You are using the old GR-coup definition of "mass".
Everybody knows NOW that *LiGHT-mass* is h*f / c^2.
Time to give your NONsense, cracked-pot CONscience.
EinsteiN's m = e / c^2; GR-coup mass, NOT= e / c^2.
A small, HEAViLY FiNANCED group of dimwits actually
expected to successfully ENFORCE *GR-defined* mass.
Backed by UNiVERSiTYs and the MEDiA, they *ALMOST*.
brian a m stuckless

Igor wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
No mass --- No real physics !!

(just as simple as that!)

Copyright Y.Porat 19-10- 2005

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

If the photon had a mass, it would also necessarily have longitudinal
wave polarization. This has never been observed. Also electrostatic
fields would fall off expontentially and not as inverse square.
--------------------
IMHO
you are a kind of a 'General' that 'fights the war of the latest war'

IE no creative imagination
and without creative imagination you have no advance

the wish to do revisions must start the moment you feel and face
questionable dead end with the existing theory
dead ends you say later 'it was never found'
did W bosons or Higges Bosons found
does it makes sense to you that a messenger will be 90 times
heavier than its mother??
and i guess you could point much more bugs in the theory than i can
do.
so in such a case you have to start to look for the source of the
problem
in your paradigm from scratch.
and that is what i started to do
base don my experience and on my achievements in nuclear structure
that no one before went to far
it enabled me to see things that no one could see
it was a new window for me to find a new unknown world
including things that lead to new understanding of the world of matter
structure of matter etc that no one could ever before dream
so my world of matter is a very tangible world
--unlike the mathematical physics that sees anything on the flat paper
with formulas.
--------

Needless to say, this has never been observed either.

see above

Finally,
Maxwell's equations would no longer be valid for massive photons.
according to Maxwell's equations an EM wave of the frequency of
one cycle per a year is possible!!

**it was never observed**!!!!
( iow look for 'your problems as well'...)

you and others must internalize that a physics equation
HAS ITS LIMIT OF VALIDATION!!
the task of the reasonable physicist is to find those limits
he cannot be just a slave of a formula all Lang and unconditionally!!

They
would need to be replaced with Proca's equations,

and in that case
will the problem will be resolved??

but unfortunately
none of the consequences of these have ever been seen in nature either.
And certainly it is not for lack of looking.

i showed you problematic consequences of yours
without too much looking for.
having energy or momentum without having mass is not a problem
for you??
creation of mass by acceleration - is not a problem for you?
disappear ace of rest mass - is not a problem for you??
(provided you are not a mathematics parrot)

and my last mostr important assertion and suggestion:

the photon is not an ordinary particle!!--
it is a case for itself
for instance: the gama or beta factors - do not apply for them
and you dont as well have to expect polarization of it
or exactly the force law that you expect from a proton or electron
because the photon is a particle for itself- a new kind-
that has to be found and defined!!
and the situationnow is far from complete to do that job
the first step must be asome swich 'in th emind of scientists
and that is the humble job that i took on myself
any help will be appreciated
try to believe me- it is badly needed.

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------

I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't think you do
either. This entire post appears to be nothing but random babble.
It's okay to critique physical theories, but first it helps to know
what you are talking about. If photons have mass, it would have to be
a very small mass of less than 10^-50 kg in order to be consistent with
observation. And massive photons are certainly NOT supported at ALL by
Maxwell's equations. So if you think you can prove a photon mass by
going that route, you need to understand you're barking up the wrong
tree.