J.C.MacSwell

For my part (I'm no swansont), I think it is good bit of thinking regardless of whether there is a flaw in your assumptions. I see no flaw in your logic and I don't see any unnecessary complexity. My first question on your assumptions would be on the "local" part of the setup. Has this been done and produced interference patterns? I can understand Swansont's reluctance to look at all these "setups". Most of them are just "noise" and should be dismissed out of hand. Maybe he will look at it closer if noone else finds the "flaw" or possibly it merits an experiment. Where did this set up come from?

If he knew how you would test the particles (need many) could he use statistical information gained from testing the remote particles to ascertain whether you had run the tests? (regardless of the results, just could he tell that the tests had taken place?)

Pluto is slower than Earth is slower than Mercury.

Then you are now eligible for one "get out of jail free" card.

The shortest path locally or along a geodesic through the space-time metric which is shaped/affected by mass distributions (results in gravity). An analogy would be a meandering river even though everyone knows that water flows "downhill".

I think (have read) the upper limit for black hole mass is much less than the required dark matter, but related to the age of the universe, so on that basis it would be feasible. But it would have to be much much older and therefore would not fit the data without very significantly changing some of the underlying assumptions. (rate/s of expansion, distance estimates etc.)

Still a sensible thing you can do about some radiation.

Sunscreen?

I think that's a fairly safe conclusion. From my limited perspective 99%+ of even regular church going "Christians" would agree with that; That a creationist model based on taking the Old Testament literally is flawed inspite of there being some evidence of historical correlation. I think the number would get smaller, less would agree that it is falsified, the closer the creationist model approached the evolution theory.

If you were God, your avatar would be a little more intimidating. I know it's not a law, but it's just common sense!

Wouldn't most scientists (or people using scientific method) agree that in the case you just described that it is in fact falsifiable, to a "reasonable" degree and is therefore unsupportable? The "God did it" weaseling out should not hold up in an honest scientific sense. If it did you could base all of science on it, not just creation.

What is an e-fold? I assume 60 e-folds is the time of the "release" of the CMBR?

Flamingoflie, if the thread was clearly intended to be about non-relativistic Newtonian gravity and I continually brought up relativity with the fervour of a religious zealot would you agree that I was being annoying? There are threads for creationism in which you can post.

Very different circumstances. Not my area, but I think sharp may be advantageous. I know that sharper is advantageous at the leading edge of a hyrofoil or rudder near the surface to a depth dependant on the velocity. The pressure at the stagnation point of a rounded/blunter section is not "recovered" by a corresponding drop/suction aft of the leading edge so it just amounts to increased drag.

Even for a symmetrical foil and 0 degrees angle of attack a razor sharp leading edge is not ideal simply due to the extra wetted surface required although is is not bad otherwise. So it is higher drag than the optimal shapes. At any angle of attack it is poor both in terms of lift and drag and will stall much earlier.

I always pictured light staying at "c" but having further to travel (around molecules) in different mediums, but also have been puzzled by this "absorbtion/readmission". Do photons have a much greater likelyhood of being readmitted in the same direction they were going (prior to absorbtion) in transparent materials?

But don't you have to choose an axis about which to test the polarisation? Are you not "forcing" a 100% left or 100% right choice on the photon?

I think this interpretation has been consistently on the losing end of the argument for the last 70 years, at least in the eyes of most physicists.