by crawler » Thu Mar 21, 2024 1:09 am
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 12:22 am
A photon doesn't radiate anything because it doesn't exist. Light is a wave in the aether.
Aether has mass, but in Einstein's theories there is no aether, and a vacuum has no mass. So it cant have energy either. And even if it had, that would curve the space, not expand it, contracting the universe from all that vacuum mass and energy. I am pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in his theories, which are used in the standard cosmoillogical model by big-bang 'scientists'.
I don't get why you keep combing photons with aether, as photons are defined by Einstein as particles in a vacuum, and do not need any aether. Photons in aether are like nuns in a brothel.
Mass is the property of or is due to the annihilation of aether.
If aether has mass then that means that aether annihilates aether.
But, Conrad Ranzan says that aether is contractile, ie that compression of aether gives a self dissipation (but Ranzan says that aether units do not contract).
In which case aether duz annihilate aether. In which case aether has a mass of sorts (if, when, aether is near proper mass).
Photons have (according to Ranzan) quasi-mass, proper particles (eg electrons) have proper mass (gravitational-mass)(gravi-mass)(& inertial-mass).
But, to make things worse, i need to add that there is no such thing as gravitational mass, what we have is inertial mass.
Or praps what i really mean is that gravi-mass karnt be measured, all that we ever measure is inertial-mass.
Or praps i should say that what we measure (sometimes) is the ratio of gravi-mass to inertial-mass.
Its complicated. Mach was on the right track.
Inertial-mass depends on other nearby mass in our part of the cosmos (it duznt depend so much on the far flung universe)(koz, gravity is not instantaneous, gravity has a speed, & this speed is at least 20 billion c). Its complicated.
[quote=mariuslvasile post_id=10087 time=1710980533 user_id=1000000342]
A photon doesn't radiate anything because it doesn't exist. Light is a wave in the aether.
Aether has mass, but in Einstein's theories there is no aether, and a vacuum has no mass. So it cant have energy either. And even if it had, that would curve the space, not expand it, contracting the universe from all that vacuum mass and energy. I am pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in his theories, which are used in the standard cosmoillogical model by big-bang 'scientists'.
I don't get why you keep combing photons with aether, as photons are defined by Einstein as particles in a vacuum, and do not need any aether. Photons in aether are like nuns in a brothel.
[/quote]
Mass is the property of or is due to the annihilation of aether.
If aether has mass then that means that aether annihilates aether.
But, Conrad Ranzan says that aether is contractile, ie that compression of aether gives a self dissipation (but Ranzan says that aether units do not contract).
In which case aether duz annihilate aether. In which case aether has a mass of sorts (if, when, aether is near proper mass).
Photons have (according to Ranzan) quasi-mass, proper particles (eg electrons) have proper mass (gravitational-mass)(gravi-mass)(& inertial-mass).
But, to make things worse, i need to add that there is no such thing as gravitational mass, what we have is inertial mass.
Or praps what i really mean is that gravi-mass karnt be measured, all that we ever measure is inertial-mass.
Or praps i should say that what we measure (sometimes) is the ratio of gravi-mass to inertial-mass.
Its complicated. Mach was on the right track.
Inertial-mass depends on other nearby mass in our part of the cosmos (it duznt depend so much on the far flung universe)(koz, gravity is not instantaneous, gravity has a speed, & this speed is at least 20 billion c). Its complicated.