Theoretical

That I agree with!

No offense intended, but you clearly do not understand what my claim has boiled down to. I don't want to take the time to retype it yet again. Please read my past few post I'm fully aware of that lol. You're not following the thread.You people aren't even reading The most recent posts. Please read:

Just more vague non mathematical statements filled with ad hominem. Please respond to my math and stay on topic. You claim bells experiment proves spooky action at a distance. I'm claiming that bells experiment, produced with non-entangled photon, gets the same results. Therefore you claim non-entangled photons produce spooky action at a distance. Disprove my simulation.

Why would you say such a vague incorrect statement. I post the link to a video that goes over such experiments. Anyhow I'm no longer interested your posts until you can post the error in my sim, using math to prove its wrong. Just another claim by you lol. In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about what is commonly called Bell's experiment. Not his theorem.

Prove it. Show one quote where someone proved my sim is wrong by means of math. Saying its wrong is not proof.

Nonsense. If they were hidden they would be of no use to a math equation.

Prove that the experiment cannot be performed with non-entangled photons. The topic has obviously gone over your head. You don't understand what's being discussed.

Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove anything. You need to quote me, and be specific why I'm wrong. And try to stay on topic. I'm not interested if by chance some minor thing I said was wrong. I'm not interested in other peoples hidden variable theory. Prove my sim has a math error. Prove Malus' law is wrong.

I've shown a video where the author goes over a few hidden variable theories. Why would you say all theories have been already been tested? Did Einstein produced those hidden variable theories? No. I think someone could easily produce a hidden variable theory based on my sim, which we already know gets the correct results. Please, can we agree to disagree? I really have to get back to working on my GUT.

The difference in our posts is that I have consistently provided data. Example, NEC results which proves it's possible to emit polarized photons. Malus' law, which has been proven since the 1700's. I've provide the code for the sim, which is basically a few lines of code at its heart. Very simple sim. Someone has converted my sim to a math equation, which confirms the sim is getting the correct results of 1/2. Sure isn't looking so good for your spooky action at a distance. I contend Einstein was correct about QM. Albert Einstein, wow I have so much more respect for that man. And I had a world of respect for him before. What a genius of geniuses.

We disagree.

I'm certain that's ad hominem. Your position is unclear. I was saying we can produce photons of known polarizations where the certainty of knowing the polarization approaches 100%. Because some people are claiming Bell's experiment proves spooky action at a distance. If two non-entangled photons are emitted, we get the same results of 1/2. *Therefore Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.* Furthermore I merely gave the benefit of the doubt that my sim did not qualify as a hidden variable because someone said it would collapse QM. Regarding what you just said, I believe my sim qualifies as a hidden variable where the sim could determine the polarization the moment it is required, which would be at the polarizer. My sim is not a theory, but it proves that a hidden theory could get the correct results. Again, the sim is predetermining the polarization of both photons. So it seems that in order to make this a complete theory one would merely have to show the math to prove Malus' law. How difficult is that? Here's a copy and paste results of antenna field polarization from NEC2: Antenna type: single dipole in free space Frequency: 30MHz Dipole length: 4.836m Horizontal field: 5.9932E-03 v/m Vertical field: 2.4193E-11 v/m As you can see dipole antennas radiate only in one plane. The vertical field is really zero in such an antenna. NEC is a numerical program. The above results is without a polarizer. It's directly from the radiating antenna.

Please don't tell me what I know. I'm fully aware of what you said. As for frustration, I only get frustrated when you people rely upon ad hominem. Can we please stick to the topic? Are you aware that the polarization of light going through a polarizer can approach 100%? In terms of radio waves, I can assure you that nearly 100% of the photons emitted by a vertical dipole antenna are vertical. Pass that through an array of horizontal dipoles and you get no measurable horizontal photons from the vertical antenna. If you doubt this, and don't have the equipment to test it, then you can use NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's been around for at least 3 decades. Used probably by everyone who's ever designed an antenna. Extremely accurate. I used to have a technical book on the math aspect of NEC. About 1/2 inch think. Nearly all math. I'm away from my desktop now, but if you necessary I could show you the results of a vertical dipole antenna giving the horizontal far field.

Your demonstration doesn't qualtfy as physics or a simulation. Sorry I have to leave for the night. See you later.

Ah, so now you can see the future to know that? Or maybe you think you're a psychic haha?

That talks about hidden variable theories. You need to keep up with the thread. QM can't handle my sim because QM would collapse into a classical theory. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with using non-entangled photons. My sim shows that non-entangled Bell's experiment gives same results as one that uses entangled photons. Sorry but that clearly shows Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. If you believe that, then you need to improve your coding skills lol.

You need to learn physics 101: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer "A polarizer or polariser is an optical filter that passes light of a specific polarization and blocks waves of other polarizations." I provided source code. And someone in this thread created a math equation of it.

