Strange

I think swansont's position as a moderators is irrelevant. He is arguing from his position as a working physicist.

(From the John Baez link above) Pretty close to zero.

Well, you seem to imply that this also limited the maximum speed. Sorry if I misunderstood. Nothing circular at all. It is just how momentum is defined. Is the problem that you learned the simple definition at school and assume that therefore that is it and it can never change? Sorry, but almost everything you learned at school is a simplification and once you go on to further study you find it is wrong/incomplete. It is a standard teaching technique known as "lying to children". (The same is true for undergrad, vs postcard and postgrad vs the world of work!) Also, many definitions change as we learn more. For example, fundamental particles have angular momentum (spin) even though they have zero size and don't physically rotate. We used to think that energy was conserved, now we know that mass-energy is conserved (locally). And so on. And, if you picked up your physics from popular science articles, then it will be even more wrong! Can you say which bits don't make sense? Maybe someone here can explain it. However, as he says, people don't just take this as a given. Experiments have been done to measure the mass of the photon. As far as we can tell it really is zero.

OK. So the only standard, accepted by all scientists, description of black holes we have is that specified by GR. Because that is based on a theory backed by mountains of evidence. In that model, nothing can escape. However, there are alls sorts of speculative/hypothetical/theoretical ideas out there about how quantum theory might change this. In some of these there are mechanisms for matter to leave a black hole. But there is no evidence for any of these ideas yet. If you are happy to just accept an idea because it is appealing even though there is no evidence, then go for it! They aren't. It is caused by the geometry of space-time.

1. They don't. 2. Non-sterile neutrinos have no charge but do have weak interactions. (Remember, the electroweak symmetry was broken about 13 billion years ago)

"Due to the lack of charge, sterile neutrinos would not interact electromagnetically, weakly, or strongly, " (From link above)

It is still probabilistic, then. https://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

Neutrinos (sterile or otherwise) are not charged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino No form of dark matter can be charged as it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force.

Even if that were true, how does that avoid the probabilistic nature? (I don't think that is what the holographic principle says, anyway.)

Asking you for clarification, when you alternate between randomly changing the scenario and refusing to answer, is not a personal attack. Pouting out that you behave like that is not a personal attack either.

It has momentum but not mass. Only for objects with mass. For photons it is Plancks constant / wavelength. This is Newton’s second law. It is about acceleration not speed.

It does affect all matter: stars, dust, cold hydrogen, ...

But Dalo rejects that as irrelevant to his (new) question. It is no longer about field of view, but some bizarre misunderstanding about the visibility of lasers. As far as I can tell the lens is irrelevant. But it is hard to know because it is nearly impossible to get a straight answer from Dalo (deliberately ortherwise, I don't know). But it is a terrible analogy. There is nothing blocking the light from the sun and it is nota unidirectional source. Your analogy has nothing common with the actual case. If you take a picture of the Sun behind a tree (equivalent to the beam being blocked by the diaphragm) does it become visible when you add a filter?

So what have you now introduced another light-source that allows us to see the lasers when they are off. I thought this was to explain why you previously said that you could see the source when the beam was blocked. So, please, can we get rid of this extra light. We don't care about being able to see the laser equipment or what make they are. We just want to understand why you think you can see the laser light when it is blocked by the diaphragm Why use an analogy when the "real thing" (laser) is good enough. It just confuses the issue. Can you explain how or why you think you can see the beams of light when they are blocked? Have you never heard of shadows? Can you see through walls? Can you explain whether you think the lens is significant to this? Or can you still see the blocked beam in this version:

No what? (Another annoying habit: ambiguous replies. I don't know which statement you are responding to. And I don't know what "no" means as a response to any of them.)

Or this:

So all this time your lasers have been illuminated by another source. Even though your video was done in the dark, and I explicitly said there was no other source of light. And then you complain when people don't understand you! You still haven't explained why you suddenly switched to mini suns that shine in one direction" instead of lasers. Presumably this means something different to you but you haven't said (and no one guess) what it is.

Blimey. I didn't realise you were only 11. That explains a lot. He says, immediately before posting several quotes saying that it is a field. BTW the Einstein paper you referenced earlier (see my link) doesn't say anything about gravitational waves. You want this one: http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/25 (Strangely, he seems to have forgotten to say they are electromagnetic!)

So you mean: 2) Let us turn all lasers off. 3) I suppose that everybody will agree with me that, even if the diaphragm is put at the same position as in in my diagram, all five lamps will be visible from the screen position, whatever the aperture? In which case: no. How the *%^# will they be visible if they are off? Hmmm. I wonder if that is the source of the confusion.... it would explain all the bizarre contradictory statements about beams vs sources being visible or not. And might even make sense of the "things become visible with the filter" (although I can't quite see how).

What does that have to do with the probabilistic nature of quantum theory?

Maybe. In fact, almost certainly. But we don’t yet have any theory that explains why collapse will stop, or what will happen instead.

One of the things Einstein was wrong about.

Space-time

The spin of a nucleus. Therefore not classical. Yeah, right.

Doesn’t make much sense to me. There are an infinite number of integers but you can still say “5” without having to count up from -infinity. And if the universe is spatially infinite, you are still “here”. You didn’t have to travel from infinity to get here.