I am not irritating.

Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the

*New Theories Forum*? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims. What I've explained to you is straight out of advanced undergraduate textbooks and graduate textbooks on particle physics as well as textbooks on modern physics. How do I know? I know because I studied modern physics and particle physics and have the equivalent of a Masters Degree in Physics. From your posts I can tell that you have no formal education in physics. That's the source of your false claims and the reasons you're both unable and unwilling to back up your claims either with a proof or with a reference to a textbook on the subject matter. You've been asked to on many occasions and on each occasion you pretend that you haven't been asked. That way you won't be embarrassed when you fail.

You are just simply wrong ...

Based on what? I'm a well educated physics and I know WHY what I say is true. You on the other hand can't even state where you got that claim. You just spit it out like everyone is simply supposed to accept what you, somebody unknown to everybody here, want everyone to accept based on nothing.

It's quite literally impossible for any tardyon (i.e. a particle that moves slower than the speed of light and is not a virtual particle) to have negative energy E because E is the total energy of the particle which is defined as the sum of kinetic energy and rest energy, both of which are positive quantities.

..and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.

In your dreams. We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.

It is you who ignore the arguments that I show.

What a load of BS. You've posted nonsense since you arrived. You started with a false assumption and arrived at a paradox not knowing that there's a paradox because you started with nonsense.From the beginning you were unable to understand everything.

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m

_{0}/sqrt{1 - v

^{2}/c

^{2}} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the

*m* in

**p** =

*m***v**. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c

^{2}.

You'll have to look up the terms tardyon and luxon because I'm damn sure you don't know what they mean.

That's found throughout all of the relativity literature where relativistic mass is used. E.g.

**Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological** by Rindler,

*Oxford Univ., Press*, (2001), page 120

According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hf /c^{2}, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hf/c.

**Introducing Einstein's Relativity** by Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992), page 50

Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc^{2}, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by

m = p/c.

Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons:

E = hf m = hf/c2 p = hf/c

**Special Relativity** by A. P. French, MIT Press, page 20

Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have

E = cp

and

m = E/c^{2}

(the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have

m = p/c

Feynman diagrams I posted. You were unable to learn why the photon is massless.

Nope. Not at all. You only proved that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Feynman diagrams.

I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there were

equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0

And I just showed you a portion of a text by one of the worlds leading experts on the subject saying that you misinterpreted what you believe and thus you're clueless again. Unless you're too scared to read for fear of being proved so darn wrong?

I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.

The battle cry of the ignorant.

The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.