What went wrong with The EPR Paradox & Bell's inequality?

Here is the Bell's inequality
S(A,-B)+S(B,-C) 》=S(A,-C)
it is an axiom, right?
P(A,-B)+P(B,-C)》=P(A,-C) Is the probability format for an experiment that proved that axiom is wrong
How they did it?
The Experiment setting is illustrated here.
Two entangled photons go out at two opposite direction towards to a set of polarizer (Left and Right).
Each side did randomly choosing polarizer A, B, C which is set in different angles each other.
B to A has 22.5 degree angle.
C to B has 22.5 degree angle too.
So C to A has 45 degree angle.
There are detectors behind them to see if the entangled photons pass or not and record all data necessary.
After experiment they sort all those data (A,-B) , (B,-C) and (A,-C).
(A,-B) means photon Passed A but its entangled pair didn’t pass B.
(B,-C) means photon Passed B but its entangled pair didn’t pass C, and
(A,-C) means photon Passed A but its entangled pair didn’t pass C.
By adding up all those data they found P(A,-B)+P(B,-C) 《 P(A,-C).
This violated Bell’s inequality.
So their conclusion is Einstein’s hidden variable is wrong and QM’s spooky action over distance is true.
I found this is not reasonable.
(1) They didn’t explain what the Einstein’s hidden variable is
What they mean I guess is the Probability of photon pass the polarizer is linearly related to the angle between the photon wave and polarizer. Let’s call the angle θ.
0 《= θ 《= 90
If θ=0 Probability of photon pass =100%
if θ =90 P=0.
P(A,-B) = 22.5/90 = 0.25
P(B,-C) = 22.5/90 = 0.25
P(A,-C) = 45/90 = 0. 5
So P(A,-B)+P(B,-C) = P(A,-C) it doesn’t violate Bell's inequality. But why the experiment data doesn’t support it.
QM’s explanation (I guess) is : the Probability of photon pass the polarizer is non-linearly related to the angle between the photon wave and polarizer.
P(θ) = cos(θ) ²
P(A,-B) = 1- cos(22.5) ²= 0.1464
P(B,-C) = 1- cos(22.5) ²= 0.1464
P(A,-C) = 1- cos(45) ²= 0.5
So P(A,-B)+P(B,-C) 《 P(A,-C) it does violate Bell's inequality and supported by experiment data. So QM won.
But It doesn’t need any spooky action to explain P(θ) = cos(θ) ². I can prove it just by using high school physics.
I made another video to explain it.
(2) I can explain why the experiment data doesn’t fit Bell's inequality.
Simply because When counting photon pass A not B, they only choose A,B polarizer, ignored A,C. Of course there is no A, C data when choosing A, B. It has to imagine. That’s why no one saw this mistake.
Take a look at the picture. The set (A,-B) in Bell's inequality have two parts
One part is when polarizer A,B are selected .(Ab-Ba)
Another part is when polarizer A,C are selected. (Ac-Ca)
P(A,-B) only included (Ab-Ba) and so on as P(B,-C), P(A,-C).

[frun]

Does it also affect experiments, aside from theory? Say the actual interval is [0, 2]. Does that mean quantum physics is classical?

[quantumentanglementsolved]

A new article on entanglementsolved pointed out a flaw in quantum mechanics, EPR paradox, and Bell’s theory.