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

I thought your comment was silly, myself. Indicative of a total denial and refusal to take criticism on board, which has the effect of closing ranks. The problem is that you all say yes to each other and the result of that is that no-one thinks particularly well. You're all scared to think for yourselves.

There is a new Dog on the loose, called Mathematica.

As far as I know, that is an old software system for doing mathematics. Used it many years ago.

(Just checking - it is in its 32nd year now!)

I seem to remember it. OK let's forget Greek and Latin and go for Hebrew.  מָתֶמָטִיקָה

So what is your definition of the "force" on a photon, and what is your calculation that gives its change in direction?

(Genuine questions, because I have not seen this use of the term "force"). The fact I recall is that if you use a Newtonian calculation, you predict half as much bending as actually takes place. This fact is a handy way to do a quick calculation. Eg see this discussion: http://web.mit.edu/6.055/old/S2009/notes/bending-of-light.pdf  This factor of 2 was one of the crucial tests of general relativity in the early 20th century).

If Newtonian physics predicts less bending than happens then it is likely that the entity (photon) has different properties than is assumed in regard to its interaction with gravity. However, the explanation I gave is correct in general terms so why are you so keen to criticise?

Since any acceleration is assumed to be the result of a force which causes it then it can be assumed that a force is present. Instead it might be assumed that the topography of space or space-time alters or distorts as a means of transmitting what we interpret as force and which has the same effect in causing a deviation of the path of the photon, which is interpreted as acceleration even though the photon is following the path of least resistance along the contours.

I made that up off the top of my rather tired head but it was only an attempt to convey the fact that I think that the distortion of space caused by mass is only an easy way of depicting forces and their directions. It isn't a literal thing but the topography is the same so the maths works.

This concept has been at the core for much of current theory (gravity) and beliefs.

But is it the correct one ... is something missing ?

It is part of the truth.

Read my post again to see I asked questions of you, stated an important fact and linked some relevant information. While criticism is not necessarily bad, I happened not to criticise at all.

"My habit is to reserve red for when all other colours that contrast well with those used have already been used. That was the case here."

LOL

Yeah, more likely a low hanging fruit in a created/controlled matrix. Laughing behind the scenes because the next several moves here can be predicted with a ninety percent plus ratio. 

If you get a bit of space and chuck a pebble into it, the pebble will be a small, moving, massive object. Qualitatively, are there any differences between what happens here and the interaction of, say, a large star and a photon, both which can be assumed to have been randomly chucked there? This means that the "curvature of space" is just a means to DEPICT the effects of gravity. We have no reason to assume it's real but, as usual, the mathematicians take their own metaphors literally.

<<<The properties of a photon are its energy, momentum and velocity. These are what they are, so it is more that Newtonian physics just doesn't work for photons.>>>

Of course it does, insofar as it works for the momentum. Since momentum is a product of mass and speed, I think you should have written "mass, energy, position and velocity". It's accepted that not all of these can be "knowns" at any one time.

I'm quite prepared to think that energy itself might well affect the result. Off the top of my head, it could be that energy imparts a "stickyness" in a similar fashion to the way some blind people can differentiate between colours due to how sticky they feel: the stickiness being a function of colour and therefore of energy. There was a fair bit of experimentation done on that, I think in the 60s.

<<<I have had a problem on a physics site with one narrow-minded person in a position of influence, who seems to spend most of his time regurgitating basic physics on the net but who appears unable to intelligently discuss physics that is not yet set in stone. My response, don't waste time where there are such people.>>>

You're saying that you also had that experience? Obviously, at the time it was a learning curve for me. I realised what was happening. I used to visit various online sites often two or three dedicated to a mparticular subject at a time. First it was sites dedicated to discussions of atheism and theism. Most of these people, of both persuasions, spend their time howling at each other. Then it was political sites with especial reference to the Tibet-China problem. A lot of these people hack each other and generally act badly. Then, it was high IQ sites, starting with Mensa and progressing through various others up to the ceiling presented by requirements to sit their tests or show evidence. The rivalry and dislike between groups dedicated to different IQ levels was laughable and basically the sites were full, of nutters, often pretending to be something they weren't. That takes us to about ten years ago, when I joined several physics sites. In general, they are populated by idiots who are manipulated by others. After that, sites dedicated to people like Gurdjieff. And so on up to about five years ago, after which I thought I'd learned what I wanted to learn about online behaviour.

All you are doing is repeating that the experts know best. They might well be experts on elephants' toenails but they aren't tall enough to see the whole elephant and they don't live long enough to walk halfway round it.

It is generally accepted by them that they work within a paradigm that accepts the BBT which is itself contrary to the logic that initially devised and propagated BBT. You call them experts but it would benefit them better if they were not. What about the proposal that cosmology attracts second class PhDs in any case, similarly to the way that second class people are attracted to cognitive science because it isn't a hard science either? Less than ten years ago, scientists were being fired for criticising the Big Bang. The evidence is incontrovertible that they are on a gravy train for life. It even pays them if they don't find any answers.

Make them all middle and junior managers in baked beans factories.

Thank you king! strait from my soul.

Your welcome, and here she is as promised..