This Looks Like The Right Place

In other words a void, till space fills in some of it.

Not sure what you mean about "physically large dimensions", but I had always thought there were four dimensions. Unless time is not "physically large".

You will always do a poor job of educating if you are angry. Which is why my wife helps the kids with homework.

Good point, light does have mass so its maximum speed does change when near large mass's. It curves around large bodies, as does gravity.

Instead of getting angry flyrcalot should have asked, "what if it is space, and you cannot cut it". To which I would reply that it is still not infinate because you would keep passing the same point. To be infinate you would never pass the same point twice.

No, it doesn't. Light has momentum, but no mass.

No it doesn't.

That's correct.

Never heard that before. Got any references?

Well you are right about the gravity, I should have said that gravity curves space. But I though light did have a very very small mass of discharged sub atomic particles. Or can light exist without them?

Umm, Ok light is energy, and according to the therory of relativity it does not have mass. But I think you understand that I do not believe much of Einstien's work. I do not believe you can have energy without mass. I also understand this will get you all hepped up again.

But then Einstien said E=mc^2. Without mass wouldn't E = 0. One of the posters on your second site said that light does have mass and that Einstien proved it at a observatory in Brazil.

It's been pointed out that my previous response was simplifying things a little. See the link at the bottom of this post for a good explination.

In that case, m refers to "relativistic mass". Quoting from the linked article below:

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an outdated concept which is best avoided [See Relativity FAQ article Does mass change with velocity?] Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity. By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon.

It might be thought that it would be better to regard the relativistic mass as the actual mass of photons and light, instead of invariant mass. [...] However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object [...]

I was assuming the standard, modern usage of the word "mass." Being more specific: light has no _rest_ mass. Photons have momentum, but not rest mass. Here's a better explination that somebody pointed out to me:

Whether or not you belive it makes no difference.

In science it doesn't _matter_ whether you believe something or not.

Nope. I've realized once again that is indeed pointless to try to teach a mule to read.

If a photon doesn't have mass does the neutron? If the neutron doesn't have mass then does the electron? If none of these has any mass then I guess I can forget about my diet.

Here is link to an equation for the mass of a proton.

Yes.

Yes.

Sorry, you're not getting off that easy...

I think of it more in terms of existence and non existence. With the universe, there is existence, without the universe...

Ed Cregger

We were talking about photons, not protons.

Got photon's and proton's mixed up, noticed that when I actually read my link. Here is a link to photon mass and it backs up what you said Grant.

believe

Hard to learn when someone keeps trying to hit you with a 2x4! You need to use a bit more tact.