XPost: sci.electroncis.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 14/02/2026 6:26 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 13/02/2026 3:44 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On 12 Feb 2026 16:23:57 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>> john larkin  wrote or quoted:   
      
      
      
   >>> So when two gammas collide and create a particle pair, mass appears   
   >>> where there was none.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right so far?   
   >>   
   >> Wrong.   
   >   
   > No, the above is correct.  (Contrary to what had been though previously, for   
   > example by Lavoisier, mass is NOT conserved; the _total energy_ is.)   
      
   Mass-energy is conserved. Converting one to the other is a big deal when   
   it happens, but it doesn't do much to the shape of space-time around the   
   point where and when it happens.   
      
   >> The first LIGO observation was of two black holes merging   
   >   
   > ... and has absolutely nothing to do with two *photons* interacting with   
   > each other.   
      
   And where did I say it did?   
      
   > Apparently you have no clue what a photon is or what a black   
   > hole is, or you simply cannot read comprehensibly.  Which one is it?   
      
   The reading comprehension problem is all yours.   
      
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW190521   
   >>   
   >> "At 85 and 66 solar masses (M☉) respectively, the two black holes   
   >> comprising this merger are the largest progenitor masses observed to   
   >> date. The resulting black hole had a mass equivalent to 142 times that   
   >> of the Sun, making this the first clear detection of an   
   >> intermediate-mass black hole. The remaining 8 solar masses were radiated   
   >> away as energy in the form of gravitational waves."   
   >   
   > Correct.   
   >   
   >> Not only do photons have mass, but gravity waves do too.   
   >   
   > Wrong conclusion.  Also, for the nth time: gravity waves and gravitational   
   > waves are two different phenomena.   
      
   But you can't be bothered to spell out the difference, or why I should   
   have made a distinction between them.   
      
   > And which part of "Followup-To" do you people not understand? *facepalm*   
      
   Your idea of "followup" seems to be idiosyncratic. You seem to share   
   John Larkin's enthusiasm for flattering responses, while being equally   
   incapable of posting anything that might earn them.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)