Strange

Who cares (even if it were true). Thousands of other experiments, some using completely different techniques, confirm the expected result. The fact you don't like it is hardly relevant. As Feynman said, If you don't like the way this universe works move to another one. That is your problem, not science's. Here, do it yourself: http://physics.nyu.edu/~physlab/Classical%20and%20Quantum%20Wave%20Lab/Speed_of_light_03-01-2016.pdf

Yes, it just describes a set of particles beyond the standard model. What is "anti-time"?

I assumed you were talking about the cosmic microwave background (but maybe you weren't). But what I said isn;'t really true. Eventually it will become so red-shifted (and faint) that it is no longer detectable. I would defer to Mordred on this subject... Interestingly, we can see things that are receding faster than light. The reason things move outside the observable universe is because expansion carries the light away faster than it moves towards us.

Maybe because they did something bad in a former life.

The MM experiment was designed to test the movement of the Earth through the aether which implies that the aether is static (or at least, not moving along with the Earth). It found no such movement. More accurate experiments since have confirmed this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field I will ignore the rest of that garbage. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

Because sometimes the simple, obvious answer is wrong. That is why science relies on mathematical models and evidence, rather than "common sense".

There may be an answer in the future. But at present there isn't. So there is no point repeatedly asking the same question. The answer will be "we don't know" I don't believe that is true. But it doesn't matter. No I don't. I said it is not relevant to the validity of our current theories. They do not depend on the age of the universe. Again, it does NOT claim that there was an infinitely hot dense stage. None of these things are forbidden. A great many scientists are asking exactly these questions. We do not ignore the size of the universe. There have been many attempts to quantify it. The results vary between very large and infinite. 1. The universe could be info its but still have a finite age. 2. The universe may not have a finite age. It may be (but it doesn't have to be). But there is no evidence for that at the moment. No one is afraid o that. You can find many scientific papers discussing that possibility.

Nonsense.

I agree.

Nonsense.

Exactly. The idea that this is a "paradox" is based on a misunderstanding of the problem.

Please stop posting unsupported nonsense. Don't post anything else until you have a complete mathematical model that supports your claims.

I don't see why. There are many unknowns in science. That doesn't make all science invalid. Our current theories are based on what we observe. You are correct. There is no scientific theory that says the universe was created. So any claim that it was created is not science. So you should stop asking about it. Note that our current models don't depend in any way on the age of the universe or what happened before the earliest times the theory works. All we do is look at the current data and work back from that. We see an early hot dense state; that then allows us to predict some things we should expect to see (such as the CMB) which are then observed. The fact that our theories can't tell us about the state before that time doesn't invalidate what they do tell us.

It is not valid to extrapolate back to t = 0. Our theories no longer apply before that point. A theory of quantum gravity might tell us more. At least one attempt to model this using quantum theory suggests that the universe is infinitely old. And never infinitely dense.

No one knows. The whole universe (and this forum) could just be a figment of your imagination. Or maybe the universe is exactly like we perceive (fields and all). But, as I say, that is a question for Philosophy or Religion, not physics.

The only thing that matters is the scale factor when it is emitted and the scale factor when it is received. It's history is not relevant. So if you know the received wavelength and the distance to the source (i.e. the amount of redshift), you can work out the original wavelength. On the other hand, if you know the original wavelength (because it is a line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, for example) then you can work out the redshift and hence distance. As we don't know what dark energy is, I don't think that can be answered. It might be that the two statements are equivalent.

But the original premise is that it is not symmetrical. That is not the reason.

And that is a philosophical opinion. It has nothing to do with physics. All we can do is observe, measure and describe. If the things we observe, measure and describe don't exist in "reality" then it makes no difference. The measurements and observations exist, and that is all we can know. We cannot, by definition, know anything beyond that.

These are different meanings of "real". When e say time dilation (or length contraction) is real, we mean it is a measurable phenomenon which has real effects in the real world. It is not just an optical illusion or measurement error. When people ask what is "really" happening, they are asking about what happens beyond what we can measure or observer (which is what science deals with). By definition, we can't ever know the answer to that (because it is beyond what we can observe or measure). But that doesn't matter. Even if there is no external reality and the whole thing is just a construct of our minds, we can carry upon using science to build models about it. And if, as in naive realism, you believe that what we observe is exactly the same as reality, then that's OK too.

The meaning of your question has been obscure throughout. So what IS your question? Is it about the nature of "reality"? If so, that is not a physics question. And (outside of some religious ideas) there is no way of knowing. Are you happy with that? If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the Philosophy (or Religion) forum.

Actually, the MM experiment falsified a static aether. Other experiments disprove a dragged aether. Not really. You can do it yourself with some chocolate and a microwave oven: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/theres-easy-and-tasty-way-measure-speed-light-home-180952245/ The electromagnetic field. Why would anyone care about a relatively inaccurate experiment done over 100 years ago? Why not look at the thousands of experiments done since then, which are far, far more accurate?

No one knows. All we know is what it was like 13.8 billion years ago. Perhaps because its age was not zero. We don't know. Our current theories don't work before that point. Because we don't have any evidence from an earlier period (because our current theories don't work beyond that point). We have no evidence for that. (Other than the Book of Genesis ) There is no evidence that there was such a transition. Or, if there was, when it happened. No one knows. There is no evidence it started.

And any time.

Yes you are. Everything you say contradicts all the science cosmology is based on. No. There is no reason to do that. Go on then. I have asked you to do this repeatedly, but you ignore the question, change the subject or say "it appears by magic". Let's see an attempt at a scientific explanation.

No it isn't. That is not what the word means. Bye.