Strange

You would need to show how it could do that. What does it tell us about chemistry -- either quantitatively or that we didn't know before? There are principles of energy minimisation, least action, entropy, etc. that sound vaguely like what you are suggesting. But they can be quantised and so they are useful.

There isn't anything of substance to be wrong. "Not even wrong" as Pauli used to say.

It is not a theory as it has not been tested against evidence. It is not a hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions. So it cannot become a theory. There is no such law. There is no such law. Argument from authority. Currently there is no explanation as to why there is anything. That is outside the scope of science. Only philosophy or religion can provide (invent) answers to those questions. Even is true, what use is this conclusion? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything? How would it prove (or even explain) such a thing? Presumably because no one has noticed amor reported it yet. (They have now.) Also, why is putting threads in the correct place an "attack"? There is no physics here.

All particles are quantised excitations in the relevant field(s). I read a really good article about this recently but I can't find it again (it was explaining the Higgs mechanism, I think.) This one might do instead (but probably requires more work): https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

I somehow doubt that it was a per diem figure. Perhaps annually? Which would make it about 3 cents. Not completely implausible.

It is even used in cosmology (and "in space no one can hear you ...") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations

Polish? IT? In my experience, there is a high probability they are pulling your leg! I think it was irony.

Or that you thought was impossible before then!

In other words you are going to cherry-pick conclusions you like and reject ones you don't. And ignore the evidence. No surprises there then.

Then why did you present it as evidence?

He was interested in many things. And it was an unsolved problem at the time. What is your point? Incoherent nonsense. Luckily, science has mathematics rathe than just words. As your words are largely nonsensical, I'll stick with the science. ... and what? That is a pretty pointless statement. But we weren't really waiting for Einstein. Others, such as Galileo, Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski, etc. laid the groundwork and almost anyone from Maxwell onwards could have come up with the same results as Einstein. You don't know that. There are many theories being developed based on the idea that space (and time) is quantised. You needn't have bothered. It was a waste of your time and ours.

Why does it have to be made of anything?

First, welcome to the forum. I am glad to see you are interested in science and have some imaginative ideas. But ... Well, mass and energy are equivalent. So energy can be converted into mass. For example, a photon can turn into an electron and a positron. Or, more significantly, nearly all the mass of protons and neutrons comes from the energy holding them together, not from the mass of the quarks they are made of. That is not how the big bang model works. Your description sounds like the is this "quantum bubble" in empty space. In the big bang model, instead, space has always been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter and energy. But space has expanded so that the matter and energy has cooled over time. There is no way for particles (with or without mass) to move faster than light. But mass and energy are equivalent so the energy of a system contributes to its gravitation. I don't know what "motion mass" is. But it really isn't that simple.

Electrons are point particles and so have no shape. This is the challenge of reading popular science articles!

Apart from: 1. Magnetism attracts and repels. Gravity only attracts. 2. You can shield magnetism but not gravity. 3. Gravity falls of with an inverse square law while magnetism follows an inverse cube law 4. All forms of mass and energy (and pressure and momentum flow and ...) cause gravity but not magnetism. 5. And on and on. So certainly not "everything". Your opinion has little value. You should learn the basics of physics.

4. It is just the distance between things. If you don't assume that, then you don't reach that conclusion. And there is no real reason to assume that.

Really? That makes it sound useless to me: no use to aliens and no use to humans. Why is that encouraging?

True but irrelevant.

Hmmmm. I don't feel that way about Fortran or Cobol ...

I think Basic is a terrible first language. Possibly the worst. You will learn really bad habits.

I am exaggerating very slightly in this list. But not much. Write a specification. Get it reviewed. Then write a test plan based on the specification. Get it reviewed. Then write the tests, based on the test plan. Get them reviewed. Correct the specification based on the errors this throws up. Write the documentation. Get it reviewed. Correct the specification and test plan based on the errors this throws up. Oh, yes. Implement the software. (Nearly forgot.) Correct the specification and test plan based on the errors the throws up. Run the test suite for each module and for the complete program. Fix any bugs and get the changes reviewed before committing them back to the repository. This should not be the longest part of the development process (but, sadly, for most people it is).

Make your comments descriptive and useful (e.g. don't comment a line that increments a counter with /* increment counter */, try something like /* keep track of the number of lines we have processed */). Imagine you are explaining your code to someone else (who isn't as smart as you) when writing comments. Add comments at the start of each file saying what that file contains. Add comments at the start of each function/procedure saying what the function does, what parameters it takes and what it returns. Add comments at each step in the function explaining what it is doing and why it is doing it that way - it is OK to document your design decisions in the comments. Otherwise, one day you might come back and think, "that seems an odd way of doing it; I think I'll simplify it .... Oh no! Why doesn't it work any more!?" As well as using meaningful variable names, add comments to the declarations with more info (e.g. why it is that type /* We use a set rather than a list here to automatically remove duplicates, and we don't care about the ordering */) If you "temporarily" comment out lines to try a different implementation then: 1. Add a comment explaining why those lines are commented out 2. Consider deleting them when you are happy with the new version 3. Start using a version control system! Keep the comments up to date with the code; e.g. if a function is given an extra parameter, update the comments.

Interesting: kind of the folk etymology equivalent of numerology...

These are examples of "backronyms". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym I guess they are intended to be humorous. They are obviously not the origins of the words.

It is probably worth spending a bit of time (e.g. in an intro to philosophy class) understanding why it can't have an answer. After that, it becomes pretty pointless.