Changes

:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. On the other hand, I '''proved''' that momentum is perfectly well defined.

:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. On the other hand, I '''proved''' that momentum is perfectly well defined.

:: P.s. another proof, taking the m->0 limit in E=γmc^2. It can be done, keeping E and c fixed, while m->0. You see that γ must go to infinity: well, it means that <math>1/\sqrt{\gamma}=1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\to 0</math>, or <math>v\to c</math>. <math>\gamma m</math> is finite in this limit and the momentum reads <math>p=\gamma m v = E v/c^2 \to E /c </math>.

:: P.s. another proof, taking the m->0 limit in E=γmc^2. It can be done, keeping E and c fixed, while m->0. You see that γ must go to infinity: well, it means that <math>1/\gamma^2=1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\to 0</math>, or <math>v\to c</math>. <math>\gamma m</math> is finite in this limit and the momentum reads <math>p=\gamma m v = E v/c^2 \to E /c </math>.

:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?

:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?