XPost: sci.electroncis.design   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Bill Sloman wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Once again: There is no concept of "mass-energy" (that is conserved).   
   See my previously, recently posted, detailed explanation,   
      
     ,   
      
   for details.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.   
      
   What is correct is that it does not matter *at all* for the curvature of   
   spacetime what kind of energy (density) it corresponds to.   
      
   But even a broken analog clock is right twice a day :->   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   Your example is beside the point of the discussion; it is refuting a claim   
   that was not made.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   No, it is not.  The claim about the "production" of mass was with regard to   
   "two gammas [colliding] and [creating] a particle pair", NOT two black holes   
   merging.   
      
   "gammas" is colloquial scientific speech for "photons" (since the symbol for   
   a photon in the Standard Model of particle physics is γ (gamma), probably   
   originating from the term "gamma radiation" in radioactivity; NOT "black   
   holes".   
      
   >>> 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,   
      
   I have already done so at least twice.  Learn to read.   
      
   > or why I should have made a distinction between them.   
      
   Because they are not the same phenomenon.  In science we use different terms   
   for different things in order to tell them apart, and this is a science   
   newsgroup.   
      
   >> And which part of "Followup-To" do you people not understand? *facepalm*   
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^   
   > Your idea of "followup" seems to be idiosyncratic.   
      
   The term and feature that I used is Followup-_To_ ("F'up2"); see also   
      
      
      
      
      
   So much for reading comprehension.   
      
   > You seem to share John Larkin's enthusiasm for flattering responses,   
   > while being equally incapable of posting anything that might earn them.   
      
   *facepalm*   
      
   F'up2    
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)