Strange

What do you think the difference is? "Spooky action at a distance" was just Einstein's characterization of entanglement, because he didn't like the concept. What is "special" about it is that cos2 is used to calculate the correct value in quantum theory (as opposed to classical probabilities). So by using this you are automatically getting the same results as QM. It is not surprising and doesn't demonstrate anything interesting (unless someone thinks your lack of understanding is interesting).

There is lots of evidence for entanglement. Then it sounds like you have a few years of learning about theoretical physics ahead of you before you are ready.

You are right. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with entanglement. That is just a useful way of testing it. It is about demonstrating that there are no local hidden variables.

From the Slate article: Why do people have such a poor grasp of scale? That is a really, really, really tiny number. One of my favourite BBC programs, More or Less, has a standard question: "is that a big number?". Even very large numbers are not necessarily "big numbers".

Well, I don't know. You tell me what the point is of spouting a load of nonsense that you don't want to provide any evidence for? Was it an exercise in creative writing? It isn't obvious that your "theory" violates those. Looks like you need to try harder.

Then why don't you research or ask about that, rather than making random statements about velocity and other irrelevancies?

Why? Your "pointers" are just nonsense with no supporting evidence. Why would anyone waste time doing "homework" on this drivel? If you can't be bothered to support it, I'm certainly not going to waste time on it.

OK. What evidence do you have for "gravitational charge"? What evidence do you have that neutrinos have internal structure? What evidence do you have that shows the quark model to be wrong? What evidence do you have that anyone has ever said this? What evidence do you have that electrons take part in the strong interaction? How do you explain the existence of free electrons, if this were true? What evidence do you have that neutrinos are "rotating"? What evidence do you have that neutrons can be thought of this way?

I'm not sure that "much is needed" to explain the paths of this energy. We know that light travels in straight lines. We know it can be absorbed or reflected. We know about gravitational lensing. Why do you think any of this is relevant to global warming? Taking swansont's earlier figure of 384 yottwatts (3.8 x 10^26) and Einstein's e=mc2; we can calculate a loss of mass of about 3.8*1026 / c2 = 4 x 109 kg/s. There is also the solar wind which accounts for about another 1.5 x 109 kg/s. So about 6.5 million tons per second. This is a tiny fraction and could mean that the radius of the Earth's orbit increases by about 1.5 cm in a year. Pretty insignificant. While checking that, I came across this which comes to about the same conclusion: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/14/solar_wind_versus_fusion_how_does_the_sun_lose_mass.html

It seems very unlikely that even our nearest star, Alpha Centauri, makes any significant contribution to the thermodynamics of the Earth-Sun system. Never mind galaxies which are billions of light years away. So the idea that we "must take into consideration Everything Else too" is clearly wrong. The only way science and technology can make progress is by knowing what information is important and what can be ignored. Why would speed through space be relevant to global warming? (Although, obviously, the Earth's changing position with respect to the Sun may be.) Also, speed relative to what?

This.

No one else does. So maybe the problem is with your understanding.

So you simply ignore the evidence? Your simulation is obviously worthless compared with real experimental data. If your simulation disagrees with experiment then it is wrong. That is all there is to say.

Right. Which is why there appears to be such a large "jump" from the earliest galaxies to the z of the CMB when the difference is "only" about 200 million years.

This sounds (from this slightly garbled sentence) like a pretty standard description of quantum field theory. As such it has nothing, zero, zilch, zip to do with the universe (supposedly) being a continuum of matter. It would be nice to see ZVBXRPL provide (a) a model and (b) some evidence supporting this model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments Perhaps you can explain how every single one of them is wrong?

This is because it took a long time (100s of millions of years) for galaxies to form. So there is nothing much to observe for a long time. Also, the more distant things are, the harder it is to see them and to accurately measure their red-shift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Highest_redshifts

That was not what I said. I said that videos are, in general, an extremely poor source for gaining technical information. It is clear that (a) you don't understand Bell's Theorem and (b) you said you were looking for better videos (presumably to learn more about it and the tests of it). So I was just trying to be helpful by pointing out that there are much, much better sources of information (such as the article I linked to and the references in that).

You are not simulating an experiment that tests Bell's Theorem. You are simply using a (classical) equation that happens to give you the right answer. Also, again, real experiment in the real world show that Bell's inequality is observed. So whatever your toy program does, it is irrelevant. Why are you looking for videos? Pretty much the worst medium for getting detailed technical information. (Second only to modern dance.) Why not read some of the many articles about the subject.

So it seems you start with the value predicted by quantum theory and then end up with the result predicted by quantum theory. The bug in your code is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

What are the hidden variables in your simulation? Why would anyone bother to debug your poorly formatted code? Although, as far as I can tell, your simulation has nothing to do with Bell's inequality. If it does, and it violates Bell's inequality then it does not agree with reality.

You might want to read this: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm All experiments that have been done show that Bell's inequality holds.

This thread was also partly stimulated by me responding to overtone's comment that the use of the quote function indicates who was being quoted. I noted that in many cases (including his comments) it didn't. I was just curious why it didn't and why he claimed it did. But I'm not really that bothered. But I do disagree with this very strongly. Oh, that's not very clear, is it. Shall we try it again with the quote function? But I do disagree with this very strongly. Because, as you can see, it can be almost impossible to know what or who is being responded to. If you end up having to search back through pages of a thread to find the original writer of a comment and the context well, ... there are few topics that justify that effort.

In that case, the short answer is no. Nothing like that happens just because of (or as a mechanism of) gravitational attraction. There are other effects such as tidal drag or gravitational waves that can cause some of the gravitational energy to be lost. Dark matter has mass. That's it (as far as gravitational effects are concerned). It doesn't seem to have any other relevance to your question. Dark energy is whatever-it-is that is causing the apparent expansion of acceleration of expansion of the universe. One way of modelling it is as a fixed amount of energy per unit volume of space (hence the name). Again, it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question. I'm not sure what you mean by t being "spread out" over time. Momentum (angular or linear) is a property of an object or system. So you can measure / calculate it from orbital or rotational speed, mass and radius.

Gravity exists to seize.