Strange

Indeed. (See the concurrent thread on "four dimensions" for example.)

I do understand your point. And it is actually quite good: a creature living in a 2D flatland would only be able to see in 1D. But your extrapolation of this is wrong for exactly that reason: the flatlander would see the 1D projection of other 2D objects. And that is exactly what we see: you only see two dimensions. So you only need three dimensions to see it from. You can draw a diagram of how vision works in three dimensions without needing to draw a 4th dimension. Because we only see the 2D projection of things. So only three dimensions are needed. It is not a spatial dimension, but it is a dimension. I was using it to highlight how dimensions are defined and why, therefore, your fourth dimension is not needed.

That doesn't really make sense. We don't have to see "from" a separate dimension. We can see perfectly well from within three dimensions. Note that we only ever see 2D images, anyway. (Your brain lies to you and pretends you can see in three dimensions. In fact, pretty much everything you see is constructed by your brain.) So if you insist on seeing "from" a dimension, then you still only need three. Also, that is not the definition of a dimension. Do you need to specify 4 dimensions when you want to meet someone? No, just the three. Actually, that's wrong: you do need specify 4: the place (3 dimensions) and the time. So we are 4 dimensional, but the 4th dimension is time.

I don't think it is rational to damn all religions and all religious people because a few people have extreme and stupid/dangerous views. There are lots of religions that don't have a concept of hell (if that is what you are referring to) including some forms of christianity. And there are many religions that are strictly pacifistic.

As we know far more about the Big Bang than we do the formation of galaxies, it is a challenge to the assumptions and hypotheses about the latter, rather than the age of the universe.

OK. That is exactly why I referred you to the diagram previously. Maybe you need to draw the diagram yourself to see why it works. Take the rays from various parts of the object (tree, sun, whatever) and reflect them from the surface. Most of those will, of course, miss your eye. The ones that do reach your eye can be traced back and will create a "virtual image" of the object, which is what you see. It may be probably easier to trace the rays in reverse: from your eye to the object. You can ignore the "infinite" number of rays reflected because most of them don't each your eye (but some could reach someone else).

The fact that you don't understand why this is a possible explanation is just one of the many reasons why your ideas are not worth considering.

Do you have a reference that says it takes longer than this for galaxies to form?

For what?

I'm not sure what you mean by forming an infinite number of images of the object. When does this occur? As I don't understand what it is you don't understand (:)) I don't think I can help ...

Yeah, well. I suppose they tend to ignore the screams of crackpots. Shame.

Nor sure why you think this is odd. You have looked in a mirror, I assume? You only see one of yourself. See figure 6 on this page, for example: https://cnx.org/contents/YLRye4Ke@4/The-Law-of-Reflection

Which doesn't say that scattering and refraction are the same thing. So you don't agree with it. What is wrong with you? No one is denying that photons scatter. And that scattering is caused by interaction. You keep pretending that people are denying this. This is either a serious comprehension problem on your part or you are being deliberately dishonest. The point of contention is that refraction is not the same thing as scattering, as you keep claiming. Both scattering and refraction can be described as the interaction of particles, but they are not the same thing.

Some people are less than impressed with this paper: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/no-you-still-cannot-probe-quantum.html

You might be interested in this article about (negative) results that rule out some possibilities: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/119 Short version: we [still] don't know. And here is one that gives a clear view of how dark matter particles behave: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/02/what-would-happen-if-you-became-dark-matter/#1d72f94f3fd2

Dimensional analysis shows your formula cannot possibly be right. Why do you ignore this and just repeat the same hogwash?

If you are wrong, you will be told you are wrong. It doesn't matter if you are 10 or 100.

There is a big difference between that and particles being their own antiparticles. This is true of photons, for example, but they are not "matter antimatter particles". Dark energy doesn't drive expansion, it it is the cause of accelerating expansion. All matter (including dark matter) was slowing it down until about 5 billion years ago the dark energy came to dominate. No. It would have a different spectrum.

That is a non-sequitur. Unless ... ... you don't know what the word fractal means.

Nope. That is not what a postulate is. The closest thing to "fact" in science is a theory. You have presented no meaningful math. Have you not heard of dimensional analysis? Your "formula" is meaningless.

That doesn't mean anything. It is like asking "how much window does walking down the road have" No it can't. As the time period over which the measurement decreases, the frequency becomes increasingly less defined. For an infinitesimal time there would be no frequency. (See also: Heisenberg.) Nothing. It is an ex-photon. It is no more. It has expired. It has ceased to be.

This is a good overview of the mathematics behind it: http://www.physicsinsights.org/hyperbolic_rotations.html I haven't seen a good informal description, though.

So the effects of (special) relativity can be described as a rotation between one of the spatial dimensions and the time dimension. So you "swap" some length for time. Don't know if that helps...

Hmmmm Not sure I see your point. On the other hand, we do live in the four-dimensions of space-time.

But they can each be represented in one and two dimensions respectively. So,although they can be represented in 3 dimensions, they don't need to be. Doesn't that imply, by induction, that three dimensional motion can be represented by 1,000,000 dimensions?