Richard,
Think harder, we're reproducing actual results not relying on assumptions. Forget the concept 'correlations' for just a moment, that requires interpretations. Just think of pairs, one handed North (N) pole and one South (S) 'leading the way' to each detector at random.
Now run a simple simulation of a set of results where each detector can reverse the direction 'found' at entirely at will each side of 90^o. Remember that the arriving (N) and (S) states are entirely random but always initially opposite. Let's see what we'll find;
1) There will still be exactly 50:50 N/S results both at each AND overall.
2) There will still be exactly 50:50 N/S at 90^o, at each detector.
3) 50% will always 'correlate' with the other detector results overall.
4) All identical settings (so same side of 90^o) will always ANTI correlate 100%
5) All exactly 'opposite' settings will always give 100% correlation (N/N, S/S).
(You were wrong about zero correlation of course)
Now that just takes a tiny bit more intellect that you've applied so far to rationalise. I'm sure you can do it. The last 2 points;
6) The distribution between 1(-1) and 0 is non-linear for the simple geometric reason I show in my essay (all bodies have non linear surface orbital speed) which is OAM, and as proved by Malus' Law.
7) The hypothesis can be falsified ONLY with timed pair experiments. Thus my (and Caroline's) predictions. The predictions proved correct.
Now clear your mind of indoctrinated nonsense, think clearly, and tell me what predictions QM has that are NOT precisely reproduced in 1-6 above!
