Strange

Then why didn't you use a larger value, instead of smaller one? It cannot disprove an ether that moves with the Earth. But other experiments can (such as Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell). And all the tests of Lorentz Invariance. You are fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago. Next up, phlogiston?

Kind of. Mathematically, it can be understood by using limits. Or by using set theory. But, once you have defined infinity (as Cantor did) then that opens up a lot of interesting ways of analysing and using infinities.

If it is finite now, it was finite then. If it is infinite now, it was infinite then. That's all we can say. It was hotter and denser. Not sure what the question is. But the universe could be finite and expand forever. It would take it an infinite time to become infinite (in other words, it will never happen).

That would be the practical limit: using the energy of the entire universe to accelerate one neutrino, for example! I don't think so. Infinite means that however far you go, you can always go further. So I can't see how it could be bounded. But there are all sorts of interesting paradoxes related to infinities, so maybe ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn

Great! Then shows us your calculations and how well the results match observation. On the other hand, GR can calculate the degree of gravitational lensing and it matches observations. What does dark matter have to do with it? Apart from the fact we can detect dark matter by using gravitational lensing. How would something that doesn't interact with light case an interference pattern? There is nothing speculative about GR as an explanation for GR. And unless you can present your maths, your idea is not even speculation. It is just a wild guess.

I can't see why there should be a maximum acceleration. You can either increase the force or reduce the mass. There are, of course, practical limits! As we don't even know if it is finite, then no. There are some estimates of the lower bound of the mass of the universe but it could be infinite.

You can't count to infinity. But the ordinality of both sets is the same. Neither has any value. That doesn't seem to mean anything. Do I need to make allowances for your first language not being English? So what? It is clear you don't know the difference between a polynomial and an exponential function.

It depends on its mass. The model applies but we have no idea if it is accurate (it almost certainly isn't).

As far as we know. But a theory of quantum gravity might change this. There are several theories that attempt to combine GR and quantum theory where space is quantised. But all test of quantised space have shown it to be smooth. The hypothesis is that there is some fundamental similarity between wormholes (which are purely hypothetical) and entanglement. If this turns out to be the case, I expect it will be because a theory of quantum gravity gives us a different understanding of both wormholes and entanglement.

You can enter the radius or the mass or the power output or the lifetime or ... And it will calculate everything else.

No. It is inversely proportional to the square of the mass. (See that calculator page for details.) They would evaporate (explosively) in fractions of a second.

That is a non sequitur. Why does the fact they are independent imply quantisation? Can you show that Galilean relativity cannot work without quantisation? Really? You think gravity worked differently before Galileo? Really!? But we can see objects in the universe that follow Newton's law of gravity but are much older than Galileo so it seems you are mistaken.

Gravitation lensing is quite unusual and a small effect so it is usually pretty obvious. There might be the odd photon that gets deflected in a long path past multiple galaxies, but it seems pretty unlikely. Here is a nice example of predicting exactly what lensing effect to expect: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/supernova-deja-vu-all-over-again

So why do you think it is reasonable to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun?

It can't be explained by refraction because that causes dispersion. (And you would have the problem of having to replace GR.)

Why would you say that? Energy obviously exists. I said the quantisation of space may be a figment of your imagination.

If you are talking about energy, why mention length? And there is no evidence that energy is quantised.

That's a good point. If the OP has an alternative explanation for gravitational lensing, then that means GR is wrong and he also needs to come up with alternative explanations for the way gravity works (e.g. the precession of Mercury), gravitational time dilation, frame dragging, the expansion of space, gravitational waves, black holes, the Shapiro effect, and on and on ...

Banana custard wibble fantasy.

So the volume would be exponentially related to area if it went something like 3r rather than r3. (Which is what the sentence you quoted said.) Still doesn't make any sense. If there are an infinite number of rooms on each floor, then you can accommodate a new guest by asking everyone on the first floor to move along one. You could accommodate an infinite number of guests by asking everyone on each floor to move up to the next floor. But I have no idea what point you are trying to make. No it isn't. And I have no idea what the rest of that paragraph means.

Only if they are really, really tiny. And we have no evidence that such things exist. Large black holes have a very ow density. That is part of the standard model. So "some models" is "mainstream science". What do you mean by a quantum black hole? Do you just mean black holes that are the same sort of size as a proton (or smaller)? In which case, they would be just like any other black hole (except they would explode in a fraction of a second). If you want to play around with the mass, size, lifetime, temperature, etc of a black hole this calculator will answer a lot of questions: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

Can you calculate the effect of your "other explanation" and show that it matches what we observe? If the direct line of site were blocked, how could we see it? (Keyword: eclipse) The one that has no math or experimental results supporting it. Because the are totally different effects. (It can look a bit like the effect of looking through glass with bubbles in, though.)

It does have angular momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number Does your model explain why the angular momentum is quantised?

It is the gravitational waves converted to sound. (The key word there is "converted".) Maybe you need to define what you mean by "sound". (If you mean any signal that can be made audible by suitable equipment, then that includes light, ocean currents, the motion of planets, ... )

If the gravitational wave were large enough, it could in principle be detected by a strain gauge (or, more likely, a pair of strain gauges). But even if you could detect it with your ears or a microphone, it is not "sound" in the usual sense of the word.