I have gone through all the literature in support and against  Einstein’s theories. Moreover, I admit that my theory is yet to be formally presented to the world of Physics; and like so many other theories that are not accepted or accepted after a much longer time,

anything can happen to my ideas. However I am very much sure of one thing. One day, Einstein’s light-speed barrier will be disproved.  Whether I get any credit for that or not is another matter. I have not opposed Einstein’s idea of relativity; I have opposed his idea of light speed barrier. My basic points are two: first that light speed is not the fastest possible speed and second that the universe too as a whole exists as an entity rotating on its axis. And I have given dozens of known facts that are better explained by these suggestions.

The history of modern Physics is witness to how Einstein used his idea of light-speed barrier to bulldoze almost every other theory; how he constructed theories and formulas to adjust almost every mechanism to its demands. One mistake of light-speed barrier led to hundreds of errors being accepted by the community of Physicists.  This is another matter that Einstein and the posterity of physicists did so considering that the falsehood of light-speed barrier was the truth that has to be accepted at all costs.

Problem of Photon Mass

The first and immediate casualty of Einstein’s creation of gamma factor was the light itself. The formula made the travelling of light impossible because, if the photon had mass, which had been a long belief, then its mass would become /infinite/ at the speed of light according to the demands of the special theory of relativity. It would then /annihilate/ rather than sustain the life in the universe.  Einstein used his brilliance of mind to accomplish this seemingly huge task by making several suggestions. Some of the ideas about the nature of Photon that have subsequently developed are enumerated as follows: First, light’s case is a /special/ one, and this can happen with light only and no other matter. Second, light has /no mass /at all. Third, light has a /negligible mass/ at the light speed and its /rest mass is zero/. Fourth, its rest mass may be very very very small, and may be the /result of a certain phenomenon rather than being the actual mass/. Fifth, there is /no significance at all of the mass of photon at rest /because photon does not exist at rest.  All these ideas have led to the burial of the mass of photon to let the Special Theory survive.

The puzzle of photon mass has been summed up beautifully in a write-up. /“Classical vs. Mystical Reality”/ by Michelson H Morely.

It says:

*“In accordance with the special theory of relativity, the kinetic energy of a material point of mass is given by the expression K. E. = m c²/(sq. rt,1-v²/c²). Professor Einstein does not provide an explanation as to how the above expression was logically developed, however it is evident that the equation’s denominator (sq.  rt,1-v²/c²) is identical to the contraction factor employed in the Lorentz equations. However when the above relativistic expression is utilised to determine the kinetic energy of the photon, a problem is encountered. When the velocity variable v of the expression is set equal to c in accordance with the law of the propagation of the velocity of electromagnetic phenomena, the denominator of the equation is reduced to zero, that is (sq. rt,1-c²/c²)=0 so that the resulting relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of the photon becomes K. E.=mc²/ 0.….. As a result the relativistic expression K. E.=mc²/0 must be regarded as indecipherable and/or non-functional and therewith any and all inferences based on the equation K. E.=mc²/(sq. rt,1-v²/c²) as pertaining to the kinetic energy of a photon are invalid and as such incapable of supporting absolute physical law.”* Describing the problem of the zero resting mass, the article further argues:

/“Although the photon’s mass m is set equal to 0 and hence the kinetic energy of the photon would appear to be 0, the photon is still deemed to possess energy in the form of rest mass; a concept somewhat difficult to visualise considering the photon’s substantial velocity. Nevertheless, armed with this logic and therewith setting velocity v equal to 0, mystical relativism asserts that (rest)E=(rest) mc²/(sq. rt,1- 0²/c²) or E=m c² and therefore m=E/c². This allows E/c² to be substituted for the photon’s rest mass m wherein the photon acquires energy without the need for mass or velocity, i.e., E=(E/c²) c² or E=E. This puzzling bit of logic produces a photon with mass equal to 0 in terms of kinetic energy while having mass equal to E/c² in terms of rest energy. The terminology of mystical relativism attempts to mask this logical dilemma by defining the photon’s rest mass m not as mass but rather as a function of energy, i.e., E/c², supposedly depicting a state of matter without the physical attribute of mass and mystically referred to as “pure energy””…../ /Another empirical fact testifying to the physical mass of a photon is that of its known momentum. How does mystical relativism impart momentum into its supposedly mass-less photon? Let us objectively contemplate the logic employed in achieving this mystical mathematical feat. Calculating the momentum p of the photon, relativistic theory utilises the formula p=m v /(sq. rt,1-v²/c²). The photon, again judged to be at rest, is considered to have a velocity of 0 and therewith the velocity v in the equation’s denominator is set equal to 0, so that p=m v /(sq. rt,1- 0²/c²)=mv.”/ Countering the logic of Special Theory of relativity, the article adds:

