From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 14/02/2026 5:58 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 13/02/2026 6:04 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:39:50 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.   
   >>> Lodder) wrote:   
   >>>> john larkin  wrote:   
   >>>>> Do photons have the same gravitational effects as their mass   
   >>>>> equivalents?   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   >   
   >>>> Yes. (there is no such thing as 'mass-equivalence, there is only   
   >>>> mass-energy)   
   >   
   > Utter nonsense.   
   >   >> If e and m are the same thing, why do people use two symbols?   
   >   
   > They simply are NOT the same thing.  Also, one uses "E", not "e", for energy.   
   >   
   >> They can behave in very different ways. Mass can stay put. Energy tends   
   >> to travel at the speed of light.   
   >   
   > Utter nonsense.  Mass and energy are quantities, not physical objects.   
      
   Mass and en energy are quantities used to described the behavior of   
   physical objects. Those described mostly in terms of mass can stay put.   
   Those described mostly in term of energy travel at the speed of light.   
      
   >>> Do photons attract one another? Do they bounce off one another?   
   >>   
   >> Crossed laser beams don't seem to interact.   
   >   
   > They do if their energy is large enough.   
      
   They could do if their energy were large enough. I don't know of any   
   experiments with actual lasers that have ever demonstrated the effect.   
      
   >  But the virtual leptons or quarks   
   > that are temporarily produced cannot be observed directly.   
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   >>   
   >> It doesn't seem to. The mass of most photons is pretty small,   
   >   
   > You could say that; it is *zero* :-D   
      
   The mass-energy isn't zero. We wouldn't be able to detect them if it were.   
   >> and when they are travelling at the speed of light they don't interact   
   >> for very long.   
   >   
   > Nonsense.   
      
   More paradoxical that nonsensical/   
      
   >>> Just asking.   
   >>   
   >> But not thinking at all.   
   >   
   > You, too, do not know what you are talking about.   
      
   In your "expert" opinion.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)