Apparently Dr. Jamil sees nothing wrong with his accusations that others are mudslinging while doing the same thing himself. His accusation against me, saying that I know nothing of physics and just do a Google search, is grossly insulting.

As has been noted, he is a medical doctor while I am an engineer. At the very least, one should acknowledge of the two of us, I am the one more likely to be acquainted with physics. Certainly his outrageous and extensive citation of Michelson H. Morely should put to rest any discussion about the quality of his research. To put it mildly (and as respectfully as I can muster), we have a charlatan quoting a lunatic.

Moreover, he has the nerve to post his remarkably silly paper twice on this list, as if repetition makes it more substantive. However, since he seems confused by photons, I'll sum it up for him again:

1) a photon has a rest mass of zero.
2) a photon carries non-zero energy.
3) because (even in Newtonian physics) this leads to a division by zero in calculating the velocity, the photon can only travel at the speed of light (an "infinite" velocity because time stops at that speed).
4) a photon carries inertia and is affected by gravity. Its inertial mass is non-zero, equivalent to its energy (as per e=mc^2, or if you prefer, m=e/c^2, which shows how incredibly small the inertial mass of a photon is).

There is no "problem" of the photon's mass to be resolved. It works exactly as Einstein's theories say it should. Take something with a
non-zero rest mass and you will never accelerate it to the speed of light. Neutrinos have a very small but non-zero rest mass and travel
very fast. Electrons are much heavier and quite difficult to accelerate to near light speed. Protons are heavier still and therefore even more difficult. The latest colliders, like CERN's Large Hadron Collider, are tens of kilometers in circumference and use enough energy to power a city just to accelerate protons to high speed. At 99.99% of the speed of light, relativistic effects overwhelm the physics of Newton's time.

His source also notes that Einstein's mathematics give the same results as Lorentz's. Again, this is to be expected. Lorentz proposed a method of resolving the Michelson/Morley results (strange how Jamil's source has a name so close to a famous team of physicists, isn't it?) that yielded correct results but could not explain why it was happening.
Einstein formulated an explanation that yielded the correct calculations. That is why his theory survives while Lorentz's calculations are historical footnotes.