Strange

It depends what you are currently viewing. If you are looking at a profile (yours or someone else's) then it will show new members. If you are looking at a post, it will show new posts.

Certainly. You will need to work out where the expanding circle (sphere) intersects with the mirror. Then draw a straight line from there to the source. Hopefully, that will be the same as the ray!

The moving-a-fraction-to-the-other-side-and-flipping-it is shorthand for the following steps (based on the fact that if you multiply both sides by the same number then the equality is still true): 1. multiply both sides of the equation by 19 - this cancels with the /19 on the RHS 2. divide both sides by 3 - this cancels with the 3 on the on the RHS You are left with the LHS multiple by 19/3 and n on the RHS.

Thanks for that. For some reason, the only response I could think of was "nonsense".

SR is a classical (non quantum) theory so it doesn't help to think in terms of photons. Any classical path can be represented in terms of photon behaviour, but it just complicates things.

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling factor. Therefore, the speed of separation of two points is proportional to how far apart they are. I can't even imagine what expansion would be like if every point were moving away from every other at a fixed speed. It doesn't seem to make sense.

But, of course, we know that through the application of math and logic.

That is not an open question. Our reality clearly can be described mathematically. We do it all the time. The question is whether there is a limit to how accurately or completely we can describe reality. Or will our ability to produce better models stop at some point. But even that would not prove that the universe is not mathematically describable; it could just mean that our puny monkey brains are too limited. But, more likely, we will continue to produce better and better models.

As far as I know, there are no paradoxes in science. There things that are called paradoxes (like the Twins Paradox in relativity) which are just unintuitive results. And there are things we don't know (which seems to be the class of things you are talking about). Finding things that contradict previous theories is not a paradox, it is scientific progress.

What do you mean by "cause". The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (and quantum mechanics, more generally) is a description of how the world works. Are you asking why the world is the way it is? If so, that is a question for philosophy (or religion) not physics.

As the "laws of nature" are our mathematical models to describe what we observe, then yes, logic can always be applied by definition. But if you mean, "can reality always be described mathematically", then the answer is we don't (can't) know. It is pretty surprising that we are able to describe reality as well as we do using mathematics. There are some who propose that this is because the universe has an underlying mathematical structure. But there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. Maybe at some point we will find we can go no further. Maybe we are there already. Who knows.

The probabilistic nature of quantum theory and, specifically, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

There are an enormous range of things for which logic is not relevant. Most things, perhaps. For example, logic has nothing to say about liking rap music, or preferring beer over wine, or love, or what your favourite colour is... However, you can still apply logic to these topics. For example: All rap musicians are mortal. Eminem is a rap musician. Therefore Eminem is mortal.

And, depending on the material, specular reflections are predominantly the colour of the light source, while diffuse reflections will be mainly the colour of the surface.

If you look at the lighting models used in computer graphics, they treat light sources as being linearly additive. (We don't normally model laser light!)

You can reach that conclusion simply from the Lorentz transform. Even though it is not strictly valid it is commonly used in pop sci descriptions, even by scientists. But it is utterly irrelevant to entanglement as it is in the observers time frame that it appears to be instantaneous. Retrocausality is a perfectly valid interpretation of quantum mechanics (and, therefore, exactly equivalent to all the others). I agree it is quite an intuitive way of understanding non-locality.

I think it is an example of "referral spam" - people (*) visit websites as if they had come from a website they want to promote. I'm not quite sure what the point is as the number of people who look at referral logs must be quite small - and most of those are just going to ignore these spammy links. It is possible to filter them out but I'm afraid I don't know how. (*) well, automated 'bots'

Then you need to come up with a new model that describes this. This is not consistent with the current solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (such as the FLRW metric). So what does it have to do with photons, then? Why is the expansion of the universe relevant to the behaviour of a photon? You need to read up on quantum theory. Particularly, the Feynman integral. The probability of a photon being detected in a particular place has to calculate every possible path the photon could take (including whizzing off to Jupiter and going round Ganymede three times before returning - although that path will only have a small effect on the result!) I don't know what "the photon is stuck in the past moment" even means. I don't see how this addresses anything about entanglement. You seem to imply that the spin is fixed when the photon and, presumably, its entangled partner are created. But entanglement (specifically Bell's inequality) shows that this cannot be the case.

We observe that the distance between things is changing. We also observe that expansion only happens at large scales (where the distribution of mass in approximately homogeneous). Photons don't have a well defined size, so this doesn't seem to make sense. This is true. But to correctly calculate the outcome, you need to assume that the photon takes all possible paths (even those that are not achievable at the speed of light). Expansion is not a speed. So your ct thing doesn't apply. The collapse of entangled states is instantaneous, so I don't see how it can be explained by the photon expanding at c. As the photon ends up back at a single point, when detected, are you also claiming that the universe is constantly expanding and then shrinking again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking

What I am saying is that no one knows what the connection (if any) is between the cosmological constant/dark energy and virtual particles/zero-point energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem (I meant post #5, not post #3) We have a some very good ideas about what is happening through the universe. But this is one of the big unsolved problems.

No one knows. Apparently not. See post #3.

Like most such pseudoscientific ramblings, it uses words like "dimension" and "vibration" in ways that make no sense in physics.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how you do that. Let's start with something simple: show us how you represent Newton's Laws of motion with time as a wave function.