What I am saying is that this is on the fringe of modern physics, and that we shouldn't rule out other ways it works. You say that entanglement has to reach outside of space-time to make the connection. Can you make a positive statement that this is the consensus of most physicists? I say that there is no such consensus and that it is still an open question as to just how it works. However, I am willing to let the universe handle it.
Science doesn't work by consensus you know that this is not a stupidity discipline like climate science where we need consensus for a political agenda.
Science is built on what can be tested and what can be falsified and the problem is that QM is the only theory left that can explain all data and experiments.
I know you have faith in GR over Newton based on exactly the same logic so your statement sort of surprises me.
Look at the basics on a 144km link the flight time at the speed of light is 487 microseconds you have two atomic clocks synchronized and tested at each site to 0.8 nanosecond. When you change an entangled particle the change is showing up at the other end within that 0.8 nanosecond window.
Not many choices for how that is possible you have communication at hundreds of time the speed of light or you need some sort of determinism.
Add in science declares we have a Higgs which is most definitely off the classic solid world reservation ... I thought you accepted there was a Higgs or is the jury still out on that too?
So we have only one theory that not only explains both of those incredible unlikely results but predicted that it would be the case and the reason for setting up the tests and expensive experiments.
Sorry I don't see how you think the jury is out .... the verdict from the science jury is most certainly in.
The classic solid world is dead and buried to science and peoples like or dislike of the implication doesn't come into it.
It seems to me that some sort of conservation law, or whatever you want to call it, is what trips the balance. How the universe tracks attempts to infringe the law is a whole different question, and that is what you seem to be trying to address.
I also believe that is most likely the question is what frame is the conservation working from.
By the way, attempting to reason with newton is kind of a fruitless task.
Well he can either argue a sound argument as to how Gravity probe B got it all wrong or he will argue utter trash which I can ignore like our resident religious fruitloop.
