Strange

Is it? Evidence needed. Really? Citation needed. Dependent on what? Clarity needed. Non-sequitur. Rational argument needed. As for the rest: tl;dr.

Is that relevant to anything at all?

This is not a matter of belief, but of evidence. That is not, necessarily, incompatible with the Big Bang model. Unless you insist on an eternal, unchanging universe in which case, your belief is just plain wrong. Nope. You might like to make yourself a martyr to your anti-science beliefs, but it takes more than just being wilfully ignorant.

In other words, they have no mass.

The source of energy is the non-zero energy of the vacuum. This is a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). To express it very approximately, the zero energy of the various fields vacuum is not precisely defined (i.e. it is uncertain); this "variation" in energy cannot go negative (because you can't have negative energy) and so the average value is greater than zero. Or, to put it another way, the HUP says that you can "borrow" some energy for a short time to create some particles. But that energy has to disappear again (be "paid back") within the time specified by the HUP. The larger the energy, the shorter the time the particles can exist for. There is no evidence for these "Planck particles" though. Photons don't have either mass or charge, so the only thing to account for in photosynthesis is the energy; that is used to synthesis more complex molecules (sugars) from simpler ones. The plant (and animals) can later extract the energy from these sugars for growth, etc. I still have no idea where you are getting these equations from. That makes no sense. The factor c2 (as in e=mc2) is just a conversion factor between mass and energy. It doesn't mean that anything is moving (nothing with mass can move at c, anyway). The Big Bang model is pretty simple, in its most general form: the universe was once hot and dense; it is expanding and cooling. You can get into as much more detail after that as you wish: how much it has expanded and cooled, how we know that, what exact predictions does the model make, how much evidence there is matching all those predictions, and so on and so on.

That logic is rather twisted. For there to be positive evidence that not only particles can have mass then there would have be positive evidence that dark matter is not a particle. There is no such evidence, therefore there is no evidence that things other than particles can have mass. (Never mind that we already know that things other than particles can cause gravitation. Energy, for example. Admittedly, the energy is a property of the particles rather than a thing in itself but ...) That is not flat space; the presence of a black hole means that space-time is curved and that is why black hole shave gravity, and why photons and everything else are attracted to it.

Or let me try... start from origin to 3rd square to 7th square : OK, I start from the origin, count to the 3rd square (on Y, presumably) that is 3, then I count across to the 7the square (on X) and that is another 4. So I make that 7 total. Or, if I multiply them, 12. Maybe I am being very slow, but I don't get it. You are obviously counting them in a different way. Can you explain how? Also, why do you say "count the nos of dots(points where crossing with each others)start from origin to 3rd square to 7th square"? What happened to the "7-2th" square? If you don't want to explain, I'll just have to give up trying to understand it.

I can't follow your examples. Can you show how you get from: (7-2)th(3rd squ) +(7-3)squ.(7-3)squ to 24 + 25 Presumably, (7-2)th(3rd squ) = 24 ? But why? What is (7-2)th and what is (3rd squ) and why?

Yes, because both mass and energy cause gravity (and photons have energy).

Please try and use the Quote function. It is that link at the bottom that says "Quote". It will quote what people are saying. I am not going to try and wade through badly formatted, multicoloured text to try and pick out things you might have said that might be worth responding to.

Presumably for doing dimetric projection drawings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection Not sure why that specific angle though...

Vast amounts of theory supported by mountains of evidence. Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. But with no theory or evidence supporting this vague idea, it doesn't have much going for it. You seem to think that some idea you made up should have equal weight with a scientific theory?

Sorry, but I don't find arguments from "common sense" very compelling when compared to scientific theories. Those particles come from the mass-energy of the black hole. It is just the another case of one form of mass-energy being converted to another. Apart from the fact that we don't know what dark matter is made from. When the particles inside protons and neutrons were discovered (quarks) they were NEW (previously unknown) particles. If it exerts an attractive force, then we can measure it. I'm not sure what "too small" means because all fundamental particles are thought to be of zero size, so it can't really be "smaller" than that. False dichotomy rather than reductio. You seem to be suggesting that perhaps we need to change the way we model / describe how gravity works. (Is that right, your statement is a bit vague?) Attempts to model dark matter that way haven't been successful so far. The evidence for it being a form of matter is pretty overwhelming. I am not aware of any problem with that. The evidence for it being a form of matter is pretty overwhelming. But no one has stopped investigating other possibilities. It is the Higgs field that gives mass to particles, including the Higgs boson because of the self interaction of the Higgs field. That might be true if gravity were an attractive force. However, the idea that a photon shouldn't follow the curvature of space-time is pretty odd. (Actually, even Newton calculated that light should be affected by gravity.) What is "not stuff"? And I don't think mass and attraction are different things. What causes the attraction? The curvature of space-time. What is mass? The curvature of space-time.

As you unable to calculate anything with your model, you have no basis for that assertion.

They disappeared with the last software upgrade. Don't know why the developers thought that was a good idea, but there you go.