Strange

My understanding is that acceleration started a few billion years ago and has continued since then. (Not sure if it is constant or increasing though ...) Before that, it was decelerating due to gravity.

Newton's law of gravity says that a body will continue to accelerate (until it hits the ground). The only thing that stops a falling body accelerating is air resistance. So, in a vacuum, acceleration will continue. (Which, I guess, makes the rest of your post moot?)

I never made any claim. Not providing a single example is definitely not a shotgun approach. More like firing blanks.

Burden of proof. If you can't support your claims, we can assume they are false.

Go on then. Pick one. As you are the one claiming they are the same, it is up to you to show that they are. (Rather than asking questions of others.)

I don't see much difference in meaning between those. The Big Bang is a description of expanding space, so it is quite reasonable to say that [expanding] space created the Big Bang [theory]. Mass and energy have an equivalence - one can be changed into the other - they are not the same thing.

A quantum fluctuation conserves energy. Where did the energy to heat the universe (from near zero to billions of degrees) come from?

So what you are saying is that prime numbers smaller than any number are not the products of any primes below that number. That is not surprising. It is what "prime" means. And the basis of Eratosthenes Sieve. (But I suppose a small amount of credit is due for working out what "prime number" means.)

As there are similar stories in many other mythologies (and modern stories) I would go with the far simpler explanation that it is the sort of story that people like. At least we have evidence that people like stories. We have no evidence for aliens. If you don't even know what the word is, I find it hard to take your opinions seriously. (It is "nephilim", by the way.)

What is your motive then? Your belief is about the only thing you talk about.

Apparently it isn't known if permittivity is infinite or not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superinsulator

Do youv have a reference to that? I am slightly surprised by that.

I think it is because the upgrade means that all the indexes are being rebuilt.

That is not the starting point. It is a simplification. And photons have no rest mass so it doesn't apply to them. And mass and energy are not the same thing.

Yes, my impressions is that "where it's at" is used in a more metaphorical sense. So saying "this restaurant is where it's at" means it is a really good ("happening") restaurant. Not that some event is occurring at the restaurant. The phrase may be used as a more literal synonym for "where it is" in some parts of the US, though. In Bristol (UK) they say "where it's to" (as in: "I found a great pub last night" "Oh yeah, where's that to then?")

Eise has repeatedly posted links to a brief summary of what philosophy is and what it can do (and why). If you need more than that, then there are online encyclopaedias you could refer to; e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu

Really? I mean, really? Sheesh.

Because it is not true. And that equation does not apply to photons (you need the full form of the equation).

It is related to its energy. Even classical electromagnetic waves have momentum. http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/peskin/papers/wave_momentum.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html

What claims? There are many other possibilities. Let's go with the simplest: pure chance. By the way, can you clarify what "this" refers to in that sentence? And what does "the other way round" mean?

As I said, I see no reason to think it is true. It is just an assumption on your part. There are other reasons why the universe is the way it is. You have chosen one. But you have chosen one that (a) requires you to invent an entity (violating Occam's razor) and (b) has no supporting evidence. I would choose one that doesn't require the invention of unnecessary entities and has supporting evidence. If you think that, then there is probably little point continuing the discussion as you are clearly incapable of critical thought. They use lies and distortions of the facts to support their beliefs. That is neither a good argument nor proper philosophy. It is dishonest.

I apologise. This may not be "begging the question". It is closer to "false analogy". This is the basic argument used by Intelligent Design IDiots and Creationists: "life looks like it was designed therefore there must be a designer". Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

A simpler explanation of Bell's theorem: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

What claim? Particle-anti-particle pairs cn be produced, in various ways, by providing energy. The Schwinger effect is one example of pair production. (As far as I can tell from this article, this work is purely theoretical. He hasn't actually done an experiment to produce quarks.)

Why does it denote volition? I see no reason to think that. It is just an expression of your belief. It could be chance. It could be the result of some physics we are not yet aware of. It could be many things. But you are talking about the actions of a person (we know people exist) putting a shoe (we know they exist) in a box (we know boxes exist) and putting the box in the woods (we know woods exist). This is distinctly odd behaviour but plausible in terms of things we know. You then extrapolate from human action on physical objects to assume that the universe must have been created in the same way by something for which we have no evidence. This is not logical. It is barely rational. It is statement of your belief. This is basically the fallacy of begging the question: you believe that the universe must have been created by your god and then create a roundabout argument to support this belief. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question