Strange

Well, thanks for trying. Here is my version, let me know if I have got it right. First, without the filter (we've seen this before): Now let's insert the filter: As the filter doesn't change the path of the beams, it won't change whether they are blocked or not. Can you explain why you think adding the filter might make the blocked lights visible?

Good luck with that.

You appear to have changed the question. From field of view to some nonsense about filters.

Although, as always, Dalo has changed what he is "really" interested in since the original question. Just a symptom of his chaotic thinking or a deliberate attempt to derail his own threads? I don't know. Indeed. I have no idea if Dalo either understand or cares about that.

And neither will an experiment.

Adding a filter will only reduce the intensity of each beam. It will not stop it being blocked. I am assuming you mean a clear, neutral, photographic quality filter that just reduces the intensity but doesn't, for example, change the direction of the light. If, on the other hand, you are thinking of a piece of "frosted" (diffuse) glass, then the effect could be depend on where you put the filter.

Hmmm... let me think about that... That's it.

The former: in the diagram, after the wave has passed, the particles would return to a circle. No. It is just a change in distance. If you imagine looking down on LIGO so it looks like an L and the gravitational wave is approaching it from that direction, then one arm will get longer as the other gets shorter and vice versa. I don't know where you get your "mantra" from by GR is a classical theory so the mantra is not relevant to gravitational waves. The change in length is so small (by the time these gravitational waves reach us) that I doubt it has any significant effect on the vacuum energy (quantum fluctuations).

Do you have any preference for the position of the diaphragm? Let's stick with the simplest, and the most realistic: keeping it at the focal point. Here it is with the diaphragm fully open: And, as expected, we can see all 5 light sources on the film/sensor. And now here it is with the diaphragm closed down. And, not surprisingly, we can still see all 5 light sources on the film/sensor. Are you happy with that? (No one is going to do the experiment for you, so this will have to do.) OK. You like the idea that some beams that should be blocked. Lets move the diaphragm adjacent to the lens: Here it is with the diaphragm fully open: As expected, we can see all 5 light sources on the film/sensor. And now here it is with the diaphragm closed down: Now we can see just the 3 light sources that are not blocked (shadowed) by the diaphragm. So, is there anything else to say? Edit: Actually, it might be worth making one small point: as the lasers are not perfect, you will probably still see a faint image of the two blocked sources. (Because, as we have already established, reducing the aperture does not change the field of view.) And, of course, placing a filter anywhere will not make any difference to any of the above (apart from reducing the light level in all cases).

That is only true for a real physical object, which won't be perfectly circular anyway. Not much. You don't need very many decimal places of pi to calculate the circumference of the observable universe to an accuracy of a millimetre (about 30, I think).

Strictly speaking the Schwarzschild radius only applies to a non-rotating black hole (and, even more strictly, only to one that has existed for eternity in an otherwise empty universe - but it is still a useful approximation). The event horizon is not a "thing" so it doesn't really make sense to talk about it moving. But I think the limit on angular momentum is based on the nominal speed of [something at] the event horizon. But I may well be wrong about that. Gravity is unidirectional (has anything here suggested it isn't?) And nothing escapes the event horizon. Not even radiation. The energy for the gravitational waves comes from the space between the black holes. I posted a link about this in another thread, recently. I'll see if I can find it again. Here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/10/ask-ethan-could-matter-escape-the-event-horizon-during-a-black-hole-merger/#6db659b76f9e It is an alternating stretching and squashing in the directions at right angles to the direction of travel.

Although it is true that is how Heisenberg initially described it, he quickly realised that was wrong. What you are describing is the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Or fiction.

Not really. It is intrinsic to the nature of quantum effects. The word "particle" is misleading. Quanta are non-local (until measured) and their distribution in space is described by a wave function.

Of course you are. OK. Then you should be able to demonstrate this, rather than us having to rely on your assertions (after all, it's not about you or what you believe).

Why assume someone created the rules? And the alternative that is not randomness. But setting up a false dichotomy like that, it may feel like it is easier to rationalise your faith but it is also a bit dishonest. Why not just accept you believe in a god and leave it at that? Why do you have try and pretend there is some scientific basis for it? After all, if there were then it wouldn't be "faith" would it?

Given the lack of mathematical knowledge you have admitted to before (you have struggled with simple trigonometry) I find it rather implausible that you have a good grasp on differential geometry and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Well, for one thing, the Lorentz transform I am aware of only applies to one dimension. So perhaps you could explain how it is applied to 2 or 3 dimensions and what sort of mapping it provides between these. Giving your statement immediately above, perhaps you could explain how the Lorentz transform relates to the intrinsic curvature of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds? And, as you are making the claim, it is up to you to show that it is correct. As you are the one who is making assertions about some such relationship, it is necessary for you to identify the specific relationship you are concerned about (and what it means).

Can you confirm if zero, one, or more of the following illustrate the experiment you wish to perform. And if none, why not.

Can you demonstrate that the Lorentz transform "is a relationship that occurs in R3 that ... cannot be mapped to R2"

Maybe that is where the £350 million a week for the NHS will come from.

Citation needed.

Who says it would be?

I think we can all agree about that.

Doesn't this depend where the diaphragm is? If it is close to the lens (as in the example I as describing) then it will block some beams. If it is near the focal point (as I think it may be in a real lens system) then, as you say, it won't reduce the number of beams. But as Dalo is not clear (and refuses to clarify) which situation he is thinking about, it is hard to give a definite answer. Ironic as you still haven't responded to my question as to whether my diagram correctly represents what you are thinking of or not. Here is another diagram for you to ignore that illustrates swansont's point that if the diaphragm is at the focal point, it has no effect on the number of lights seen. This is probably a far better example than any of my previous ones.

I wonder if this is a textbook created to fudge the whole concept of evolution ("we can't introduce creationism into the classroom, but at least we can make sure the children are completely confused about the topic")