QQ: If your MassDistance theory can calculate anything or make any prediction, please correct this “Nothing & None” answer in 2nd paragraph of my reply by telling how to calculate something or what it has predicted.
I'll repeat the question I listed in response to your post Essentially it is asking:
Why do we need to have a model that requires massless particles?
What is it that makes it imperative to physics to use massless particles in it's modeling?...
Answer to both is that they exist in nature, or at least experiment results are best calculated and predicted as if they do. That is what science is all about. - Building a model with which one can calculate observational results and predict new test results. Anything explanation which can not calculate or predict is a "it works by MAGIC" theory.
What result can you calculate with your MassDistance model? What phenomena does it predict?
Answer:
Nothing & None. Thus it is not science. It is MAGIC. Worse, it postulates that "nothing" (photons do not exist) has the following precise properties standard theory associates with the photon:
(1) Energy transport thru vacuum (Sun to Earth etc.)
(2) Momentum (as used in solar sailing satellite)
(3) Definite measured wavelengths, or frequencies, which correspond linearly (and exactly to at least 8 significant figures) to difference between the various energy levels of the hydrogen atom that can be calculated by standard atomic theory also to better than 8 significant figures.
(4) Definite delay between source and detector linearly proportional to their separation, This fixed "speed of propagation" can be computed from the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of the material or vacuum between the source and detector! This speed was first computed by Maxwell from laboratory measurements of these seemingly unrelated characteristics and later confirmed by Michelson and others earlier.
(5a) Interference patterns with spacing between the bright and dark lines a linear function of the wavelength.
(5b) The position of photographic film darkening in a spectrograph is exactly as predicted by the "grading equation" which assumes photons with a definite wavelength travel from source, interact with the grading, and then travel on to the film. (If nothing is going between the source and the film, why would the space between very fine (too fine to even see) linear scratches of the grading enter into the grading equation?
They certain are not making any difference in either the masses used or the distances between masses, but that spacing between invisible scratches makes a huge (and exactly as predicted) difference as to where the film is darkened.
(6) The magnitude of reflection coefficient when metal is used as the reflector is given exactly as Maxwell's Equations predict. (This is a “boundary layer” math problem which also tells how deeply into the metal the EM wave goes in complete agreement with the observed intensity that is transmitted thru very thin metal films)
(7) When not incident at 90 degrees to the metal surface, each of the orthogonal polarization reflects differently. One has zero reflection at a particular angle of incidence, called the Brewster angle. This is sometimes used to produce polarized X-rays. I.e. an unpolarized beam reflected at the Brewster’s angle is 100% polarized when reflected.
All exactly as predicted by Maxwell’s Equations. (I have done this with X-rays to simplify the analysis of crystals and also produced polarized X-rays by the volumetric scattering of them within a block of carbon when observed at 90 degrees.)
(8) Fact that the setting sun appears not to be round like when it is high yet there is absolutely no change in either the mass of the Earth or the distance to the sun – I.e. a MassDistance theory’s inputs (if there were any calculation possible in it) would be identical for both cases but by MAGIC the results are different. Sort of like requiring 2+5 = 6 at sunset and 2+5 = 7 at high noon. (Same inputs give different outputs.) Be careful in explaining this. You might be tempted to say "something" is passing thru different amounts of air, but your MassDistance theory assumes nothing is and is stuck with fact there is no change in either masses or distances of the Sun/Earth system between noon and sunset.
(9)** That specific wavelengths from specific sources have the two path interference pattern fade out if the path length difference exceeds a certain length – In experiment I did** with modest pressure sodium lamp that was ~30 cm. Note also that result is same if one of the paths is increased or decreased by 30 cm. How can same result occur in your MassDistance theory for two different distances and identical masses?
(10) The photo-electric effect (and other effects that show Quantum Theory’s prediction for quantized energy packets are correct.)
These 10 experimental observation are well understood by assuming photons do exist, which are correctly modeled by Maxwell’s equations (when many) or by Quantum Theory and atomic theory of energy levels, when considered one at a time. (BTW this is not two separate theory selectively applied as Quantum Theory predicts that in large numbers the classical theory will be valid.)
I could list many more, for example the exact shape of black body radiation curve follows from quantum theory applied to quantized energy packets Planck called "photons." etc. but 10 observations that your MassDistance theory can neither explain nor predict seems adequate to show it is NONSENSE. If I am wrong and you can explain any or all of these 10, please do so – but show your assumptions and calculations. (Words alone are the claim: "It happens by magic.")
Now either put up or shut up.
--------------
** See full discussion of this at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52 I.e. another problem with your NONSENSICAL MassDistance theory is that your "nothing" has a definite, measurable length. 30 cm in the case discussed at this link. (Photons are not tiny little balls as most people believe. Some are more than a meter long and why those that are is well understood. Has mainly to do with the radiative decay life-time of the upper state of the transition. (Also to get observably meter+ long photons, the source must be a low pressure gas.)