Strange

Only if you already believe in god and, therefore, believe that she is the best explanation for everything. For everyone else it is no explanation at all. You might as well say “magic” or “unicorns”. No they don’t. Otherwise they wouldn’t continuously be looking for ways to test it.

It can’t be accelerated but it is accelerated? Right. Acceleration implies a change of speed. Photons only have one speed. They do not accelerate. A photon is not energy. It is a quantum of the electromagnetic field and has energy, as does a bucket of hot water or a falling rock. So, if a photon “is energy” then so am I.

So it is mathematical because it is mathematical. Profound. Or fallacious. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

You have provided no evidence or other support for this claim (other than your personal belief / incredulity).

Why not?

How do you know that? How do you know that?

I’m not. Why are you being so sensitive.

I suppose someone might think that if they were not able to understand simple English. Personally, I think that is a good concise summary as an introduction to the detail that follows. I find it hard to believe it would appear to be “incomprehensible jargon” (except, perhaps, by someone wanting to hide their ignorance; rather than make an effort to understand, it is easier to dismiss it).

The gravitational wave will also be Lenard by the black hole. It will. But it will be a tiny amount.

How do you know there is no such mechanism?

There is no evidence for that so I wouldn’t say that. On the other hand, just because you, personally, find it implausible doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. That is the fallacy of arguing from incredulity/ignorance. Beauty is in our heads, not the universe. We find things beautiful because we have grown up (evolved) with them. And, yes, the universe is complex. But I doubt a simple universe could exist. Why do you think there is a will involved? That is just anthropomorphising the universe (and she hates that). It seems you are creating your own version of the universe and then trying to explain that, instead of understanding the universe as it is.

Why the 3rd state of matter? We already have 4. Congratulations. You have made it even more incomprehensible. I wouldn’t have thought that possible.

Citation needed. I can’t help feeling you have completely misunderstood what they have said.

If anything, it is the other way round. In some coordinate systems (eg Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates) can be interpreted as space falling towards mass. I am not aware of any solution to the EFE which correspond to space being “radiated”. But that’s what happens when people make up fairytales...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org//Shape_of_the_universe

Why do you think it is zero?

That is a common misconception. I’m not sure why; probably bad science reporting.

The alternative to goddidit is not “random”. That is a silly argument.

Nonsense. You are just making up nonsense again. Or reflect or refract or diffract.

The “difficulty” of different sounds depends only on the phonemes present in the speaker’s language. No sounds are inherently more difficult than others. Related to that, you have words with consonant clusters. These are problematic for speakers of many languages. Also, your document says the words are pronounced “as in English”. Given the loose relationship between spelling and pronunciation in English, and the English excessive number of vowels (12 or more), that is really unhelpful. For example, what is the value of ‘y’; is it the same as ‘i’ or a different vowel sound? Or does it indicate palatalisation? Or is it context dependent? You would be better off sticking to the 5 basic vowels as in Italian or Japanese. Generally, Japanese would be a better phonetic model with its simple syllable structure. Although you might want to avoid geminate consonants. And, if the word order is SVO as you say, then some of your examples seem to be wrong.

Surely both require a change in medium? But you are right, in that I assumed a change in medium because of the question. I think SJ has identified what question should be. Oh no! Here we go again.

It does (or can do). It is called refraction.

There are enormous numbers of people looking at such theories including string theory, loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation and many others. The trouble is, there is no evidence for space or the expansion of space being quantised - and people have looked for such evidence. Also, in all the above theories, any quantisation is on much, much smaller scales than the Planck scale.

Is there any reason to think that is the case? I’m not even sure that “virtual particle orbit” means anything.

No one is denying that. I was just pointing out that “space-time curvature” and “quantum fluctuations” are not the same thing.