Orly?
That sounds exactly like you are saying they are ignoring valid data and arbitrarily assigning a value of zero so as to not disrupt several current theories.
no, i said it dont believe it and it looks like shoehorning the theory to squeeze in data that doesnt fit.
i am not a lwayer trying to coinvince you that youre wrong, im saying show me what you mean when you say gravity warps space instead of newtons attraction,
demonstrate for me the evidence you say proves photns have no mass, cuz i actually do want to know, but the same mathematical model that i slogged through before (and either failed to understand or was unconvinced by them) and saying "well if photons have mass then these other theories are wrong, and these other theories seem to work so abracadabra, photons have no mass!" just doesnt make me see that you are right.
further, insisting that i must just be horribly horribly dumb to not see it, is akin to a pentecostal saying i my current lack of wealth is because my faith is not strong enough, and i didnt buy enough magic prayer hankies.
i see evidence in the form of theories that work with massless photns, that would have troubles if photons had mass. likewise, the tansmutation of the eucharist from cracker to christ works great if papal infallibility is assumed, but if not, then i gotta wonder why i dont taste any 2000 year old jew in the sacramental grubstake.
if the assignment of a photon as zero mass is NOT an assumption based on the feasability of other theories, then what gives the assumption it's evidence?
photons do work, photons come out of matter under the influence of the most banal forces, like fire, photons are readily observable (which is not a claim i have ever heard being made about any other massless particle)photons have a velocity, photons deliver a force when they hit matter, photons can be effected by gravity (or space warping, mindphuk has got me on the curvature thing, that shit's math seems to work, even if it takes me a long ass time to do the sums) and all this does point in the other direction, since i cant think of a single particle that is at all effected by matter. or in ANY way altered by gravity (including the wierd lensing effect) and no other particle i am familiar with is at all effected by ordinary lenses either.
so all these facts which seem to be contra to the zero mass status of photons, when weighed against the awesomely reliable newtonian models which have stood the test of time make me think photons have mass. minphuk has me waffling in my certainty that photons have mass, but theres still some stinkers out there that make me unsure, particularly when compared to other massless particles like neutrinos which seem completely oblivious to matter, gravity and last i heard even space warping.
i like my forces to be egalitarian. if they effect mass then they can effect ALL mass, if they effect the massless particles, then they should effect ALL massless particles. anything else would seem arbitrary, and nothjing in the universe seems arbitrary except humans.
edit for clarification, based on cannibus intoxication:
the incorrect inference is that they are ignoring data in some sort of conspiracy. the data is not ignored, it is shoehorned, squeezed, folded spindled and mutilated to make it fit, but nobody in academia is claiming photons dont do work, or interact with matter. the information is simply folded into the math, and left to sit there.
nobody can seem to explain why photons are different from other massless particles, in that they totally interact with matter, do work, and easily observed.
thats the question im focussing on, because its a big one to me.
i also wonder why gravity is described as a field, a wave, a warping of space, and a force. the only thing i havent heard about gravity is that its a particle.
youre not gonna tell me gravity is a particle are you?
cuz if so, i seriously would be much happier with the "
Its Magic" theory.