Strange

You made the claim that photons cause quantum fluctuations. It is up to you to support your claim (see also: burden of proof).

Nothing travels faster than light below the Schwarzschild radius.

No, it doesn't mean it is kinetic energy. It is just mass-energy (and the other components of the stress-energy tensor). And kinetic energy is not "basically velocity". What does that mean?

Not making much sense. 1. What is "at the speed of light or above" ? (Nothing is above the speed of light, so it seems a nonsensical statement anyway.) 2. The speed of light is not the reason that light cannot escape from a black hole.

Actually, just because it hasn't had time to reach us yet.

"We" don't. You do. Why do you think that is?

I don't know what you mean by "conceived concept". But the angular momentum is measured. And measured to be quantised. Not all such "concepts" are quantised. The energy of a free electron is not quantised. All you have done is make a few criticisms of quantum theory (apparently based on lack of understanding). You have done nothing to justify your own ideas. So let's start with this: What would prove your idea wrong?

Interesting article on the history and use of the “r-word” https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/retarded-progress/

I have occasionally done this in software to prevent divide by zero errors (yes, it's a bit of a hack). But I can't see it being useful in mathematics. Perhaps Conway could provide an example where it could be useful?

Firstly, this is not a theory in the scientific sense. Secondly, it isn't very clear what you mean. Velocity is not like a battery, it is just a measure of how fast something moves. However, you can use the kinetic energy of an object a bit like a battery. The most practical way to to do that is by using a flywheel. You can find the math for that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage I don't why this is under quantum theory.

It is probably quicker, and just as accurate, to just assume you are making stuff up.

What do you you base that "should be" on? Why not work out what the angle should be.

Maybe you should. You might learn something. But you don't need to do the experiment. Draw the frigging diagram. They will all be at a slightly different angle, but so slight that they will appear to be parallel. Why not calculate the angle between them? Then it might make more sense. In your case, nothing, apparently.

You keep asking the same questions. The answers are not going to change. 1. No one knows what dark matter is. Although it seems to be a form of matter. 2. So far, no "modified gravity" theories match the observations.

Did you ignore the diagram I posted? We know the Sun illuminates objects in all directions. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Really? Again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics) Go ahead. Ignore this answer and ask the same thing again.

Are you joking? It is pretty obvious. There is only one possible line from point A to point B that is reflected from a plane surface. Did you skip basic geometry at school? You know, the properties of straight lines and angles? If you think this is wrong, then draw a diagram with two different lines from A to B.

Agree.

Because only one ray will go from the sun, to the mirror, to the eye. Someone in a different position will see a different ray, that took a different path. It's not that complicated.

The discussion of the way sight works seems completely irrelevant to me. The fact that the rays from an object can be received (by an eye or camera) at any given point and a reflection seen is purely a matter of physics. Or even simple geometry. You can demonstrate it with a ruler and a protractor. I am beginning to wonder if you are really interested in the answer to the question.

Draw the diagram. Or write a ray tracing program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics) Maybe then it will make sense. Your joking, right? When it comes to sight, the brain plays a larger role than physics.

That has nothing to do with virtual particles or the non-zero vacuum energy. (Apart from the fact they are both a consequence of quantum theory.) I'm sure we have been here before. Virtual particles exist everywhere. Dark matter doesn't.

Citation needed. This thread is about dark matter. From that link: "The idea rests on the hypothesis that particles and antiparticles have gravitational charges of opposite sign." That is soon to be disproved by the APHA experiment at CERN.

It learns what is important worth paying attention to and what isn't. Exactly. So why do you have a problem with reflection? Those rays would all be reflected by the same angle.

There might be an invisible pink unicorn right behind you all the time but you can't see it.

You have moved from sight to feeling. You can only feel a series of points (arguably, closer to 1D than 2D) and, again, it is your brain that creates the impression that you are sensing three dimensions. It means, in theory and in practice, that the brain understands the concept of the three dimensional universe and fools you into thinking you are seeing in 3D. Your brain does this sort of thing all the time. You look ahead and you see all the world ahead of you in a detailed static image. But your eye can just create a small focussed image of a tiny part of that scene. Your eyes moves around continuously and your brain assembles all of those small moving images from two eyes to create the static 3D scene you see in front of you. It is all created in the brain. Exactly. You are getting closer to what dimension actually means. (You can't move your head in the fourth dimension, can you.) To go back to the flatlander example: he can only see a 1D projection (which his brain will use to create a 2D model) but he can move in two dimensions.