Strange

No, space "expands" (at this point, it becomes clear this is a poor analogy) as you move through the time dimension. Imagine a conical shape where the circular cross section represents two of the spatial dimensions, and the length of the cone is the time dimension. At different points along the time axis, the spatial dimensions will be different.

Of space, spacetime is normally considered a static thing.

For Christ's sake, man, chill. (Pun intentional)

Feynman explains in great detail how it works. (He also says we don't know why it works, if that is what you are really asking.) At some point, you run out of explanations (there is another video of Feyman explaining this with regard to "how do magnets work"). Even if/when there is another theory that explains why the QED calculations work, you will just ask, "yes, but why?" about that theory. So, currently, the only answer is: we don't know. That will be the answer in future, but to a different question. That is one of the exciting things about science! Always more to learn. If you are looking for some sort of certainty or truth, then perhaps you need philosophy or religion.

You mean light is not real!?

Newton solved that one by concluding that the universe was infinite. . In GR, the problem doesn't arise, even for a finite universe. It may be against "common sense" but that is why we use science, rather than common sense, because it works. On the other hand, it definitely is not against observation. It is based on observation. First you would need some evidence that there is such a thing as a "steady state universe".

Have you watched the Feynman lectures on QED yet? He covers this in great detail.

But if you consider an individual photon, then its probability of being reflected from the top surface or not varies with the thickness of the glass. So it seems that somehow it "knows" how thick the glass is even though it only encounters the top surface ...

So your calculations were correct but you just wrote them down wrong. You wouldn't let someone promoting their own theory get away with that!

It can do, if there is interference between the light reflected from the front and the back surface. (And another plug for the Feynman lectures. Or book, if you prefer that medium.)

More exactly, they could exist. There is no evidence that they do. There have been experiments to try and detect tachyons by looking for the Cherenkov radiation they would produce (this is the optical equivalent of a sonic boom, produced when something travels faster than the speed of light in a vacuum). They would not travel backwards through time. But they would, in theory, allow communication back through time (under very special conditions).

There are experiments that use "weak measurements" to determine the paths of photons. Not surprisingly, these show that the most common paths are the most probable ... http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/06/03/watching-photons-interfere-obs/

Quite the reverse. It is like complex scaffold with all parts supporting all other parts. So, I suspect that even if you could show that a fundamental part were wrong, the rest of the structure would be fine. Of course, if you could show that a fundamental part were wrong ... But you haven't. Do you have any evidence, beyond your poor grasp of the theory?

Firstly, they always behave like waves (as much as they behave like particles). They are quantizations of the electron field, not the electromagnetic field (otherwise they would be photons). But moving electrons will create electromagnetic radiation. I think they are just called particles. I don't know if there is another term. (Note that all particles have a wave nature. Even macroscopic objects do, but it becomes irrelevant at that scale.) In general relativity, gravity is not a force acting on mass, it is a curvature of space time. Light, just like anything else, follows the curvature of space time and so is affected by gravity. But actually, even classical (Newtonian) gravity can be shown to affect light. For example, we know that the rate at which an object falls is independent of its mass. You can take the limit as the object's mass approaches zero and work out the effect of gravity on light. As Newton developed both the theory of gravity and the method of limits, he was able to do this. His prediction of the amount of deflection of light by a massive body is different from that of general relativity so this became one of the first tests of GR.

And then you do an experiment with you hitting tennis balls off both ends, get the same (tiny) result as the the Federer case and claim success!

Perhaps because that is the definition of mass?

Another fairly damning account of the report: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/04/reactionless_motor_needs_more_evidence.html

Because that is how "amplitude" is defined. You apparently want to redefine it to mean "frequency". Fine, but then we need to introduce another term to indicate the height/strength/loudness of the wave.

Some of it is (thinking classically). Some photons are. The probability of an electron/photon being absorbed or passing through a slit is proportional to their relative area - just as in the classical case. As a simpler example, consider the case of a sheet of glass. We can see through it but also see a reflection in it. That is easy in the classical view: the wave is split, some passes through and a proportion of the energy is reflected. In the quantum view, each photon either passes through or is reflected. How does each photon know what to do? It is just probability; each photon has a probability of passing through or being reflected, which corresponds to the amount of energy transmitted/reflected in the classical case. How do those probabilities come about? It is the sum of the probabilities of interaction of the photon with all the atoms in the glass, and the surrounding air, and ... well everything else.

It doesn't really mean it behaves as a "particle" (depending what you think the word means). More importantly it tells us that the energy of the electromagnetic radiation is quantised. You need a certain amount of energy to remove an electron from the material. If you view light classically, then you should be able to get enough energy by either increasing the amplitude or increasing the frequency. If the light has too low a frequency, it doesn't matter how bright it is. This shows that it is not just the total incident energy that matters, but the energy in one photon. I have just checked, and the Wikipedia page explains it better than I can! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect Note the reference to Planck. He had already come up with the idea that light must be quantised to solve the "ultraviolet catastrophe". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

The electron (or photon) interacts with the electrons in the material of the barrier. This is what makes the barrier opaque to electrons/light. I second the recommendation for Feynman's lectures. He explains some of the subtleties very clearly.

Just a detail. They never stop being particles. And they never stop being waves. They are always photons with wavey-particley behaviour. Because the brain makes up what you see from a lot of information including how your eyes are aligned (and possibly how the lenses are focussed). If you look at something a long way away, the lines of sight of each eye are nearly parallel. If you look at something close, the eyes turn towards each other. From this the brain interprets the fuzzy blobs of light on your retina to create the complex 3D world you see around you.

What is "the storage facility of c^2 within mass"? Is there a storage facility for (42 MPH)^2 somewhere?

These sort of simplifications and analogies are frequently misleading.

I don't see how this can be a "logical" question when the next sentence contains a complete non sequitur. I would suggest an introductory course in philosophy so that you understand what a logical argument looks like.