Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #895094 > unrolled thread

energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-10 21:58 +0000
    Re: energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness) john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-10 15:07 -0800
      Re: energy and mass ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-10 23:47 +0000
        Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-12 02:41 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-12 02:43 +0100
    Re: energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness) john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-10 15:49 -0800
      Re: energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-02-11 01:19 +0000
        Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-11 16:32 +0100
      Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-11 15:23 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-11 17:21 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 10:34 -0800
          post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson. (Re: energy and mass Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-24 13:43 +0100
            Give this man an IQ booster, his brain is defaulting (Was: post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson.) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-24 21:18 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:30 -0800
      Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-12 14:55 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-12 14:58 +0100
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-14 03:17 +1100
        Re: energy and mass ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-13 16:20 +0000
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-14 07:20 +1100
            Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-14 03:31 +0100
          Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-13 21:50 +0100
            Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-13 15:03 -0800
              Re: energy and mass ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-13 23:35 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-14 10:47 +0100
                  Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-14 15:21 +0100
                    Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-15 02:46 +1100
                      Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-15 01:24 +0100
                        Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-17 20:03 -0800
                    Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-14 07:58 -0800
                  Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-14 07:54 -0800
                    Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-14 18:01 +0100
                    Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-02-14 20:52 +0100
                    Re: energy and mass ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-15 17:20 +0000
                Re: energy and mass x <x@x.net> - 2026-02-14 15:38 -0800
                  Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-27 19:48 -0800
            Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-14 03:36 +0100
    Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-02-20 14:27 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#895094 — energy and mass (was: usenet weirdness)

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
>pair (which has mass.)

  Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.

  We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
  each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
  of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:

p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0

  . Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From

E^2 = m^2 + p^2

  (in units with c=1) and 

p = 0

  , we get,

E^2 = m^2

  for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
  mass the particle pair has after the collision.

Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#895096

On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>>Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
>>pair (which has mass.)
>
>  Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
>
>  We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
>  each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
>  of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
>
>p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
>
>  . Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
>
>E^2 = m^2 + p^2
>
>  (in units with c=1) and 
>
>p = 0
>
>  , we get,
>
>E^2 = m^2
>
>  for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
>  mass the particle pair has after the collision.
>
>Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
>Followup-To: sci.physics
>Subject changed.
>

The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.

Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
gravity?

I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not
technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.




John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895099 — Re: energy and mass

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
>the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
>particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.

  As I argued before, that pair of photons /does/ have mass.

  But even if it would /not/ have mass. The source of gravity is
  not mass, but energy-momentum (the energy-momentum tensor T)
  (in general relativity).

  A photon passing by the sun is attracted to it. To conserve 
  momentum, the sun must also be attracted by the photon!

>I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real.

  John Bardeen, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes in Physics
  (for the transistor and superconductivity), earned both his
  bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering before
  switching to mathematical physics at Princeton. He is thus
  one example of a great physicist trained as an engineer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895106 — Re: energy and mass

Stefan Ram wrote:
> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
>> the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
>> particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
> 
>   As I argued before, that pair of photons /does/ have mass.

Then you are a hopeless case because a photon has mass _zero_ (in the
Standard Model of particle physics).

That is how it not only can, but why (according to special relativity) it
MUST, propagate at c.  We can see that as follows:

The energy dispersion relation for a photon is E = ℏ ω(K), and one finds
ω(K) = k c, so E = ℏ k c = ℎ/(2π) (2π/λ) c = (ℎ/λ) c.  But

  p = ℎ/λ,

so for a photon

  E = p c.

The energy-momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

  E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2  <==>  m = 1/c √(E^2 - p^2 c^2)

so

  E = p c  ==>  m = 0. ∎

>   But even if it would /not/ have mass.

It does not.

> The source of gravity

_gravitation_

> is
>   not mass, but energy-momentum (the energy-momentum tensor T)
>   (in general relativity).

Correct.

>   A photon passing by the sun is attracted to it.

No, it follows the curvature of spacetime.

> To conserve 
>   momentum, the sun must also be attracted by the photon!

/Ex falso quodlibet./

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895107 — Re: energy and mass

Stefan Ram wrote:
> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
>> the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
>> particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
> 
>   As I argued before, that pair of photons /does/ have mass.

Then you are a hopeless case because a photon has mass _zero_ (in the
Standard Model of particle physics).

That is how it not only can, but why (according to special relativity) it
MUST, propagate at c.  We can see that as follows:

The energy dispersion relation for a photon is E = ℏ ω(K), and one finds
ω(K) = k c, so E = ℏ k c = ℎ/(2π) (2π/λ) c = (ℎ/λ) c.  But

  p = ℎ/λ,

so for a photon

  E = p c.

The energy-momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

  E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2  <==>  m = 1/c √(E^2 - p^2 c^2)

so

  E = p c  ==>  m = 0. ∎

>   But even if it would /not/ have mass.

It does not.

