until today it is not 100% clear, that neutrinos even have a mass.
Well, neutrino oscillation means almost certainly that they have a rest mass m>0.
Neutrino oscillation means that there are three types of neutrinos - electron's, myon's and tau's neutrinos - and they oscillate spontaneously into each other. Current observation hardware can only detect electron's neutrinos, which explains why we observe only 1/3rd of expected amount of neutrino flux coming from the Sun.
The fact that neutrinos can change from one state into another during their existence is proof that they experience time, unlike photons that are in a "locked" state dring their observed existence and cannot change during their journey from emission point to absorption point. For photons, the time it takes to get from A to B is zero.
Also, the relation between mass and velocity is pretty straightforward - objects that have rest mass m>0, all move at velocity v<c in relation to each other. Objects that have rest mass of exactly zero (m==0) move at exactly velocity v==c. Photons are the only known example of this category. Presumable, objects with negative rest mass (m<0) would move at speeds v>c... but existence of negative mass is only hypothesized (not that antimatter has positive mass and positive energy consistence). Even negative energy is kinda hazy concept... Tachyons, IIRC, should have negative mass if they exist.
Anyway, this pretty much means that since neutrinos experience time and thus move at velocity v<c, they have rest mass, albeit very small, but existent nevertheless.
As to why photons seem to be affected by gravity is not quite as straightforward as it might seem. Photons, in fact, are not affected by gravity. Strictly interpreted, mass is not affected by gravity either because in general relativity, gravity is an apparent force.
In general relativity, mass affects the space-time continuum by applying tension to it and causing it's metrics to change. Or actually, it's energy that affects the space-time, but relative energy forms like kinetic energy and the energy of photon do not sum up onto the apparent gravitational interaction between objects, so it's accurate enough to say that it's the (rest) mass that affects the curvature as far as gravitational effects are considered... And please don't ask me to write the energy tensor metrics here, I can't. I basically know what happens but I can't use the maths... yet.
Anyhow, mass curves space-time. Photons move on straight line. Straight (geodetic) line in non-euclidian, distorted space time appears to us as curved. That's how and why photons seem to be affected by gravity.
Objects with mass, though, interact with each other using the space-time as a medium, which causes them to move in seemingly non-geodetic trajectories compared to the routes of photons.
MY interpretation is that space-time tension metrics is also what causes inertia to exist, since accelerating objects form an asymmetric distortion field, which kinda causes an accelerating object to experience resistance to the acceleration... it also means that changing the tension of local space-time takes and stores energy (kinetic energy) and offers quite interesting implications considering light speed limit being a result of the fact that gravitational radiation - ie. the propagation velocity of changes in space-time curvature - is limited to c, in which case a ship trying to accelerate to light speed would generate an extremely asymmetric gravity field as seen from a static observation point... not unlike the sound barrier.
It wouldn't be observable by the ship's travelers, but static observers on the original inertial frame of the space ship would likely notice how the ship's apparent acceleration would approach zero, as the ship would be closer and closer to the front end of the distortion.
Unlike in the case of sound barrier, though, it's not seemingly possibly to exceed the signal speed and create a shockwave instead of just an asymmetric distortion field, since it would require getting detached from the space-time continuum. The concept of being outside space and time is, of course, pretty outlandish and completely hypothetical in current physics but hey, who knows? Any sufficiently advanced technology and so on...
Ah, the monthly physics debate quota is filling...
nevertheless fact is, that science does not function with revolutions. it envolves, it grows on prooven theories......each new theory must be part of the new one. the new one has to describe also the old one....
Did you mean that "each old theory must be part of the new one"?
That is, in fact, not actually required. True, in most recent "evolution" step from classical physics to modern physics it happened, because goth Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics are in fact preserved in general relativity and quantum physics respectively, as special cases - in GR, when 0<v<<<c, Newtonian physics still holds; in quantum physics, most Maxwell's laws still apply with the exception of photons being handled as quanta instead of continuum of radiation and other interesting stuff like that.
However, if you consider the statement "each old theory must be part of the new on" it simply doesn't hold water. There are numerous old theories that have been abandoned because they were not replaced by more accurate theory, but because they were proven
untrue. Heavier objects falling faster than lighter comes to mind, as well as geocentric models of universe. Or elements being fire, water, earth and air.
It is still possible (however unlikely) that the physics as we know it has gotten something completely wrong and needs a revision of the same magnitude as change from fire, water, earth and air to the current table of elements. Most likely the current models are pretty close to what's actually happening because they are accurate to the extreme, but it's still always a possibility that is inherent in positivism...
means, accepted and PROVEN rules of physics cannot be broken, even if we find out everything i.e. about the duality of light, etc and so maybe someday a flaw to higher speeds than light. but also in future it only can be a way around this "speed"limit, we will never break through.....the only possibility i can imagine would be a re-routing through another dimension, but never a bending of spacetime (warp)....the energy consumption is too huge.....
Acceptance and being "proven" rule of physics has nothing to do with being "truth" in physics. That's similar logic as "5 billion flies can't be wrong - manure tastes and smells good!"
The truth in physics means the highest level of accuracy possible to reach in depicting the inner workings of nature. I'd even go as far as saying that there are no proven rules of physics, only the set of most accurate currently available combination of theories and postulations.
I agree with you on that it would be very unlikely for our current knowledge of physics to be as accurate as it is while having major misconceptions, so with highest probability the current models will remain as special cases of future theories. However, stating this as a certain fact is against all the basic principles of science, so on a fundamental level I have to disagree.
