Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

What does "zero mass" mean Elroch ... if not to mean ZERO ?

And then proceed to explain how the mass is "truly a miniscule amount." 

That's how science works. You can't prove the mass is exactly zero by experiment, but you can show it is less than some really tiny amount. This happens to mean all predictions will be accurate if you assume the mass is exactly zero.

And I didn't say the mass of the photon was "truly a miniscule amount.", I said that it was known to be no larger than a (specified) tiny amount, a statement about empirical knowledge. I have no reason to believe it is not zero, and believing this is consistent with all data, so that's what I believe (and that is what is done in physics).

then I have a question. If i go outside and point a flashlite to the sky and turn it on and then off really quick ?....did i just make a irreversible ray that cant ever be extinguished ?

....and then what if i did it under water ?  

It's true that if you shine a light at the sky, the photons can travel way out across space over the years - in principle as far as you like. But they would spread out rapidly and become indetectable very early in their journey, because of background light.

king, i think we had a failure in communication. i lost you.. lol
but never mind that, all i can think of right now is a deluxe tuna sandwich made with smoked ahi and waldorf salad : )

....People who try to be Einstein get their random privileges revoked after so long...

"Accelerating expansion makes the BBT untenable" 

I interpret this to mean, if the observed expansion were accelerated, as if a cosmological constant can predict the rate, by NOW, with the BBT predicting 13+ B years, the theory becomes illogical.

short answer? its not irreversible because sooner or later the photons you create will get absorb by other objects that they hit on their path.
a good example for this is our eyes. they absorb photons that "bounce" off the objects we look at, and then the brain recreate the images. (of course there is much more to it but never mind that for now : )

opti: "the curvature of space is the consequence of inserting a massive object into that space; and there is no reason to think of it as being real, other than as a device to portray the behaviour of the object in the space."

Do you happen to know what was einstein take on this? 

calling him out ?....luvit Opti !!

L, L and trying to stay strong

I have given up on Elroch because he's stopped thinking entirely, sorry to say.

some call him a pseudytroll (well, just me)

this thread's embedded mole

nothing is impossible to him

yet he does nothing all the time

plonk plonk burp....giv'em more wine

blah blah huh ?....you're challenging mine ?

math *poof* theory - this sends me bonkers

would s/o pass the screaming yellow zonkers ?

There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and I) and that is why it is foolish for you to say that. He rewrote part of physics and his work has stood the test of time.

Shortly after Einstein published his work, other physicists deduced a phenomenon called gravitational waves - a form of energy that consists of ripples in the curvature of space-time, with no other substance.  It took about 100 years before these were finally detected, after several decades of failures (due to the great precision required). Few physicists were surprised by the distinctive patterns detected (rather they were delighted) because they knew there was good reason to believe the implications of Einstein's theory and this is what it predicts when black holes and neutron stars merge. 

This is no petty phenomenon: the gravitational waves that were detected amounted to up to about 5 solar masses being converted to pure gravitational energy in a fraction of a second, up to billions of light years away. These are some of the most energetic events in the entire Universe.

https://wiki2.org/en/Gravitational_wave#LIGO_and_Virgo_observations

https://wiki2.org/en/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amIMdUYEIJU

Random, but amusing!

meeting randoms at 2:00....lol !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTYNS-974w

There are no perfect people silver. : ) Chill, just relax..

btw.. apples in your salad? lol ... Still taxing your cute little tea?

lol.. Now, what about the randomness of post #1 point #2? : )

There are no perfect people

speak4urself

Used to be called "aether"

Curvature is a quantitative geometric fact. If space-time was flat, there would be no deflection by masses, no orbits around masses, no gravitational time dilation, no gravitational lensing, no gravitational waves.

The nature of the curvature is intuitively difficult. By analogy, we know a sphere is curved because the circumference of circles with different radii are anomalous - the larger the circle the more shrunken the circle seems to be compared to the C = 2 pi r  that is true for flat circles.

It is much more difficult in space-time because the scales of time and distance vary depending on the motion. This means it requires mathematical machinery to define what it means for a Riemannian manifold to be curved.

That being said, Einstein managed to sum up the truth in a single equation that essentially says the curvature of space-time (G_uv) is proportional to the distribution of energy and momentum (T_uv).

Well, plus that universal cosmological constant term (Lambda g_uv) that he originally included, dropped later because it wasn't needed and there was no evidence for it, and was then added again long after his death, when dark energy was discovered in the 1990s,

How close is the end?