This is the core issue I've been trying t0 get across for over a year since joining SF in July, 2014. Do we need a Higgs boson/field to explain inertia or not? Electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, and their antiparticles all get their inertial mass from Higgs. Gluons don't. Color charge is not involved. Gluons and color charge interactions with quarks make up 98% of the mass of the atom, but without that other 2% -- the whole atomic structure flys apart. And really, who gives a damn whether gluons and color charge interactions are energy or mass, because it is all exactly the SAME THING. Since 1905. Since E=mc^2. What? Do you all just look at that equation, use it every day, and then just glaze over when someone asks you what it means? Inertia means traveling in a straight line. Photons do that. So does matter. Unless acted upon by an outside force. Matter does that. So do photons. Same thing, as in SAME THING. There is only energy, and time. Particle physicists seem to be in denial, if not of relativity, of what the foundational particle of the Standard Model means. They are too busy looking for the hidden and broken and super symmetries and the infinite joy of Hilbert spaces and Lie groups to bother about physical bindings to the reality they have no choice other than to inhabit, even if they are determined to ignore exactly what that means. Sometimes, the promethean board needs to be erased instead of publishing more of the same old, same old. I'm sure the likes of John Dewey and all of academia built on his philosophy of teaching whatever is available to teach would approve. This doesn't mean that I need to. Sooner or later, in my own case MUCH later, you need to decide on your own which things are important, and which you may safely ignore. There simply isn't enough room between your ears to keep both and have time enough left to do anything that is really new with it. Keep E=mc^2, if only because Dewey never really learned it.