I'm commenting on how much pseudo-scientific trolling Anonymous Coward has said in this whole discussion:
- "Mach reasoned that the only way to explain this was for every body in the Universe to be exerting a force upon the bucket. This line of reasoning led to Einstein's general theory of relativity " That's not true. Talking about general theory relativity is talking about elevators, trains, photons, clocks, observers etc, but not about buckets. Einsein was certainly influenced by Mach for a while, but then regreted later on in his life. Introduction of Mach principle by the Anonymous seems completely out of context, so sure enough another thread apeared immediately. See my reply on that as well. Now, mentioning Mach is almost by definition talking pseudo-science.
- "...Wheeler and Feynmann's transactional theory of quantum mechanics..." There is no such theory. Feyman himself said once that we should accept quantum mechanic because "that's the way Nature works" (or something in this spirit).
- distant objects can affect you through various quantum mechanical non-local interactions. There is no such thing as non-local interactions in quantum mechanics, only non-local correlations. The difference is rather subtle and it would take a lot of space to explain it. To claim that distant planets are affecting us through this phenomena is most likely (from the physics point of view) incorrect, due to the so-called dephasing.
- "do you think that engineers know every detail about the quantum theory of solids? No, but they can use the results from that theory" This is rather incorrect statement. For instance, engineers use lasers all the time (CD's and stuff) and yet most of them don't know anything about the Bose-condensation, let alone any result of this theory. And, sure enough, it is because they don't need to know it.
- "Only elistist "ivory tower" academics would claim that just because someone does not understand an entire theory its results cannot be used" Like who? Give me one physicist who expressed such an opionion.
- "The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is IMHO the most plausible - certainly better than the Copenhagen interpretation which all of its egocentric insistance on an "observer"" There are other, equally futile, attempts to interpret quantum mechanics. Copenhagen school even attempted to form institutes for studying complementarity in "everything", while for "transactional interpretation" it seems clear only that one person believes in it, and the person most certainly is not Wheeler, let alone Feyman (if he were alive).
- On the other hand, Ars-Fartsica's way he described what engineers do is pretty much an accurate description of how physicists usually think of engineers.