thought it out fully.
If you like I could lead you through the basics of physic if you want and maybe you find it logical when you understand it.
What is it you learn in school about physics and chemistry? This shouldnÃ‚Â´t be an ad hominem. I just ask for clarification.