I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.

I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.

There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.

A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.

It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.

The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.

Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.

I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?

No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this.

You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.

No, I don't know it.

That's a stong accusation. I have provided the logic behind what I have postulated. Perhaps you could provide evidence as to why I am wrong.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was.

"A photon has no mass.

As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."

This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.

" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Therefore, to define mass you need time. A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed but that does not explain how it can impart energy or momentum upon obliteration.

If you think about it which is the most unlikely, 1) that a photon does not experience time, or 2) a photon does experience time as it travels backward in time but it appears to not experience time as it travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. A photon may not seem to experience time but it does produce causality which relies upon time. In a sense time is based upon the speed of light or vice versa. Is it really impossible for a photon to travel backwards in time. A mass-less 'particle' is allowed by GR to travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?

Strange you would call that an accusation. See, I would have believed that you have read enough sci-pop books to tell you that a photon does not have a frame of reference and that time dilation is infinitely stretched for one of these things? You claim however that you are unaware of this? Most people who don't even read much relativity know of this...

**''"A photon has no mass.**

As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."You know, recently you asked me about a model concerning the outdated theory that antiparticles where moving back in time. I take it that this is now your new fixated topic, systems moving back in time?

A photon does not have a mass, this is correct, but the psuedovector of a photon is stretched into infinity, provided by the subtle but correct equation

[tex]\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = 0[/tex].

Because time is stretched in this way, a photon actually takes no time to move anywhere... in fact a more accurate thing is to say, a photon's birth is the same as it's death. A photon moves nowhere in space because not a second passes for it.

This is why your theory/speculations is wrong.

**''This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.**

" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.''Which by default is incorrect as well because you assumption a photos experiences time (worse yet you want to see it move back in time) is faulty.

The reason why a photon imparts momentum on objects is simply because

[tex]E^2 = (Mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/tex]

It doesn't get simpler than that.

**''Therefore, to define mass you need time.''**No you don't. In fact, it is the other way around. To define time, you require mass. Mass is not dependant on time and time is not a function of mass.

**'' A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed ''**A moment ago you said you did not know that a photon does not experience time. I said you knew this and then you accused me of strongly accusing you of things you did not know. Yet that part seems to indicate you did know this.

**'' Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?''**The above should be enough to show you, you are wrong.