Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: energy and mass Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 11:28:49 -0800 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 196 Message-ID: <698E29F1.72A1@ix.netcom.com> References: <8e7kokl9hospneh83uskr9otk6kquvvfn8@4ax.com> <10mf1bs$3i2mv$1@dont-email.me> <10mg425$3v2e1$1@dont-email.me> <10mkm4g$fm1r$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <1rqfmxt.jp4fr16u1qtvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f35001e382f2483871db3138fb69a270"; logging-data="1815987"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6VQnQzJXWuJob8tWSWMEjAtnDfZ1SbwI=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:MqI3K9nDwFxE5pxomF6hgXEZ2qk= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 260212-8, 02/12/2026), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:668648 sci.electronics.design:740341 john larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:39:50 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. > Lodder) wrote: > > >john larkin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:55:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > >> wrote: > >> > >> >john larkin wrote: > >> >> [...] (Stefan Ram) wrote: > >> >>> john larkin wrote or quoted: > >> >>>> Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle > >> >>>> pair (which has mass.) > >> >>> > >> >>> [irrelevant and misleading/wrong calculation] > >> >> > >> >> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in > >> >> the universe, > >> > > >> >Wrong. > >> > > >> >> up until the instant that they collided > >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> >Nonsense. > >> > > >> >> to form a particle pair. > >> > > >> >Wrong. > >> > > >> >> Then a gravitational object magically appeared. > >> > > >> >Wrong. Since the postulation and confirmation of general relativity we know > >> >that gravitational effects are not (solely) based on mass, but rather more > >> >generally on the density of stress, energy, and momentum: > >> > > >> >The Einstein Field Equations are in units where c = 1 > >> > > >> > G_ab + Lambda g_ab = 8pi G T_ab, > >> > > >> >where > >> > > >> > G_ab = R_ab - 1/2 R g_ab > >> > > >> >is (a component of) the Einstein tensor, R_ab is the Ricci curvature tensor, > >> >g_ab is the metric tensor, R = g^ab R_ab is the Ricci curvature scalar, > >> >Lambda is the cosmological constant, and T_ab is the > >> >(stress--)energy--momentum tensor. > >> > > >> >Gravitional effects are understood (in GR) as a consequence of the curvature > >> >of spacetime which is described by the quantities on the left-hand side of > >> >the equations. > >> > > >> >The energy--momentum tensor of a 1+3-dimensional spacetime has 16 > >> >components, but it is antisymmetric so only 10 of them are unique. Anyhow, > >> >the time--time component is proportional to the energy density which is at > >> >relative rest is proportional to the mass density: > >> > > >> > T_00 ~ rho_E ~ dE_0/dV = c^2 dm/dV = c^2 rho_m. > >> > > >> >> Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of gravity? > >> > > >> >It does not. > >> > > >> >> I'm just an engineer, > >> > > >> >IOW: This is way over your head. > >> > > >> >As an engineer, though, you should appreciate the requirement to agree and > >> >conform to standards. That includes network standards which you keep > >> >violating by your address munging: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> but I think this is real. > >> > > >> >It is not. You are arguing from your ignorance. > >> > > >> >> People say it's not technically possible, > >> > > >> >It is possible, just very difficult: > >> > > >> >The total energy of both photons has at least to be equal to the sum of the > >> >rest energies of the particle and antiparticle. > >> > > >> >You would have to separate the particle and the antiparticle to prevent them > >> >from annihilating again, which means that the total energy of both photons > >> >has to be much larger than the sum of the rest energies of the particle and > >> >the antiparticle. You need energy for the magnetic fields that keep them > >> >separated. > >> > > >> >> or that the efffect is too small to worry about, > >> > > >> >A single electron is not very useful, indeed, and you need more energy to > >> >produce it this way than it could do usable work because it needs kinetic > >> >energy *and* rest energy E_0 = m_e c^2. > >> > > >> >> or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen. > >> >> > >> >> There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly > >> >> become charged, > >> > > >> >No, the total electric charge is conserved. What happens in "charging" is > >> >that electric charge is added from or removed to somewhere else. > >> > > >> >Electric charge can also be "induced" by bringing an electrically charge in > >> >the vicinity of an electrically neutral object. Then the carriers of > >> >electric charge in the formerly neutral object arrange themselves such that > >> >the distribution of electric charge is no longer uniform: > >> > > >> > .---------. ,---------. > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (-) (+) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (-) (+) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (-) (+) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (-) (+) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (-) (+) : : (+) (-) : > >> > '---------' '---------' > >> > > >> > Some time later: > >> > > >> > .---------. ,---------. > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > : (+) (-) : : (+) (-) : > >> > '---------' '---------' > >> > > >> >> and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that > >> >> expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't > >> >> electromagnetic. > >> > > >> >Nonsense. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and a > >> >changing magnetic field induces an electric field: > >> > > >> > ? ? B = ?? J + (1/c^2) ?E/?t, > >> > ? ? E = -?B/?t. > >> > >> Do photons have the same gravitational effects as their mass > >> equivalents? > > > >Yes. > >(there is no such thing as 'mass-equivalence, there is only mass-energy) > > If e and m are the same thing, why do people use two symbols? They are not the 'samething', they are two different things, E and M. Before the Big Bang only E existed. The Big Bang was the creation of M. fire and earth are two elements. > > Do photons attract one another? Do they bounce off one another? > > If you apply Newton's law of gravitation to photons, the force will be > enormous when they get in a close intersection. Wouldn't that fuzz up > images at cosmological distances? > > Just asking. > > John Larkin > Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center > Lunatic Fringe Electronics -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.