/“As evident in the resulting expression p=mv, the momentum p of the photon has been reduced to a function of the photon’s mass m multiplied by the photon’s velocity v. However both the mass and the velocity of the photon must be greater than 0 for the photon to exhibit momentum. Since the only possible mass available in relativistic doctrine exists under the pretext of rest energy, relativistic theory again imputes its alleged non mass energy function E/c² to provide the needed mass for the photon’s momentum, so that the new equation becomes p=(E/c²) v. But, as indicated, even the acceptance of this supposed non mass energy as mass is not sufficient to produce momentum, also required is velocity./

*“In an attempt to legitimise the result without deference to the means, relativism’s momentum equation p=E/c is ultimately reduced to

by incorporating Planck’s quantumlp=h/ energy equation E=hf and the . Needless to say,llight wave equation c=f this mathematical illusion is unable to alter reality as the unit of measure for the photon’s momentum (kg m/s) still includes the unit of measure for mass (kg).In fact, momentum, force and energy, are all products of matter in motion and all contain the unit of measure for mass (kgs). With respect to momentum the matter in motion is assessed in terms of velocity. With respect to force the matter in motion is assessed in terms of acceleration. With respect to the dynamics of energy the matter in motion is assessed in terms of acceleration x distance.” * The article’s conclusion is hard-hitting:

*/“In essence the mathematics and logic employed by mystical relativism are self serving, their primary function being one of validation. Classical realism’s mathematics and logic are touted as inadequate with respect to relativity theory. The presupposition of E=mc² as the equivalent of kinetic energy and rest energy i.e., the unification of matter and energy, allegedly confirms the mathematical principles of special relativity. Because relativistic theory is therewith presumed a priori a universally valid theory, the mathematics and logic adopted to validate it remain exempt from the realistic constraints of common sense.”/*

There is little doubt if any that photon mass would continue to be a problem for physicists. But till the light-speed barrier is there, the final position of the scientists will continue to be in the favour of photon having no mass. Now the position of physicists today is that they differentiate between the /relativistic mass/ and /rest mass/. “Relativistic mass” is no longer in use, as it has become customary to use “energy” for that; “rest mass” or “invariant mass” is considered an invariant. As the special theory of relativity and some aspects of Quantum Hydrodynamics—the theory of quantum Hydrodynamics would be in trouble, as it would lose gauge variance, which would make it non-normalisable—made it necessary that the photon must have zero rest mass, most physicists today believe all photons have zero mass. It will be seen later that there is no “rest” in the universe, and to talk of “rest” in a universe dominated by “relativity” is in itself ridiculous. Despite their beliefs, which are more laboured than spontaneous, physicists have been talking of an “upper limit” for the rest mass of photons. The claims of this upper limit vary from 6x10^-16 eV to 3x10^-27 eV. (A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields.)

Despite the presentation of GTR a long time back, that is about 80 years, the theory still remains incomplete and untested. It will be interesting to quote from an article, captioned, “/Einstein after Seven Decades/” that appeared on Stanford University web page:

*/“Einstein forever altered our thinking about space, time and the universe, but some of his most basic ideas remain untested and bafflingly at odds with the rest of modern physics……Why after almost eighty years do we still need to test Einstein’s theory of general relativity? The answer is that although it is among the most brilliant creations of the human mind, weaving together space, time, and gravitation, and bringing an understanding of such bizarre phenomena as black holes and the expanding universe, it remains one of the least tested of scientific theories. General relativity is hard to reconcile with the rest of physics, and even within its own structure has weaknesses. Einstein himself was dissatisfied, and spent many years trying to broaden his theory and unify it with just one other branch of physics, electromagnetism. Modern physicists seeking wider unification meet worse perplexities. Above all, essential areas of general relativity have never been checked

experimentally. ……/*

*/“Einstein in 1916 could only think of three potential manifestations of general relativity, all minuscule. Mercury’s orbit around the Sun should gradually turn in its plane through an angle minutely different from Newtonian prediction—an effect called perihelion precession… Stars observed near the edge of the Sun should appear slightly displaced outward from their normal positions… Light leaving a star should change colour slightly, shifting toward the red…… For over forty years, these three effects—weak both in what they tested and in how well they tested it—were all there was.  Starlight deflection proved frustratingly difficult to measure.

Mercury’s orbit, though better, was subject to Newtonian disturbances. Least satisfactory was the redshift, which was observationally messy and hinged on the assumption (the “Einstein equivalence principle”) far short of general relativity. This was at most a half-test…..Worse, competing theories soon appeared giving the same predictions for Einstein’s tests of general relativity……General relativity is a minimalist theory. Its assumptions are few, and (more remarkably) often where other theories predict a non-Newtonian effect, it yields nothing. The theoretical log-jam can be broken by negative experiments—searches for phenomena that are absent from general relativity and Newtonian gravitation but present in competing theories.” /**The article then remarks, /“Moreover, deep

theoretical problems—some old and some new—remain. Einstein himself remarked that the left-hand side of his field equation (describing the curvature of space-time) was granite, but that the right-hand side (connecting space-time to matter) was sand. The mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20^th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature— gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment.”/*

*/In the end I will say that I do not think it isthe forum that is suitable for discussing these questions of theoretical physics. If anything is substantial in my ideas, people will know it at an

appropriate time./*