> The source of gravity

_gravitation_

> is
>   not mass, but energy-momentum (the energy-momentum tensor T)
>   (in general relativity).

Correct.

>   A photon passing by the sun is attracted to it.

No, it follows the curvature of spacetime.

> To conserve 
>   momentum, the sun must also be attracted by the photon!

/Ex falso quodlibet./

F'up2 .relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895100

On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>>Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
>>pair (which has mass.)
>
>  Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
>
>  We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
>  each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
>  of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
>
>p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
>
>  . Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
>
>E^2 = m^2 + p^2
>
>  (in units with c=1) and 
>
>p = 0
>
>  , we get,
>
>E^2 = m^2
>
>  for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
>  mass the particle pair has after the collision.
>
>Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
>Followup-To: sci.physics
>Subject changed.
>

The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.

Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
gravity?

I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not
technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.

There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
become charged, and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
electromagnetic.

I guess that you can't make an antenna that radiates em waves
symmetrically in all directions.

John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895102

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> wrote:
> 
>> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>>> Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
>>> pair (which has mass.)
>> 
>> Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
>> 
>> We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
>> each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
>> of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
>> 
>> p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
>> 
>> . Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
>> 
>> E^2 = m^2 + p^2
>> 
>> (in units with c=1) and 
>> 
>> p = 0
>> 
>> , we get,
>> 
>> E^2 = m^2
>> 
>> for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
>> mass the particle pair has after the collision.
>> 
>> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
>> Followup-To: sci.physics
>> Subject changed.
>> 
> 
> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
> the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
> particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.

The gammas together had the same mass as the particle pair. 

> 
> Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
> gravity?
> 
> I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not
> technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
> or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.
> 
> There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
> become charged, and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
> expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
> electromagnetic.

I know of no mechanism for that to occur either.  Charge is conserved, so
you’d have to transport it to or from the sphere. 

Either way, it’s an electric current that’s measurable from the time it
starts out to the time it gets there. 
> 
> I guess that you can't make an antenna that radiates em waves
> symmetrically in all directions.

Depends on your definition. An antenna with one pair of wires couples to
one mode of the EM field in free space, and there are no monopole modes.  I
haven’t done the math, but I expect that three crossed dipoles driven 120
degrees apart would be isotropic. 

The phase would be different in different directions. (Note that this
assumes very small dipoles—the usual half-wave wire things would talk to
each other, which might screw things up.)

Cheers 

Phil Hobbs 





-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs  Principal Consultant  ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics  Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895104 — Re: energy and mass

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
>> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
>> the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
>> particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
> 
> The gammas together had the same mass as the particle pair. 

No, they had the same _energy_ even though their mass was _zero_.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895103 — Re: energy and mass

john larkin wrote:
> [...] (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> 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:

<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#section-3.1.2>

> 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 = μ₀ J + (1/c^2) ∂E/∂t,
  ∇ × E = -∂B/∂t.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895105 — Re: energy and mass

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, it's _symmetric_, of course --

  (T_00  T_01  T_02  T_03)   (T_00  T_01  T_02  T_03)
  (T_10  T_11  T_12  T_13) = (T_01  T_11  T_12  T_13).
  (T_20  T_21  T_22  T_23)   (T_02  T_12  T_22  T_23)
  (T_30  T_31  T_32  T_33)   (T_03  T_12  T_23  T_33)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895141 — Re: energy and mass

On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
>>
>> These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
>
> Yes, by stupid people.
>
> F'up2 sci.physics
>

Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects, some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).

A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895184 — post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson. (Re: energy and mass

What about:

post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson.

TL;DR

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
>>>
>>> These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
>>
>> Yes, by stupid people.
>>
>> F'up2 sci.physics
>>
> 
> Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
> radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
> effects, some have that for example the various post-natal
> development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
> to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
> "Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
> was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
> be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
> 
> A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895192 — Give this man an IQ booster, his brain is defaulting (Was: post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson.)

Hi,

Ross Boys nerves are on edge, he already
has white foam around his mouth.

Give this man an IQ booster, so that
he might stop seeing ghosts, and hallcuinate

my story is ponzi-and-pill. I nowhere said
Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, you have that

the hot potato problem happens for any
defaulting security, and reasons are many:

Uncovering Effects of Hot Potatoes in Banking
System: Arresting Die-Hard Issues
There is a wide variety of causes of defaults, namely: mismanagement of 
funds by an obligor, over/under-investment by the banks in a project, 
adverse effects of government policies, a dispute in management of 
firms, stiff marketing competition, outdated technology, lagging behind 
the change, strategic default, cash flow problem, etc.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211061554

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> What about:
> 
> post-maturity brain damages in Ross Finalyson.
> 
> TL;DR
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
>>>>
>>>> These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
>>>
>>> Yes, by stupid people.
>>>
>>> F'up2 sci.physics
>>>
>>
>> Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
>> radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
>> effects, some have that for example the various post-natal
>> development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
>> to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
>> "Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
>> was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
>> be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
>>
>> A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895151 — Re: energy and mass

