Speed of light related to mass

Photons of light have no mass and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

To add to The Borg's response, you are probably under the misapprehension that velocities add linearly and can get something to move faster than c. This is not correct. Google "relativistic velocity addition".

 

As has already been pointed out, but I will repeat it since you seem to have missed it, light (photons) HAS no mass, so mass has nothing to do with the speed of light. The speed of light has been determined fairly closely by experiment, but is now DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

 

Photon always travels!It travels with c irrespective of source speed.Photon has rest mass 0.It still has momentum.A gamma photon has momentum much higher than an infrared light photon. If we assume railway engine as a gamma photon and a bicycle as a infrared photon both travelling at same speed then the devastating capability of engine is too high in comparison.

 

The speed of light was originally determined by the Danish astronomer, Ole Roemer while observing the orbits of Io around Jupiter. He noticed that the apparent motion Io changed as the Earth moved from one side of the sun to the other in relation to Io. From this, he was able to calculate the first estimates of the speed of light.

The consistancy of the speed of light is one of the two postulates of Special Relativity:

These two starting assumptions came about from Einstein trying to resolve two issues in physics:

In order to completely understand how light and mass mathematically relate to each other, you have to have take college level courses in calculus and electromagnetism in order to have the basics needed to do the math. Proving the relationship comes from the math.

If you want to dig deeper into how it works, check out the Special Relativity link above or you can try this site which tries to explain all things E=MC² in laymans terms.

 

You are asking this 'the wrong way round', I think. c is a fundamental constant (at least, all our measurements seem to confirm this). It is tightly bound to the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, so, rather than being "determined by", it is "part of a structure which our present model is based on".
c was introduced into EM theory long before Relativity came along and early work tells us that the speed of EM waves is independent of frequency. Einstein then tied it in with Space and time, in general.

 

There is no experimental evidence at all that light has mass so it seems pretty clear to me that the question has no relevance to the real world.
You seem to be making up a 'Physics' that is just speculative and that isn't the brief of PF. See the guidelines at the home page of the forum to see that PF is not a platform for this sort of thing.

 

In a single sentence, and with a single usage, you are using "the speed of light" to mean two entirely different things. First, there is a "universal speed limit" which is the speed limit of all massless things. We know that light is massless and for historical reasons, we use the term "speed of light" to mean "the universal speed limit" although the universal speed limit is in fact independent of the actual speed of light. Second, if light DID turn out to have mass, no matter how tiny (which it does not) then it would NOT travel at the universal speed limit so in that sense it would not travel at "the speed of light" as used in the first item, it would travel at what I suppose we would come to call "the speed of photons" just as we talk about "the speed of neutrinos".

As to the second part of your question, all photons travel at the same speed, "c" regardless of their energy. gianeshwar already told you that.

You have, repeatedly, been given answers to both parts of your question but you seem to be fixated on the idea that you have discovered some new physics that miraculously no other physicists has ever thought of. You would do better studying physics as it is, not as you want it to be.