How does a vacuum have energy if it has no mass ?

[mariuslvasile]

Since E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass, then it follows that empty space or vacuum has no energy. How can anyone claim that vacuum has energy, without rejecting this equation and special relativity altogether ?

And even if vacuum had energy, how does that expand space ? When in General Relativity space is curved by mass and energy. It simply does not follow why a space that contains energy will expand, it is a non sequitur. And a clear contradiction of Einstein's theory.

So in order to claim that empty space has energy, you need to reject Special relativity. And in order to claim that this energy expands space, you need to reject General relativity. Big bang pseudo-scientists claim both, so they reject both, while at the same time claiming that both are true and building their standard cosmoillogical model on them.

And then they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis

https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... s.html?m=1

[crawler]

A photon radiates energy for ever. The energy comes from the aether. The infinite aether has infinite energy.
And, E probly duznt equal mcc.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[crawler]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

It's complicated because it's pseudo-science. Ranzan is using GR in his theory, with the cosmoillogical constant, space expansion and all that relative bullshit applied to his own bullshit. Why would you even consider his bs if you think Einstein's theories are crap, or mostly crap ?

[crawler]

It's complicated because it's pseudo-science. Ranzan is using GR in his theory, with the cosmoillogical constant, space expansion and all that relative bullshit applied to his own bullshit. Why would you even consider his bs if you think Einstein's theories are crap, or mostly crap ?

When Ranzan says that his Lambda (his expansion of space) is much like Einstein's Lambda Ranzan is not saying that Einstein's Lambda actually exists, it duznt exist.

THE PROCESSES OF GRAVITATION – THE CAUSE AND MECHANISM OF GRAVITATION ……. CONRAD RANZAN 2014

…………….Given that all the mass of the Universe, the real universe, is made of quarks and electrons and, of course, their antiparticles; then it follows that all the mass of the Universe is made of confined photons!(What about the mysterious and undetected dark matter? In the published work, The Story of Gravity and Lambda —How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery, it has been shown that it is simply not needed.[20]) And all the electromagnetic radiation in the universe is made of free photons. Both manifestations of the photon —the bound state and the free state— are gravitational. Keep this in mind as we explore (in the next section) how the photon causes the gravitational effect. But first, let me deal with the non-mass particles —the ones that travel at the speed of light.

……………..Interestingly, a cosmic region that is under tension behaves much like Einstein’s Lambda force or cosmological constant —they all have the ability to produce expansion. But Conventional Astrophysics makes the mistake of extrapolating the effect. The effect is correctly interpreted as the expansion of space, which expansion then, according to the conventional wisdom, leads to the pushing-apart of galaxy clusters (and isolated galaxies). There is a struggle for dominance between the opposites of gravity and Lambda.

[mariuslvasile]

But Einstein's cosmoillogical constant does not exist because he made it up, and then he removed it. And there is no space expansion, because just because someone makes up a constant that expands space does not make it a real science. It's a complete non-sense and pseudo-science.

The effect is correctly interpreted as the expansion of space, which expansion then, according to the conventional wisdom, leads to the pushing-apart of galaxy clusters (and isolated galaxies). There is a struggle for dominance between the opposites of gravity and Lambda.

It is not correctly interpreted at all. It's just that they can't think of another intrerpretation for the redshift, and are stuck in this space expansion non-sense because they are just stupid and can't think of anything else, that actually makes sense. There is a struggle for dominance between science and pseudo-science.

[Maol]

How can it be said there is no energy in a vacuum when all the electromagnetic spectrum traverses vacuum throughout the universe.

[nick c]

This is a very interesting topic and I have a couple of questions as relates to the Electric Universe.

Thornhill distinguishes between "matter" and "mass." Matter is inviolable, ie protons, electrons, and if applicable their components.
Mass is a variable function of matter, dependent upon its electrical condition.

In what way if any, does the above concept relate to the title of this thread...."How does a vacuum have energy if it has no mass?"
Is the word "mass" in the above context synonymous with "matter" or is their a difference?

