its difficult to agree with you on that "lights energy has no mass". but i guess you are saying light is purely projection from its source thats why it has no mass.
like looking at a person from a distance that persons mass or brightness doesnt have a mass but quantamly they say it does from entaglement. ehhhh but thanks for writing that i will consider this for many days for a new understanding
By definition, anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light and anything without mass must travel at the speed of light.
Light is affected by gravity, but that doesnt mean it has mass. It is because gravity affects the manifold with which "stuff happens." This requires general relativity for an explanation of gravity. Light is described by quantum mechanics. Relativistic quantum m echanics (and uktimately QED) is the closest science has come to combining the two but it is only valid in inertial frames. A fully relativistic description of the quantum world has yet to be developed.
Regardless, the "classical" view of physics (where conceptual understanding and intuition tends to hold up better) fails to properly describe both (which is why both of the newer theories were needed).
The universe is best described mathematically. Math properly describes the world and accurately predicts future events time and time again when conceptual understanding fails.
For relativity this means tensor analysis and differential geometry in Einstein's day and differential forms and calculus on rigorously defined "manifolds" in modern appriaches.
For quantum mechanics this means wave mechanics or matrix mechanics and eigenvalue solutions of "operators" (and tensor analysis in relativistic descriptions...which is really just a more general form of vector analysis).
Once quantum computing becomes viable (or if traditional computing power gets high enough) then numerical analysis for both theories will probably lead to the biggest advances in the theories in their current form (computational physics is already the only real way of solving actual problems with any complexity).
It can be frustrating that math is what ends up describing the world...and everyone would love if that werent the case (look up Roger Penrose...he develops some really innovative ways of looking at things non-mathematically...similar to what Feynman diagrams did, but for relativity), but mathematics continues to be the best description of "how things work."
