Further explanation of Mistake

Posted by DickT on July 04, 2002 at 06:09:53:

In Reply to: Re: m1) Movement & Force; Statements in (8) & (9). posted by kx21 on July 03, 2002 at 14:11:05:

kx21,

First of all, if you want to prove the photon mass is > 0, you can't begin by assuming that. So in the early steps of your proof you have to consider what happens if the mass of the photon = 0.

So you have Newton's law for the force between two bodies
(2) f(i) = Gm(p)*m(i) / r(i)^2

and we note that if the mass of the photon, m(p) = 0 in this equation then f(i) = 0.
(2') f(i) = G*0*m(i) / r(i)^2 = 0
in other words, if one of the bodies has zero mass, then Newton's law yields zero force. This is why I say that Newton's gravity only acts on massive bodies.

Then you say,
(8) Assumed that the speed of the Photon is c and its movement is affected by some of the Entities (e.g. Plant / Atom: The Photon absorber).

(9) For instance, Entity j. Then Abs[f(j)] > 0.

You assume that there is an effect in (8), and by (9) you assume that effect is due to Newton's gravity, since f(i) is determined by (2). But if m(p) = 0 there can be no effect since f(i) = 0 for all i if m(p) = 0. So by assuming an effect you are assuming a Newtonian gravity force acting on the photon, and by (2') that means you assume m(p) > 0. But that was what you wanted to prove.

So because you assumed what you wanted to prove, your proof is null; not a proof at all.

Regards,
Dick

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: m1a) Why in the early steps of my proof I have to consider what happens if the mass of the photon = 0? -- kx21 7/04/02 (15)
  • Why you can't assume m(p) > 0 in your "proof" of m(p) > 0 -- DickT 7/05/02 (14)
    • Re: The Goodness of Mathematical Proof of the Mass of Particle m(p) - Few Given(s) of m(p) is better than Many Givens (e.g. additional given / assumption- m (p) > 0') ? -- kx21 7/05/02 (13)
      • Re: The Goodness of Mathematical Proof of the Mass of Particle m(p) - Few Given(s) of m(p) is better than Many Givens (e.g. additional given / assumption- m (p) > 0') ? -- DickT 7/06/02 (12)
        • Re: m2) Closeness to Truth, Goodness of Mathematics / Mathematical Proof & Complex Givens of SR / GR -- kx21 7/06/02 (11)
          • Lame distraction -- DickT 7/07/02 (3)
            • Re: The Box & Space of SR/GR.... -- kx21 7/08/02 (2)
              • Not the box but your ignorance. -- DickT 7/08/02 (1)
                • Re: m2a) The Beauty of Mathematical Proof -- kx21 7/08/02 (0)
          • Lame distraction -- DickT 7/07/02 (0)
          • Re: m2) Supporting Reference:-Einstein's 'Unfinished' Symphony - Scientific Evidence /proof:: It's easier to unify all the forces without SR & GR -- kx21 7/06/02 (5)
            • The opinion of on ignoramus is worthless -- DickT 7/07/02 (4)
              • Re: Each Link is unique, given Space-time. -- kx21 7/08/02 (3)
                • Unique, and Dumb -- DickT 7/08/02 (2)
                  • Re: m2b) M Proof of Uniqueness & M challenge -- kx21 7/08/02 (1)
                    • Re: m2b) Corollary: Each Photon is unique & a Salvage for SR/GR -- kx21 7/08/02 (0)

Post a Followup