Strange

There do seem to be some who think "but it's in The Constitution therefore it is Right and True, and can never be changed".

Because a valid mathematical proof might not describe the real world.

Why? He never suggested something so random and incoherent. What is your source for this description of photon behaviour? Or did you make it up?

Something not covered by any of the existing theories; something that no one has yet thought of. Something ... you know ... else. (Or maybe, to keep things simple, it is just a form of matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetic forces.)

Banning open bottles of beer but allowing them to carry weapons of mass destruction. Makes perfect sense.

Impossible green sheep dream furiously in crumbly plinkle.

What? Where do you get all this from?

Just like all the other suggested solutions. You can mathematically prove a physical theory but that doesn't tell you if it is correct or not

Which? Maxwell's equations or QED?

It used to be a rather exclusive club but they let anyone in now. Can you spell "straw man"?

Why do you think photons have a displacement back and forth?

John Baez is always worth reading.

Occams Razor. As it is attributed to an unnamed professor from an unnamed university it sounds like an urban myth. SO I assume it is just a thought experiment. You can prove things is mathematics without reference to anything in the real world. You can't do that in physics. However, one thing they both have in common is that they both look like plurals but are singular nouns.

I still have no idea what the question is. "What makes you think you understand more than others about an incomplete theory?" It doesn't really make much sense as a general question. It depends on ones level of expertise and understanding of the theory. (All theories are incomplete.)

Regarding the argument that allowing people to carry guns can reduce the danger when some crazy guy (and/or terrorist) starts shooting people, as there is a mass shooting almost everyday in the USA there should be some good statistical data to support (or otherwise) this argument. So, of all the cases of mass shootings, how many were much less serious than they would have been because a member of the public was carrying a weapon? 10%? 50%? 90%?

I am sure that people in the UK, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc would say exactly the same thing about their countries.

Another reason why you should ALWAYS provide references for the sources you uses.

That equation is only for stationary objects with mass. The full form is [math]E^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/math]. (where p = momentum). For a photon this is E = pc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc2

No.

Mommeeee!! The nasty man asked me to explain what I meant and I can't and it's not fair.

If it is matter, then it seems like it was created at about the same time as other matter. No. The amount appears to be constant. It could be any of those. Or something else.

In the simplest case (hydrogen) then yes we can detect it. Expecting it to be stationary is a bit unrealistic. Clouds of gas are normally moving under the effects of radiation pressure, gravity, inertia, etc. And dark matter is moving. So it also seems irrelevant. These are not stablehand we would see the characteristic radiation as they decay.

What is "it"?

It is distributed throughout galaxies, with the highest density near the centre. (What is the domino galaxy?) No one knows.

A single one wouldn't be. And it depends on the type of boson. We can detect clouds of hydrogen, for example (it absorbs light).