J.C.MacSwell

As for entangled pairs would a test on A which collapses the probability wave of both A and B not change the odds of a different test on B?

A particle in an unknown but definite state would presumably not be interfered with by it's "other" possible/unknown but "definitely not" states.

There are aliens out there that "eat" gullible intelligent lifeforms. But they don't waste their time looking for them, that would make finding needles in haystacks seem easy. So they just wait for the signals...

I look at it as the "effective" mass if you wanted to accelerate it further and still use F=ma which would be incorrect otherwise at relativistic speeds.

Or if the bug was really really massive!

I've seen a lot of references calling "classical" pre-quantum/post relativity (even though they overlap), although I was thinking the same thing.

Are you assuming no friction?

Is it possible to have only 4 dimensions?

Of course I have an incomplete (read wrong) view of the Universe but I don't picture a vibration so much as cycles in extra dimensions. So this "space" combined with the energy/momentum in this closed "space" effects the "vibration".

How many hours & minutes does it take for the Earth to rotate once?

Are we still refining Uranium? How can we expect to make a bomb at this rate?

That's correct. It would not. Actually you can divide infinites and get sensible answers. So assuming infinite universes like ours if you divided the infinite mass by the infinite volume you would get a sensible answer, which would be the same density as our universe.

I had always pictured it as a longer route. Like slalom skiing around atoms, still at c but effectively longer. Your view sounds more consistent with QED though.

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene gives a good non-technical feel for the subject.