Strange

It is the absence of mass-energy (or a completely even distribution of mass-energy). Speed doesn't affect it. I think it is possible that space-time could be globally curved even in the absence of any mass or energy. For example, if the universe is finite then, for some topologies, this would mean it was curved (so that if you went off in one direction you would eventually end up where you started. (For some topologies, the universe can be finite but still flat.) It is an idealisation in that we are on the surface of the Earth (or, even in space, surrounded by massive bodies). So there is probably nowhere where there is no curvature at all (in the voids between galaxies, is the nearest you would get, I suppose). If you are already talking about space-time, then I guess "curvature" is unambiguous by itself. Same as if you were talking about windscreens or bananas!

As the electromagnetic field consists of virtual particles, I don't see how removing the field would create virtual particles. Which theories? Then why introduce Lorentz rotation? There are only 3 dimensions of space (as far as we know).

Diarrhoea (I had to copy and paste that from t'Internet) is about the only one that causes a problem for me. Luckily, I don't have to write it very often.

The four dimensions in this context are the three spatial dimensions plus time. The Lorentz transform is a rotation in space-time.

I just ran into this problem. I moved to a new house and took a collection of useful looking cables with me. This included 3 male-to-male TV antenna cables and one male-to-female (might be useful as an extension, I thought ). I am almost certain that in the previous house both the wall socket and the TV socket were female so I needed the male-to-male cables. In the new house, the only one that was useful was the "extension"cable. Now I want to go back to the old hose and see what the sockets really were...

While that is good advice to avoid being attacked in a dark alley at night when the bars are chucking drunks out, it doesn't address the bigger issue, the one that started the thread.

If I cancels out the field, why would it produce virtual particles? (Virtual particles mediate the electromagnetic forces.) Citation needed.

As you can't travel faster than light, there is no answer.

The subject is entanglement. Not the transmission and effects of electromagnetic radiation.

That is due to the initial conditions of the universe - hot, dense and expanding (and therefore cooling). Why was the universe in that initial state? No one knows. The description of space-time in GR shows that space-time containing a (roughly) homogeneous distribution of mass must either expand or contract - it isn't stable. The initial conditions caused to to expand. It used to be thought that gravity would slow it down and lead to it contracting, but the (unexplained) acceleration makes that look unlikely. Oooh. Careful. That doesn't mean that each type of force must have an opposite, but that the forces on a body must be equal and opposite. So, for example, gravity is a force pushing you down into your chair while the (electromagnetic) forces in the material of the chair push back the same amount (and, therefore, you don't move).

That is basically correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe But the only reason that the light hasn't reached us from beyond the observable horizon is ... because of expansion! Various other explanations have been tried. And some work - as standalone explanations that don't have to fit with any of the other evidence. So when Lemaitre and then Hubble published the red-shift data, it was consistent with the idea of expansion but, by itself, it wasn't convincing. Photons do cause curvature of space-time. Every source of energy does. But first you would need to quantify how large an effect this is and if it is enough to account for any observed effects. (I am fairly sure I have seen some calculations along the lines - and for neutrinos - but I don't think I could find them right away). Also, not that dark energy is not required to explain expansion, but only to explain the accelerating expansion. And that requires an increasing amount of energy - and I would guess that the number of photons flying around is fairly constant. And they are, on average, decreasing in energy because ... expansion! (Expansion is kind of a given, and is determined by the initial conditions of the universe.) I have seen estimates of this. I think (I may be wrong) that the majority are in the CMB. (Which is also the most compelling evidence for ... expansion!) I think it is a reasonable idea to investigate (and I bet it has been) although I suspect the numbers would show it doesn't work. (If I have time later, I'll see if I can dig something up.)

Or not. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/11/fbi-forensic-examiner-apple-evil-geniuses/

This is obviously some strange usage of the word 'unique' that I wasn't previously aware of. (To paraphrase Arthur Dent.)

There are other possibilities. Both may have occurred more than once, but only descendants of one instance survives. In the case of the structure of flowers, other possibilities exist. It could be due to flowers evolving multiple times but from a similar underlying structure. Or it could be due to convergent evolution. (I don't know much about the evolution of flowers, but it does seem that all extant flowering plants have a common ancestor. But even that doesn't mean that flowers only evolved once.)

No. " the detection of gravitational waves from a merging pair of binary neutron stars" You should really start a new thread for new topics, rather than hijacking others (including your own). The "burbs" originate from matter falling into the black hole, in other words the accretion disk. Remember, nothing can come out of the event horizon. That s why it is called an event horizon.

Yes. You can divide by a very, very, very small number but you can't divide by zero. No. Anything that travels at the speed of light will be invariant (other wise it wouldn't travel at the speed of light in some frames).

No information is transferred.

Yes. It is a common popularisation but not strictly accurate.

No. Just that you can't apply the equations for time dilation etc. to a photon. It is not a valid frame of reference. The mathematics does not work when you try and apply it to a photon. The Lorentz transform only works for things moving at less than the speed of light (i.e. things).

By chance, Janus has just answered this in another thread. I can't do better than quote him:

I am not aware that anyone has proposed space-time as the medium for light. Ever since Maxwell's work it has been clear that the medium is the electromagnetic field. Science doesn't prove theories. Yep, this is not the best place to publish a new theory. But people could help you refine your ideas if you were willing to answer some questions and engage in a constructive discussion.

The M-M experiment was about the medium that carries light (there isn't one) not space-time or gravity. Then you need a mathematical model that makes testable predictions if you want this to be taken seriously. So what is your experiment and what is your predicted result? Not that this prediction needs to be quantified (i.e. a numerical value or range) in order to be testable.

Well I have heard of Michelson-Morley. Nothing to do with gravity, though. So perhaps you could explain.

There is no proof in science. And the Michelson-Morley experiment has nothing to do with gravity or GR.

What does that have to do with gravity? Apart from the fact that science doesn't prove things, on what basis should we accept new ideas? Just because they sound good? Or should we look for evidence to confirm them? Personally, I think that looking for evidence is a much better way to make progress. So all I am asking is that you provide some support for your idea. Otherwise why should anyone take it seriously? After all, if people should accept your idea just because you say so, then they also have accept all the other wacky personal theories that people come up with, "because they say so". That is why we rely on evidence to choose between theories.