On 02/18/2026 11:56 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/18/2026 01:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, by stupid people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
>>>>> radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
>>>>> effects,
>>>>
>>>> If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
>>>> Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up
>>>> enough to do observable damage
>>>
>>> I have been told that you can actually hear a high power pulsed radar,
>>> (without suffering any damage)
>>
>> Cal OSHA did exactly one controlled study of rats in
>> a basket, one with radios one without, the ones with
>> radios suffered neo-natally and post-natally and
>> failed the swimming test.
>
> Probably you mean "The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH),
> better known as Cal/OSHA":
>
> <https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/>
>
> It is unlikely that you will be able to cite the original study because
> it is more likely that it is all a delusion.
>
> Another likely possibility is that you have misunderstood or are
> misrepresenting the experiment.
>
> In any case, humans are not rats.  They are also not usually exposed to
> high-intensity electromagnetic radiation in close proximity to their source.
>   There is no physical reason and no evidence whatsoever that radio waves as
> used in daily telecommunication caused bodily harm to any human.
>
> The people who are claiming otherwise are not suffering from brain damage
> because of radio, but from paranoia which is indicative of a brain
> malfunction which could be caused by prior, unrelated brain damage.  It is
> also indicative of the growing ignorance among the general public that I was
> talking about: It is human nature to substitute ignorance with conceits and
> conspiracy theories because that is more convenient than learning.
>




Yeah, it's like when somebody says "mirron neurons"
or "microtubules" and it's like "yeah, good luck at
your seance tonight, you spooky un-scientific freak".

It's sad when neuroscience concerns itself so much
with the lizard/rat part of the brain, when higher
thinking animals actually can separate their forebrain
and the textual thinking from the usual carrot/stick.
That operant conditioning and conditioned response
is animal-on-animal violence.

After getting hit with a stick enough,
anybody with a stick looks like meat.

Dead meat, ..., to animals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895109 — Re: energy and mass

john larkin wrote:
> [...] (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> 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:

<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#section-3.1.2>

> 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 = μ₀ J + (1/c^2) ∂E/∂t,
  ∇ × E = -∂B/∂t.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895110 — Re: energy and mass

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, it's _symmetric_, of course --

  (T_00  T_01  T_02  T_03)   (T_00  T_01  T_02  T_03)
  (T_10  T_11  T_12  T_13) = (T_01  T_11  T_12  T_13).
  (T_20  T_21  T_22  T_23)   (T_02  T_12  T_22  T_23)
  (T_30  T_31  T_32  T_33)   (T_03  T_13  T_23  T_33)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895117 — Re: energy and mass

On 11/02/2026 10:49 am, john larkin wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> wrote:
> 
>> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
>>> Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
>>> pair (which has mass.)
>>
>>   Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
>>
>>   We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
>>   each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
>>   of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
>>
>> p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
>>
>>   . Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
>>
>> E^2 = m^2 + p^2
>>
>>   (in units with c=1) and
>>
>> p = 0
>>
>>   , we get,
>>
>> E^2 = m^2
>>
>>   for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
>>   mass the particle pair has after the collision.
>>
>> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
>> Followup-To: sci.physics
>> Subject changed.
>>
> 
> The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
> the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
> particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.

That's probably wrong. Energy has mass and the gamma ray photon 
spresumably had exactly the same gravitational effect as the particel 
pair that they created.

> Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
> gravity?

It seems unlikely.

> I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not
> technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
> or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.

You probably need to know a bit more science before you can claim to be 
an engineer.

> There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
> become charged, and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
> expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
> electromagnetic.

Except that an metal sphere couldn't "suddenly become charged" you'd 
have to move charged particles around to create that effect. Charge is 
conserved.
> 
> I guess that you can't make an antenna that radiates em waves
> symmetrically in all directions.

Guess work isn't all that interesting.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895118 — Re: energy and mass

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
>                       Energy has mass 

  Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895119 — Re: energy and mass

On 14/02/2026 3:20 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
>>                        Energy has mass
> 
>    Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.

Depending on how you define mass. Newton had one definition.

Einstein had another. Light pressure does imply that a photon has momentum.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895123 — Re: energy and mass

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 14/02/2026 3:20 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
>>>                        Energy has mass
>>
>>    Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
> 
> Depending on how you define mass.

No.

> Newton had one definition.
> 
> Einstein had another.

No, Einstein's idea of mass is exactly the same as Newton's.  Einstein just
explains its origin whereas Newton simply postulates it.

> Light pressure does imply that a photon has momentum.

That does not mean that its mass is non-zero.  As I indicated, its momentum
is given by p⃗ = ℏ k⃗ where ℏ = ℎ/(2π) is the reduced Planck constant, and
k⃗ is the wave vector.

Photons are *relativistic* *quantum* objects; they are *incompatible* with
Newtonian mechanics.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web