Strange

I don't see the relevance of the analogy. You are taking about physically different systems where we can measure the differences. How would you experimentally test the difference between say, the many-worlds and the Copenhagen interpretation?

But if there is no way to distinguish them, then this is just irrelevant.

I'm not sure how you could distinguish that conclusion from the others by means of experiment.

The choice of interpretation (including none) is irrelevant. They are all equivalent descriptions of the same underlying theory.

I am not contradicting anything in the experiment or conclusions. Just pointing out that you can't use it for faster than light communication (if that is your intention). And if you are saying that they concluded it could be used for faster than light communication then you are completely wrong.

Doesn't make much difference how or when the data is collected and correlated. There is still at least a light speed delay involved so you can't transfer information faster than light (if that was the intention).

I can see a couple of reasons why this won't work as a communications mechanism. The main one is, I think, because of a misunderstanding of how the experiment works. I have not fully understood what TakenItSeriously is trying to achieve but this seems to be based on the idea that the remote person could make the interference pattern appear of disappear by choosing whether to make an observation or not. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) The trouble is, that is not how the experiment works. You need to correlate the photons detected at D1 to D4 with those detected at D0. When you do that, you find that the photons at D0 that correlate with D3 or D4 do not form an interference pattern, while those that correlate with detections at D1 or D2 do form an interference pattern. But, to determine this, you need access to the information from all detectors which needs a separate communication path that can only take place at light speed. So you might as well communicate normally.

The statement wasn't about "correctness", it was about "rational consistency" (whatever that means). There is no inherent inconsistency in the models or in the evidence supporting it. Given the overwhelming evidence for GR, and the total lack of evidence against it, it seems unlikely it will be shown to be wrong. But we already know it is (like all theories) incomplete so I'm not sure what the point is. "Dark energy" (whatever it turns out to be) is based purely on evidence and observation. It might be explained by GR (currently the simplest explanation) or it might turn out to be something else.

I already answered this. If the Earth were hollow, then there would no gravitational force as soon as you entered the hollow area. There would also be no further change in gravitational potential and so the time dilation would the same everywhere within the hollow. This (obviously) has nothing to do with virtual particles or the Casimir effect.

No but the effects have. Wrong. There is zero evidence for gods but lots of evidence for dark matter. God is a myth. Dark energy is an observed fact. Nonsense. Can you point to a set of observations and a mathematical model for your god or gods? No. So you comparison is wrong, idiotic and slightly offensive. The only dual standard here is yours, trying to elevate faith and opinion to the same level as objective measurement. Because there are no such miracles (just stories) whereas there is copious objective, quantitative evidence for dark energy. I don't really know what that means. You think writing was invented in 7 days? Or you think writing was created by Adam and Eve? Or you think writing was invented the same time as Genesis was first written down? All of those are wrong, so there doesn't seem to be any science here. Bollocks. That doesn't make much sense but sounds like nonsense... Are you saying that General Relativity is wrong? If so, perhaps you should start a new thread to argue that.

It is not that others can't see the difference you are specifying, they just don't agree that your definitions of words like "detect", "see" and "visible" etc are the only ones. By insisting that your chosen definitions are the only correct ones, you are just as much the problem as anyone else (given your hostile attitude, probably more so).

By falling on the retina. I can't believe that this discussion over the semantics of "visible", "seeing", etc has lasted for 17 pages. Bizarre.

Interference and diffraction are independent of the source of the radiation. However, interference is only easily seen with monochromatic light. And why is quantum theory a problem? Both interference and diffraction can be explained in quantum theory (it wouldn't be a very good theory otherwise, would it).

The term “virtual particles” is used in two different contexts. One is the temporary creation of particle pairs from the non-zero vacuum energy. The other is where (virtual) bosons are used to describe how various forces/interactions are quantised. The existence of quantum fluctuations in empty space has no (direct) connection with the electromagnetic or gravitational force.

That is the only thing you have said (here) that I agree with.

I disagree with every single statement here. The idea that a small minority of good people could impose rules to force everyone else to be half decent is ludicrous. The bad majority in your world would just take over. I am pretty sure chronic / pathological liars don't know they are lying. They don't even understand the concept of truth. (Take Trump for example, he believes all the things he says are true even when they are factually incorrect and mutually contradictory.)

I think you are taking an over-simplistic approach to what "virtual particles" means.

Oops. I got the sign of this the wrong way round in my head, which is why I said "maximum" rather than "minimum".

Pop-science usually refers to simplified (and hence rather inaccurate) descriptions of science in the popular press. This sounds like straightforward crackpottery.

Gravitational force reduce to zero. The gravitational potential (or space-time curvature, if you prefer) reaches a maximum there. It always has mass. Do you mean weight?

Location relative to what? For example, if you are interested in the location of the Earth relative to the Sun, then the movement of the Sun round the galaxy is irrelevant. If you are interested in the location of the Earth in the galaxy, then the movement of the Sun round the galaxy becomes important bu the movement of the galaxy in our local cluster is not. And so on. And expansion of space only become relevant if you are calculating the position of Earth relative to some very, very distant galaxies.

Potential can be though of as the work needed to raise something and (ignoring the pressure and solidity of the material: imagine we are dealing with a tunnel going through the centre of the Earth) it would take work to let something from the centre towards the surface. Therefore the gravitational potential is greater as you approach the centre.

Movement would only be helical if a constantly changing force was applied .In the absence of an external force, motion would be linear. That video is nonsense. https://astrorhysy.blogspot.it/2013/12/and-yet-it-moves-but-not-like-that.html http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2013/01/22/vortex-garbage/ https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/ https://xkcd.com/1964/

Not quite sure what you are asking. It is probably simpler to just use triangulation to find your location relative to planets, stars or galaxies (depending on the scale you are considering). And your local time is not the same as anyone else, so you would just use whatever time standard you like. But are you thinking there is some sort of "absolute" location and time that could be identified? Also, I don't know what you mean by 'helical'. Expansion is linear.

No. All attempts to test this have been consistent with space being continuous. And even if there were, it doesn't really lend any credence to his idea.