Strange

Are you sure? It appears to be the opposite.

Look, sorry if I was abrupt before but it is a bit frustrating when someone claims to have shown decades of scientific theory and experiment to be wrong, based on a simulation but, anyway ... The problem is that you are only measuring the polarization of a photon at a single angle. It is possible that assuming this single angle is defined when the photon is created (i.e. a single hidden variable) will work. (Although I am fairly sure it doesn't, in general.) But the problem Bell highlighted is when you assume that the polarization (of one photon) at three different angles are all defined in advance. Now, in reality, you can only measure one polarization angle for a photon because, if it passes the filter, it will be polarised at that angle (so the polarization at the other angles will be zero). But using entangled photons, you can measure two different polarizations at a time (one angle on each photon). Now, if you work out (or simulate) the probability for each pair of polarizations by assuming that they are defined in advance you will get a different result than QM predicts. So that is what your program needs to simulate in order to prove your point. Is that clearer?

And there is this survey: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf&embedded=true That is ten years old now, so even more peer-reviewed papers will have been published confirming the role of human activity in increasing CO2 levels. And you have claimed that there are no peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is clearly not true.

No, but there is no evidence they are violated (despite intensive research). So ... still no evidence for any of your ideas?

As we are talking about science, then no. Obviously. However, the (peer reviewed) evidence is overwhelming. Google scholar shows about 2.5 million results. I'll leave you to look through them and find something that meets your needs. And as you have presented an non-peer reviewed opinion piece from a newspaper, I'll throw your request right back at you.

This is clearly wrong. It is well established that all electrons, for example, are identical. There is even a "one electron" hypothesis based on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

There is a large amount of evidence, from many different sources, for man-made climate change caused by increasing levels of CO2 so I'm not sure what your point is.

That was one of the first pieces of evidence to confirm the prediction, but not the most convincing. The CMB was the thing that convinced nearly everybody and destroyed the steady state models. But it isn't the Doppler effect. If you use the Doppler effect to work out the rate at which galaxies are receding, you get the wrong result. For example, we can see galaxies that are receding faster than light. If it were the Doppler effect, then they would not be visible.

Of course not. It is youtube.

As this is a science forum, perhaps you could present the data and calculations that support that conclusion. Because we need energy and we don't have alternatives in place yet. There are however, strict targets in place for reducing the use of fossil fuels over time. Also, although I don't agree with your more extreme characterizations of politicians, they are limited in what they can do: if they destroyed the economy by doing that, then they wouldn't get re-elected. It is an incentive to encourage people to reduce their reliance on carbon fuels. Most politicians think it is better to encourage people rather than force them using regulation. There are laws in various places putting very strict limits on emissions that means that it will be increasingly difficult for anything but electric or other renewable-powered vehicles to be used. Sadly, no, that is not the answer. If more of them cared about the science or the future, beyond their term of office, then they might have done something about it long ago. As it is, most are unrealistically denying the science and refusing to do anything about it. This argument seems to be based on a fallacy: because human activity was not responsible in the past, it can't be responsible now. There are a couple of reasons why this argument doesn't work: we know (in general) what the changes were in the past that caused those changes and know they are not the cause now; also the rate of change now is far greater than in any of those previous transitions. Anyway, maybe you should look at the science instead of listening to "politicians and celebrities".

We can. As long as you accept that that is because you are wrong. But let's try something else. How about you answer the question I have asked several times: what do you think the difference is between entanglement and "spooky action at distance"?

I love the detailed analysis you have put into this! Time doesn't need to "escape", so I'm not sure what this means. Well, black holes certainly have a lot of mass and therefore gravity. The theory that describes black holes predicts a singularity. However, most people suspect that this is because it doesn't take quantum effects into account. So, while there may not be a singularity, "belief" doesn't really come into it. We need a theory that tells us what happens. The singularity in a rotating black hole could be a "gateway" to another universe: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html But I assume that if the singularity doesn't exist, then neither does the gateway. I haven't heard of a theory that suggests there is a universe inside a black hole (apart from some poor headlines). There are a few people who suggest that black holes could create new "big bangs", and hence new universes: http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419827/why-our-universe-must-have-been-born-inside-a-black-hole/

Your simulation has nothing to do with either Bell's theorem (which has been tested by real experiments) or with entanglement (which has also been confirmed by real experiments). It simply starts with an equation which is the same as that used by QM and (surprise!) comes up with the same result as QM. What it does not show is the reality (or otherwise) of non-commuting operators. Read the article I posted earlier and write a simulation of that, if you want to model an experiment that tests Bell's theorem.. http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm To put it another way: how would you modify your simulation to show the classical behaviour that predicts a different result from QM?

What is the relevance of that?

They didn't prove that. It is just an example of pop-science journalism. There is a correlation between the properties of entangled particles. The probabilities cannot be explained by assuming that both values are fixed at the start. The way to demonstrate this is to look at, for example, the polarization of a single photon at two different angles. The probabilities of the two polarizations will be different from that predicted by assuming the values are fixed when the photon is created. (This is not what your simulation does.) There is a lot of evidence for entanglement. Correct. Your simulation has nothing to do with entanglement.

I'm not cherry picking. I am asking specific questions about specific points in your post. It seems simpler that way. But if you prefer a totally unstructured approach then here you go: Please show in mathematical detail: a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB. b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect. Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail: a) Why these regions should exist. b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions. Expansion is not a speed. Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on. Please show, mathematically, that this is the case. Do you even know the cause of the CMB? What is the source of the CMB in your model?

Please show in mathematical detail: a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB. b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect. Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail: a) Why these regions should exist. b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions. Expansion is not a speed. Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on. Please show, mathematically, that this is the case. Do you even know the cause of the CMB? What is the source of the CMB in your model?

Maybe you could explain why you think that? (If you can be bothered.)

Correct. So you keep saying. Why bother telling people about it when you are going to ignore any constructive feedback and continue on the path of blind ignorance?

You keep claiming that there is no evidence for entanglement (aka "spooky action at a distance"). I keep pointing out that there is. I have already provided some, here are more: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+evidence+for+entanglement I fail to see what I am "misstating". You seem to be under the misapprehension that "spooky action at a distance" means something different from entanglement. It doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Note: if this is about the expanding universe (big bang) model, then this is not the Doppler effect.

He gave his evidence: "none of them came back". That is as true now as it was then.

It is not something I know that much about. This might help: http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/

There is a lot of evidence for entanglement. It is a fundamental part of quantum theory. every experiment and the thousands of practical applications conform that quantum theory works.

Right there. In that sentence you quoted. Here it is again: "Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance." I now have absolutely no idea what you are on about. I suspect that this is because you have absolutely no idea what you are on about.