That just shows how wrong everthing has been concluded. My question is why only light. And why is this C the end of imagination for 99.99% humans. to me That sounds like alien brain wash conspiracy against humans.
Actually both sides here are taking a bit of liberty with truth. 1 - There has certainly been no proof given here that light has mass. 2 - It is equally wrong that some here have claimed it has been proven that light is massless. The actual status is that if light does have mass then all current theories are invalid. That is not "Proof" in the correct sense of the word but it certainly gives it considerable weight as being fact. Actual testing has proven that the mass of light is something less than 1E-66kg.
You can't ever really prove that light has no mass, just like you can't ever really prove anything. No matter how many experiments you come up with to show that light has no mass, I can always just claim that your experiments are flawed, that you faked the data, or some other thing. When dealing with the real world it is only ever possible to weigh evidence and make informed decisions based on what you know. There is a vast body of evidence to indicate that light does not have mass, and no evidence that it does. So unless you're some sort of hyper-skeptical person who doubts everything and believes in nothing, the only reasonable conclusion is that light has no mass. It's especially sad that most people who cling desperately to the idea of light having mass seem to do so simply because they don't like it that light doesn't have mass. It's obvious that rather then trying to come to a conclusion by examining evidence, they're simply deciding that light must have mass because it hurts their brain to believe otherwise, and so they ignore the evidence and try desperately to come up with a reason why light must have mass. If you don't want to believe that light is massless then that's your right, but be aware that every serious physicist in the world disagrees with you. Yes, it's possible that you're right and ever physicist in the world is wrong, but I would suggest that you carefully examine how unlikely that would be.
MacM, I once showed you how from the principle of gauge invariance you must have an electromagnetic field which has the Maxwell's equations as fields equations. You must surely know that from Maxwell's equation, light is massless.(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=463762#post463658) I'll repeat you the proof here:
It is not only light. It is a special property of this speed, and light is the most noticeable thing that travels at that speed. What it is is a theory based on sound theoretical work, and a century of experiment. There have been a lot of very clever and skeptical physicists since 1905, and if the work did not appear to be correct in some obvious way, many would have said so. Instead, it is the judgement of a century of phsycists that Special Relativity seems to be right. I suggest that if you are firmly convinced that you are correct, you submit a paper to an actual physics journal. It would be the discovery of the century.
What shows how wrong everything has been concluded? It's not only light but everything massless that travels at c. If you would have known physics, you would have known that it is the starting, not the end. You must indeed belong to the 99.99% who do not know physics and think that this is the end of imagination. To me, this sound like a poor excuse for not understanding SR.
Nasor and I didn't claim otherwise. Infact I stated that the bases for claiming no mass are current theory. You have not jproven light has no mass you have jproven only that Maxwell requires it have no mass. I really care less if it has mass or not. My point was the miss statements being made.
No, what I have proven is that by the gauge principle, you must have a massless field that solve the Maxwell's equations. I suggest that you read the proof again and if you don't agree with the proof, show me where it is wrong. If you don't care, then don't say: . However, if you say that, be ready to be shown that you are wrong by claiming this.
I do believe the following from your posts says it all. A conclusion beginning with an "Assumption" is exactly as I have stated. You have only proven that in accordance with preferred current theory that light is massless.
When you talk about photons, you talk about quantum field theory. When you ask about the mass of a photon, you make some assumptions. Under the same assumptions I have shown that there must be an em field, and that the photon (which is this field) is massless.
So then we are in agreement. The massless photon is based upon assumptions from current theory and is not proven in any physical tested way. That testing shows only that the mass must be under approximately 1E-66kg or 1E-60 kg I forget which right now.
Note that all tests also rely on theory. The tests you accept rely directly on what theory you accept.
We are very much in agreement. But what I see is that much if not most or all, test data doesn't exclusively support Relativity. That is it only doesn't exclude it but could just as well fit alternative descriptions of reality but it is repeatedly referred to as the bulk of proof of Relativity without giving any consideration to the fact that it isn't exclusive at all.
What are you talking about? You making assertions related to quantum electrodynamics, so I asked you if you'd ever taken a quantum mechanics course.
I can't recall assuming that the universe doesn't exist, and, in fact, I have reason to believe that it does since I am sitting in it right now. Your formula relating force, mass, and acceleration applies only to the special case of falling objects. In Newtonian physics, the mass of a body which is acted upon by a force can be calculated as the force divided by the acceleration imparted by that force. Regarding the formula you lifted with no comprehension from some physics book - the weight of the body divided by the acceleration due to gravity gives the mass of a falling object. The issue is irrelevant, though, since Newtonian formulas don't apply. The prospect of responding to your posts is not very tempting, since they contain implicit misonceptions, undefined terms, and are clearly the work of someone with no familiarity with the topic. I would be more inclined to respond to an assertion I disagree with if it at least indicated familiarity with the subject matter, and was clearly formulated. From this, and from your refusal to discuss your credentials, I can conclude that you have never been exposed to the theories you are attacking. When accepted theories in physics are revised, it is never by people who are unfamiliar with them.
Do U really believe I would jump in a waterless well after looking at Ur brain hamerage. I would rather waste all my life digging a new freash water well, With or without humans, All by myself and may be MacM.
