Strange

A hexagon isn’t a solid Says the man who says it isn’t possible to describe a cube

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cube

Your first post didn't mention morality at all. Morality may be hard to define, but saying it is "impossible to word" is going too far. It is more the fact that you write incoherent drivel, than the use of the word "cube".

I'm not sure...

Good summary (with a neat diagram) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime

We have now defined c as fundamental (and the second) and then defined our unit of distance in terms of it. But that is a pretty arbitrary decision. Our measurements of spacetime involve c as a fundamental constant to convert between space and time (the separation between events in space-time is: [math]s =\sqrt (\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2 - (c \Delta t)^2)[/math] [extending Pythagoras' theorem to four dimensions]). We can't really know what might be possible with a different universe with different laws. Although there is evidence that a universe can only have 3 spatial and 1 time dimensions; it seems any other combination is unstable/impossible.

I don't think there is anything fundamental about the ratio itself; speed is just a thing we have invented because it is useful. (Although, seeing Silvestru's answer, I may have misunderstood the question!)

I suppose you can think of it that way. Speed (of light or anything else) is a ratio between two units: distance and time. The numerical value of a particular speed depends on the units you use (50 mph vs 80 km/h). So, there are several questions in the OP, all of which have been answered I think: Why is the speed of light constant Why is the speed of light invariant Why is the speed of light equal to 1.8x1012 furlongs per fortnight and not some other value The answer to (1) and (2) can only be "because that is the way the universe is" (which one can blame on a god, if desired). And the answer to three is "because we are human"

In other words, if you choose the right units of measurement, light speed = 1 and thus the question "why does it have that value" seems less significant. Or, to put it another way, the answer to the question "why is the speed of light actually 299,792 km per second?" is: "because we measure it arbitrary units called km and seconds."

We have such a model. What do you think is wrong with it? (Scientifically, rather than aesthetically)

You can measure the speed of light with a microwave oven and a large bar of chocolate. Depends on how you define "fundamental". As studiot points out, it can be defined in terms of other (more?) fundamental constants. In another universe, these other constants could be different. Or perhaps the way in which they relate to the speed of light could be different. Or maybe one day we will find a theory that explains why there can only ever be a universe with the exact set of physical constants that we see (although I doubt that).

Then you are going to remain unsatisfied.

I should probably have put “elementary particles” in quotes. Or said something like “what are currently thought of as elementary particles...”

There are models that attempt to describe elementary particles as being made up of more fundamental components, such as prions. But that just raises the question, what are they made from. You are chasing a rainbow.

No it doesn’t. (Unless it is moving, but you are talking about static charges.) Charge is not measured in volts. And 12V doesn’t push 3V. *facepalm*

Hey, guess what: IT’S NOT MAGNETISM. The clue is in the word “electrical”

Of course. Irrelevant. The cardinality of the set is not a (natural) number. There is no rule that says the cardinality of a set has to be a member of the set.

IT’S NOT MAGNETISM. It has almost nothing in common.

Yes. Although, as Markus said, there singularity doesn’t exist except as a mathematical artefact because we don’t have a theory that describes what happens. Because we are causally disconnected from the space inside the event horizon we can’t compare the rate of time inside and out.

1. It is nothing to do with magnetism. 2. Static electricity can attract matter. Have you never does that experiment where you rub a balloon on your jumper and then use it to pick up little bits of paper?

It is at the event horizon, not the singularity that time dilation becomes infinite. I guess we could determine the angular momentum of a black hole by looking for evidence of frame dragging affecting the orbits of things near the event horizon. We are a long way from being able to do that, however. (You should really have started a new thread for your question.)

That just pushes the question back to why do those constants have those values.

I don't think we can say "why" the universe is the way it is. All we can do is produce theories that describe how it works. It might be that a future theory explains why light travels at the exact speed it does (but it will just leave other questions about why that theory is the way it is). Questions about "why" are more in the domain of philosophy or religion than science.

Because it is a result of string theory. Several other useful results come from (ad hoc) combinations of GR and QM. Hawking radiation, for example. What is your point.

Combines the two what?