Strange

Only if the human is electrically charged.

The usual term is field strength or intensity. There is field flux density, which is a related concept. You really ought to take a course, or something.

I don't know what it would mean for a photon to experience duration. They don't change over time or decay so what would their "experience" consist of?

A frame of reference is more than a point, it is a coordinate system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference So positions in space are relative to that, not properties of the space itself. I think the word you are looking for is "field" You seem tone trying to re-invent some basic concepts, rather than learn about them first.

Position isn't really a property. It is relative to what you measure from. Different coordinate systems and different frames of reference will not agree on position or even relative position. What evidence do you have that every point in space has charge? (A field is not a charge.)

When a theory of quantum gravity is created will the forum have to merge the GR and Quantum Theory sections...

Interesting article on possible tests for quantum gravity (and some background on whether gravity is quantised or not): https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-find-a-way-to-see-the-grin-of-quantum-gravity-20180306/

So you have hijacked someone else's thread to: 1. Break the rules 2. Post numerology on a science site 3. Advertise your book. Did I miss anything? (Reported)

It sounds like you agree. But it isn't always slow. Christianity spread from the middle-east to many other cultures within decades.

A couple of things... Gravity can affect things that don't have mass. For example, photons are affected, which is why we get gravitational lensing. The reason for this is the second point: it isn't that gravity affects time and space, it is more that the presence of mass (and energy) changes the geometry of space-time and we perceive this as the force we call gravity. It is the curvature of space-time that causes photons to change their path as well as things to fall to the ground.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9825599 Other stresses appear to have a similar effect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18250336

Well, if it's true that it doesn't apply in African famines (is there any data for that conclusion?) then it may be because they haven't lasted long enough.

It appears you are contradicting yourself: why bring up radioactivity as a "cheap and easy" source of energy if it isn't? It is also untrue. Nuclear power has one of the the best safety records and is one of the least polluting forms of energy generation. Which is why a low-carbon economy will depend on it for quite some time.

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Richard M Nixon

But that's the point: that is NOT an easy or cheap source of energy to exploit. The fuel is difficult to obtain, it is dangerous, it is expensive to build and run reactors, it is even more difficult to decommission them, etc.

I don't see how this is going to happen. If there were such an easily available source of energy, we would have discovered it by now. We have taken the low hanging fruit: burning wood, burning fossil fuels, wind and water power, and a few others. We are now exploiting the more technologically complex: solar, fission, fusion, etc. And we are using advanced technology to make some of the older sources (e.g. wind) more efficient. To imagine that, somehow, we will stumble across something that is cheap and easy to use, which we have somehow missed for thousands of years, seems ... naive.

In other words, a continuum. That is certainly consistent with all the current evidence.

Is that a countable infinity or uncountable infinity (which is infinitely larger)?

Back at ya.

So are you saying that physics does not use mathematics? Huh? It only deals with numbers, but it doesn't deal only with numbers? Riiiight...

That is also mathematics.

I would say they have a more relaxed attitude towards the completeness of the equations (and, as a consequence, they may not be consistent).

Which means that some people may see a magnetic field and others not.

In the standard model, these are properties associated with each different type of field. In string theory, for example, there is a single underlying model (strings) that produces all these different properties through different oscillation modes, etc.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616 "There are no particles, there are only fields" https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/