As stated, my sim is all about emitting photons where the polarization is known beforehand. It makes absolutely no difference if the photon polarity is guaranteed the moment the antenna or whatever emitted it or if we want to put it through a polarizer. Everyone here knows we can produce photons of a specific polarization.

You couldn't possibly expect any physicist to believe that. Emitting polarized photon is extremely easy even in radio wavelenthgs. Nearly every antenna emits polarized photons, and that is a fact. And who cares if it's been measured? You have a black box that emits the photons.

Thank you. I love to see a video you create as well. Just please do me a favor: while creating your video, go over every single statement you make and show, making sure there are no assumptions because remember people aren't mind readers. Also a lot of non-technical people view these videos.

Please do yourself a favor and look at your drawings to see how they show no details and consist of assumptions. What I would suggest is that you go all out like I did and track every single photon to each of their polarizer, use the only equation that works in real life for this: cos(angle)^2, do this for at least a few hundred photons, compute the average percentage of time the photons are go to the same path (that includes photons that reflect off the polarizer as well), and verify that non-entangled photons also result in 50%. If you keep this up then eventually I'm going to produce a clear cut video of my sim, which clearly shows non-entangled photon Bell's experiment results in 1/2. And I'll also include details of NEC radio wavelength experiment which shows the same results. So look out my friend lol. ;-)

That's it. It led me to the Wikipedia article on the Twin paradox, which clarified my question. Thanks a lot.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox I'll have to learn about this +1. I'd give a lot of people +1's if I knew how. Or maybe it's posting a +1 lol. I always access this forum with a mobile phone.

Ok. One confusing thing. All of the articles on GR provide equations saying it must be in an inertial frame. Inertia itself doesn't change c or time dilation, right? Because velocity changes time dilation. So I thought about the experiment of synchronized clocks, where one clock went on a trip, but when it returned the clock that went on the plane was slow. It's interesting because one could say that the planet was moving relative to the clock on the plane, but yet the clock on earth didn't slow down. So the only difference I see is that the clock on the plane experienced momentary inertial forces as it accelerated, while the clock on earth did not. Is that what the inertial frames is all about in GR because I don't see inertia (an accelerating object cause by the movement in 3D space) in the equations? I mean, if we made an object spin around a small radius at a high rate causing high g-forces at low velocities, that doesn't cause time dilation, right? Thanks!! Clarification: I know a spinning object experiences time dilation because of its speed. My question was regarding the inertial forces itself. If we made the spin radius even smaller, then the g-forces increase at the same velocity. But I don't think that changes the time dilation.

I agree the author of that page seems ridiculous with all the religious nonsense. But I read on Wikipedia that the coordinate system means they're measuring from their (relative to an implied observer) point of view. So it's true that we could see, from our perspective, other objects traveling faster than 3E+8 m/s? And is it true that a free falling rocket toward a sun that suddenly turns on the rocket such that it's no longer falling toward the sun will go from measuring the local speed of light from 299792458 m/s to over 299792458 m/s? Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time

No need for you people to insult me just because I don't agree with you. Those kind of comments are just personal and insulting. It's okay if people don't agree. Let other people make up their own mind. 1. You can't tell me I can't send two photons at the same time from two different sources that according to QM are not entangled photons. One could even do this with radio wavelength photons. I've created thousands of antenna experiments using the world known NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) radio wave engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Cool two horizontally polarized antennas. A vertical antenna does not pick up horizontally polarized photons, but yet a horizontal antenna will. Furthermore it's extremely simple to build a radio polarizer. An array of horizontal dipoles reflects horizontal photons, while allowing vertical photons to pass through. 2. You can't tell me the results of such non-entangled photons in a Bell experiment setup does not results in the same polarization hits half of the time, which is what QM predicts for entangled photons. You can't tell me that because I've go through this by showing on paper the path each photon takes using the well known cos(angle)^2 equation discovered in the 1700's. I could create a video that clearly shows the path of each photon, counting each 0 and 1. The video would show this results in 1/2. Honestly I'm done trying to convince people of the obvious. It's not my fault there's no evidence of spooky action at a distance. I get it that a lot of people are heavily invested in this spooky action at a distance notion. It makes a lot of money for research scienctists. The medium eats it up alive. If you want to see this sim for yourself, then please by all means get out a piece of paper, *literally* track the paths of each photon using the cos(angle)^2 equation, count all the times both photons take the same path. See for yourself. Sorry to have to point this out, but the above is an example of how my words are consistently being twisted. I never said the above. I clearly did not say that. Here's my quote: I get it that this spooky action at a distance rings in mega bucks for QM. Ok I'm going back to my research. Please by all means feel free to misquote me lol. Peace, and hopefully will see you all soon.