Strange

Because there is no necessity for a purpose. It could be random chance that things are the way they are. What is "the other way round"? If these laws of physics are the only ones possible, then there is no purpose. It is just the only possible universe. For example, it can be shown that space-time with more than 3 space dimensions is not stable.

Then it is not a realistic model of photons. I don't see how a mechanical model can represent quantum behaviour. In fact, I am fairly sure it can be proved to be impossible.

Referring to that as "perpetual motion" is not very useful. The term is understood to mean something that violates the laws of thermodynamics or conservation; dragging in an irrelevant definition just confuses the issue.

Presumably it said something that disagreed with you, so you put it on ignore. Bravo.

Again, any evidence for this? Or is it just a fairy tale that you have made up?

No. There doesn't need to be a purpose. It could be chance. Or the soil could be too dry for coconut. Or ... Well, it could be that some god (yours or someone else's) created the laws of physics which make the universe like that. Or it could be that there are multiple universes and in some of those, the planets are cube shaped. Or it could be that the laws of physics can only be like that. I did tell you that your beliefs are not evidence. Apparently you didn't believe me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any evidence at all?

There is no evidence for that (and it is not implied by swansont's comment).

There are lots of ideas here: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

The patent office will automatically reject any application for a perpetual motion machine. There is a reason for that.

It's like a spoiled 12 year old who can't cope with the fact other people may not agree with him.

It is not my speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole Citation needed. Space has 3 dimensions. The 4th dimension is time. Citation needed. There is no evidence that space is not smooth. Experiments have been done to test if space is quantised. So far, these have not shown that to be the case. Do you have evidence that space is not smooth? This would be headline news, I think, because it would mean that GR no longer works. And there are no fixed x,y,z coordinates.

No. A particle-antiparticle pair (like positronium).

Well, I guess the obvious one is "if an object travels fast enough, will it run into black hole because its mass increases" Nonsense. Don't confuse the fact that you like the concept of relativistic mass with its necessity. (See, I would it could confuse people.)

The entire post is incomprehensible.

Yes. It can be tested by looking at how frequently the measured polarisation of a photon math. Classical theory predicts a different result from quantum theory (that difference is Bell's inequality). This is one of the best descriptions I have seen: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm (At the end he has links to a simpler and a more detailed explanation)

I am not aware of any evidence for a purpose. But feel free to present some. NOTE: your personal beliefs do not count as evidence.

Only after being tested. IF experiments show that Bell's inequality holds, then there cannot be hidden variables.

Not just in a sense. Nope. The existence of the math is not evidence of anything. The only way you can know if the math describes reality is to test it against reality.

They could not be particles of anything we know (or they wouldn't be "dark"). Such an arrangement is probably not stable even for unknown particles. Through all of space - that is the non-zero background energy of the vacuum.

That IS a wormhole. Except the curvature that allows wormholes to exist (hypothetically) is already in 4 dimensional space-time. So you would mean a 5th dimension, presumably. But no 5th dimension is required as the curvature is intrinsic.

Ah, you interpreted "back and forth" as side to side. I guess that makes more sense (well, as a possible misconception, at least).

Presumably you can't find content of people you have put on ignore, which must be a significant number of people in scerado's case.

I didn't understand a word of your post. That was the point.