Strange

Doing that would (almost certainly) destroy the entanglement.

In the 4D space time model, there is no motion through time.

Well, none of them, obviously.

Time dilation has nothing to do with the observer effect, nor with superposition. As you are just throwing more random stuff into the discussion, can we assume you have nothing to support your claims? Still waiting for you to explain why observing the photon has the effect you claim. And then how observing another photon that doesn’t go through the slits changes the behaviour of the one that does. And then how erasing this observation afterwards changes whether interference is observed or not. Over to you After all, if quantum theory hadn’t already told us the results of the double slit experiment, you would not have been able to predict it from “photons observer effect!”

The Lorentz transform is from SR, not GR. What is "the EP"? How do we know that "in reality" it applies?

1. It is not going backwards it is just (seen as) going forwards slower. 2. It has nothing to do with quantum theory, superposition or the double slit experiment.

And yet it doesn't happen. I assume that is the point of the video, but I really can't be bothered to waste time on it. So you have nothing to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways" or that "the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm." Basically, this never happens. You are just making stuff up. In other words, you don't have a theory. (A theory being something that has been repeatedly confirmed ["beyond reasonable doubt"] by evidence.) You have some vague ideas, not based on science.

To do ... Doo be doo be doo ...

"I know I left it here somewhere"

Yes: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node150.html

I would say it is a mathematical description of the way the electric and magnetic fields vary regularly in a light wave. (So, yes, "phenomenon" might be the better word; definitely not an object.) No. (Unless you count the oscillating electric and magnetic fields that make up the light wave as the medium.) Just because most waves we are familiar with exist in a medium, doesn't mean that light does.

"Why don't we ever see events unfold in reverse order" This does not support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways" Then it should be easy for you to provide a reference to support this.

First, do no harm

So, are you going to stay away?

Use of 4-vectors and 4-matrices is standard in 3D graphics operations.

Times a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant, on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs. A point in space becomes a line in spacetime. A line in space becomes a plane in spacetime. And so on.

I am not going to watch an hour long video because you believe there is something in there that supports what you claim. Please quote what is relevant from that video, or provide a proper source, to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways"

What evidence do you have for this? Oh, you should have written in block capitals from the beginning. It would all have been so obvious.

But that was never done on the basis of just making stuff up.

A hypothesis should have a sound basis. Not just be concepts that you don’t really understand thrown together at random.

Science?

Good point. I think (it wasn't very clear) that the OPs step 1 is the translation. But, unless we know the polygon will be rotated about that point, as you say, the translation should be done last. (Calculating the required translation is the easy bit!)

It certainly looks that way. People create new people everyday.

I think it has been extensively demonstrated that you are mistaken.

Not exactly the same, no. As noted, you can't use F=ma when the mass is changing. Trying to calculate F(t) = m(t)a doesn't work. F = dp/dt is more general. It works for constant mass (where only the velocity changes, in which case it is equivalent to F=ma) and it works when m varies. I have seen people basing their attempt to disprove SR on some dodgy grounds, but this is like claiming that 5x2 is not the same as 2x5. (And what it is about crackpots and relativity, anyway. We have known this is the way the universe works for well over 100 years. I grew up with this. How can it be surprising or unexpected? And even if people come to science late so it is unexpected, what is so unacceptable about it anyway. It's the way the world is. C is invariant. Get over it.) I should warn anyone of a rational disposition that one of the starting points is that some of the results of modern physics are "hard to accept by common sense". Clearly, anything starting like that has zero scientific merit.