[mariuslvasile]

This is a very interesting topic and I have a couple of questions as relates to the Electric Universe.

Thornhill distinguishes between "matter" and "mass." Matter is inviolable, ie protons, electrons, and if applicable their components.
Mass is a variable function of matter, dependent upon its electrical condition.

In what way if any, does the above concept relate to the title of this thread...."How does a vacuum have energy if it has no mass?"
Is the word "mass" in the above context synonymous with "matter" or is their a difference?

Well, if a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then in the case of vacuum mass becomes a function of no matter. I dunno what else to say.

[nick c]

Well, if a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then in the case of vacuum mass becomes a function of no matter.

No, that wording is wrong. Logically, it should be worded as:
If a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then there is no mass in a vacuum.

But that still does not answer my question if in the context of this discussion, are matter and mass the same thing?

[crawler]

Well, if a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then in the case of vacuum mass becomes a function of no matter.

No, that wording is wrong. Logically, it should be worded as:
If a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then there is no mass in a vacuum.

But that still does not answer my question if in the context of this discussion, are matter and mass the same thing?

It (firstly) depends on definition. Lets say that the thing that we can see & feel is what we call inertial mass. Gravitational mass say exists, but we can't see or feel it directly (what we allways feel & see & measure is inertial mass).
Secondly lets define matter as stuff having inertial mass. So, matter & mass are the same thing (in a sense).
Now (thirdly) we have a problem.
I reckon that photons have mass, gravitational mass, but not inertial mass. Hence i say that photons have quasi-mass. Ranzan calls it mass equivalence. I reckon that photons have energy but zero momentum. Anyhow, i think that we all agree that the standard vacuum contains zero matter/mass, even tho it contains free photons & radio waves.
Some would say that a vacuum also includes some kind of gravitational process. And some would say includes aether (& aether wind).
Some would say that if any of the above (gravity, aetherwind, radio waves etc) have energy then that energy has mass (inertial mass). Some would say that some of the above have mass equivalence (ie zero inertial mass).
So, what is mass equivalence? Is it a usefull notion? What is it good for? Should a thing or process that has mass equivalence be considered to be a kind of matter?
I am not sure what i have said above. For sure when i have a slow read i will not be happy with some of my wordage. We can't argue about something unless we have good definitions. But, we can't have good definitions if we don’t know the full story. And if we know the full story then there is no need for argument. We have a problem.

[mariuslvasile]

Well, if a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then in the case of vacuum mass becomes a function of no matter.

No, that wording is wrong. Logically, it should be worded as:
If a vacuum means the lack of matter, and mass is a function of matter, then there is no mass in a vacuum.

But that still does not answer my question if in the context of this discussion, are matter and mass the same thing?

I was a bit sarcastic there.

Mass is a property of matter, it is not the same thing as matter. So if there is no matter then there is no mass.

[Cargo]

Well... there's no such thing as a vacuum in the religious sense it is often invoked with.

[crawler]

Well... there's no such thing as a vacuum in the religious sense it is often invoked with.

Space has a lot of radiation that is not matter or mass in the ordinary sense.

And space has a lot of something that tells us that space is near mass/matter. What is that something?
it us what i have called Photaeno(s). Emitted by all photons, ie emitted by matter & light.
Strictly speaking we karnt tell how far any one photaeno is from its source.
What must be happening is that photaenos are denser per cubic metre near matter.
But, the Olbers' Paradox strikes at this level too, ie every cubic metre should be saturated/full of photaenos (& photons).
The solution to both OPs is that photons die eventually, & photaenos too die eventually.

Anyhow, every cubic metre of space has a lot of (1) photons & (2) photaenos (ie energy) in addition to (3) matter.
And every cubic metre of space contains (4) gravity energy & (5) magnetic energy & (6) charge energy.
I dont think that i can add (7) radio energy, koz radio is a part of (5).