Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Elroch - what exactly do you mean by "counterexample"? 

No.

1% bluster maybe, when I start to get irritated with the continual stupidity of others. You're all something but I'd probably be banned if I told you.

An example used as evidence against a proposal claimed to be supported by the initial example.

I'm better at understanding what words mean than he is.

Indeed, that reminds me of something I was going to mention about the meaning of words. The Physics PhD we were talking about and trying to understand, because they spoke in a strange and garbled way, is no doubt an expert in physics. That's what  their PhD is about. However, they don't necessarily understand what words mean, if they haven't received a full and proper education in the use of English. There is no need to assume that they know what they are talking about, at least regarding their description of what infinity is supposed to mean, if they use words incorrectly, as they clearly do. There has to come a point where incorrect usage shouldn't be propagated, when it actually changes the meaning of what it describes, as it does here.

I would consider anyone, who condemns criticism without discussion, to be a fake intellectual.

A scientific test that would discern between finiteness and infinity in any scientific context.

First it's worth noting that there are many examples of infinity being part of the models of physics - eg the number of possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Or the number of energy levels in a hydrogen atom, comprising a proton and a bound electron.

And there are plenty of others where infinity is hypothesised while the negation being also accepted as a possibility. For example, the length of time that the Universe will exist or the number of atoms in the Universe (including parts impractical to observe).

Examining examples, I find that it is feasible to demonstrate a finite lower bound for such things, but not the lack of existence of an upper bound. For example, it is feasible to demonstrate that there are at least N atoms in the Universe for some N, but not the more general fact that for any N, there are more than N atoms in the Universe (proposition of infinity).

Then, I looked at the Wiki definition of counterexample, to see if it agreed, only to find it apparently incorrect. Why do I consider it to be strictly incorrect?

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
counterexample
/ˈkaʊntərɪɡˌzɑːmp(ə)l,ˈkaʊntərɛɡˌzɑːmp(ə)l/
 Learn to pronounce
 
noun
 
an example that opposes or contradicts an idea or theory.

I'd hate to have to learn to pronounce it from that phoenetic description. It seems to be in some weird, Southern States accent, like Deputy Dawg. We pronounce the x, not as gz.

Thanks. Just wanted to confirm it's all theoretical.

However, another balloon satellite in the news. So now people are wondering why they claim to have satellites in "outer space" if they require helium balloons to keep them up in the air???

Regarding examples of "infinity" usage in models and regarding electromagnetic radiation, there's no observable upper or lower bound to frequency. Therefore, it's natural that Infinity is used as a theoretical limit.

That's all it is.

Nonsensical pretext at end of last sentence.

Not when one discovers that NASA is the largest consumer of helium on the face of the earth. 

Then it becomes extremely relevant and sensical. 

Inner space. Just more people who don't know what words mean.

Lol.  So, this vast worldwide conspiracy has kept the "flat earth" a secret for generations, but the helium smoking gun that proves the sky is held up by scaffolding and repairmen use helium balloons to repair it (I mean, it's really obvious when you come right out and say it) is right there, according to you.  So essentially, what you are saying is that flat earthers are dumb as rocks...which jives with most people's assessment, but for different reasons .

That's so they can breathe it in, talk like a duck and people will believe they're on Mars. Cheaper than space travel and achieves the same ends.

The money they save from the government grants buys all the upper management nuclear bunkers for the coming fun.

Now _that's_ random.

No.

Near Earth satellites move at around 5 miles per second relative to the ground (this in not seriously arguable as they can be easily tracked from multiple points on the ground).

To do this they have to be in space far enough from Earth to have a very tiny density of molecules (eg 10^12 kg/cubic meter at the height of the ISS - around 408 km).

• No balloons can get within hundreds of miles of this region (they need a reasonable density of air to provide adequate bouyancy)
• Also balloons do not move at 5 miles per second

Please acknowledge you accept the latter points.

I had to check this definition.

Outer space - the physical universe beyond the earth's atmosphere.

So it comes down to whether you count the near vacuum where near Earth satellites orbit as part of the Earth's atmosphere. While the boundary is rather arbitrary, there is an accepted cut-off called the Karman Line at 100 km altitude, at which height the atmosphere is very tenuous. It is a lot nearer a vacuum at 408 km (where ISS orbits).

I was using old terminology because it fitted the situation. The stratosphere was thought of as the first layer of "inner space". "Outer space" would be a near perfect vacuum.

I think perhaps that thinking is out of date, now that jets regularly reach the stratosphere and even the mesosphere. Maybe now, the exosphere should be considered the segment of the atmosphere which borders on "real space" and so is sort of "inner space".

As I was reading I found the fact that the ISS orbits in what is technically called the thermosphere. About a trillionth of atmospheric pressure and (the name is the clue) very hot.

But the difficulty of drawing a line is made clear by the fact that by a similar criterion all of the Solar System is in the Sun's atmosphere.