Strange

Not now; it always required them. If you only measure one variable then you have no way of knowing if it always had that avlue or it only took on the value when you measure it. As your simulation shows: it might have always had the same value. There is little value in demonstrating that. No one. I am just explaining to you (again) what Bell's theorem actually says. What Bell's inequality says is that if you measure multiple related observables you will get a different result if their values are defined in advance than if they take on values when they are measured.

I don't think that is correct. That is true for Newtonian gravity, but that gives half the deflection that GR does.

You are not performing a valid test of Bell's theorem. You need to change your simulation to test multiple simultaneous values and show that they all have real values (hidden variables). Testing just one (hidden) variable will not work.

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you.

Interesting article. There are cultures where the time line goes front to back instead of left to right. It would be interesting to see a similar analysis of patients from such a culture.

How about starting a new thread and providing some evidence/examples of science being consistently slowed down/misled by authority figures (or whatever your point is)?

Also, the detection of "unseen" entities by the effect they have on other things has a long history and is not that surprising. A notable example is Neptune (which I have seen referred to as "the original dark matter") which "was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed" (1). So Neptune was made up because the equations don't work without it. It took 65 years from the original suggestion befoire Neptune was identified. A similar story with neutrinos. Conservation laws led to the suggestion that there were unseen particles. It, again took a few decades to detect these. Implausibly, they could travel through several light years of lead without any effect. Obviously such ridiculous particles can't exist. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

God made people?

I guess so - because the wave function implies the values are not just "not known" but don't even exist (not "real") until they are measured. Whereas, hidden variables means that everything that could be measured already has a value (we just don't know what they are). But if you define all these variables as having real values, then you get a different result from that prediced by QM (and therefore that which is measured). I'm not sure why that implies a paradox. Even "no change" is information, and transmitting that information faster than light can break causality.

It says that no "local realistic" theory can give the same results as QM. Where "local" means communication is limited to light speed and "realistic" means there are hidden variables (i.e. all the observables have defined values). In other words, you either have to give up hidden variables or you have to allow faster than light communication. (Or both.) Pretty much everyone opts for the first choice. I think there are some attempts at theories with FTL communication, but that breaks causality so I don't really know how that works. Note that the critical point for this thread is ALL the observables having defined values. So just picking one polarization value and showing it can be explained classically does not falsify Bell's theorem.

Nope. There are very rare occasions where people have been slower than they might otherwise to accept a new idea because someone powerful or prestigious speaks out against it - Eddington and Chandrasekhar comes to mind (although that dispute is probably exaggereated) - but Einstein's objections to QM did nothing but strengthen the theory. And there are also occasional cases where someone finds it hard to publish a new idea until supported by someone well known. But in the long run, science works. Just found this (while double-checking the spelling of Chandrasekhar): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/01/the-chandrasekhar-limit-the-threshold-that-makes-life-possible/ Reminds me of Lemaître (one of the originators of the FLRW [aka "big bang"] model) and Hoyle (staunch defender of the steady state) who were very good friends. Apparently, one time Lemaître's flight home from the UK was cancelled so Hoyle drove him to Belgium.

The equations work perfectly well. That is why they know that extra matter is required in galaxies to explain rotational speeds. Unless you are claiming that Newtonian gravity is wrong too. In which case you need to present an alternative model and show that it provides a better explanation. No one has been able to do that yet, so good luck. And then you need to explain all the other evidence for dark matter - presumably with a number of independent ad-hoc assumptions.

They do. Do you think people just made these things up for no reason? Sheesh.

I would have thought that the unification of GR and QM was. But it probably depends on your interests.

Actually, Newton showed that light would be affected by gravity. (His theory predicts a different result than GR, which is why this was one of the first tests of GR.)

That has nothing to do with GR. As I say, there are attempts to explain the observed behaviour by modifying the laws of gravity (look up MOND and its relativistic derivatives) but they don't work. Part of the problem is that it is hard to come up with a general model of gravity that models the distribution of dark matter in galaxies. But assuming it is matter, makes it easy. Also, there are other forms of evidence for dark matter which make it pretty certain that it is some form of matter. But then on larger scales still, it does work.

The idea of the universe being created may well have appealed to him, because of his religion. Although many people seem to criticise the big bang theory (and much other science) as some sort of "atheist conspircay" so who knows. Not in science.

For dark matter, certainly. It is required by Newtonian gravity. Dark energy is explicitly related to expansion (and hence GR). Then you need to show the maths of the model and show that it matches observation. That is how science works.

You mean the fact that many people think it is about the creation of the universe? Sadly, you are right. We often have to correct people about that. It doesn't matter if he was a priest, a pastry chef or a fireman. He was, as you say, doing science. So why the ad hominem? Another important figure in the field, Paul Painlevé, was Prime Minister of France. Does that make his mathematics wrong? Of course not. I would try and correct their misunderstandings. Same as here.

For two reasons: 1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't. 2. One is science and the other isn't. You might as well compare a car to a banana.

1. That isn't the reason that dark matter is hypothesized. I can't understand why people don't understand the concept of "evidence". 2. You say "The math has already been done" so you are using the same equations (therefore, with the same "holes"). So how can you claim "By the way, we don't need dark energy or dark matter anymore"? Either you are using the same maths and therefore need the extra mass represented by dark matter, or you have a new model which does away with the need for dark matter. If the latter, you need to show that your model reproduces the rotation curves of galaxies (and all the other evidence for dark matter). Imagination is great but if it doesn't match reality, it isn't science. But it is you who is rejecting observation by claiming that dark matter is just "holes in the equations". Great idea. I did that in my 40s (and ended up in a new career). Huh? This has been known since Galileo and the mathematical reasons shown by Newton (and confirmed by Einstein). I would probably agree with that... Actually, Einstein's work in quantum theory came after (to explain) the experiments. So in that case people were pretty sure he was right straight away (and hence the Nobel Prize). In the case of General Relativity, because it was derived directly from Maxwell's equations most people were convinced he was right even before any experiments were performed. It is geometry (lengths, etc.) that are warped, not anything "physical". It works perfectly well. There have been and are attempts to explain dark matter by changing the rules about how gravity works. Unfortunately, no such theories match observation; even the best still need some dark matter. Actually, he said that density increases. Here, try this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

So what is the point? If you don't have an alternative, hopefully better, model you are contributing nothing (imagination or not).

While it is true that we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, we do have a perfectly good theory for gravity so there is absolutely do reason to describe it as "all speculation". Can you show us the maths that confirms your compression model produces results that match experiment?

I thought this sounded familiar: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82542-universal-solvent/ And: http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/43229-universal-solvent.html

No it doesn't. Then why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example. (BTW there is no such thing as "the bells experiment".)