Dear Jonathan Tooker,I cannot claim to have followed all of your logic but I did enjoy reading your essay, and I found several of your remarks insightful and helpful. For example you say"… any theory that preserves establish physics and adds gravitating quanta is a working theory of quantum gravity."I'm somewhat confused by your process (4). Is the meaning that a present state is predicted by physics to lead to a future state, which, when measured, becomes a record of a past event which we study in the present? Or have I completely miss the point? Are you perhaps speaking of signals traveling into the past?I appreciate your description of the genesis of your equation (9); that sort of openness is rare in physics.Your discussion of the "often ignored" Ford paradox was informative. I found only one search result on this and look forward to studying it. It deals with a most significant topic related to my essay.If I interpreted your discussion of the renewed interest in fusion physics properly, that is most impressive.And it's nice to be reminded that "."Finally, I note that you state,."That seems self-evident, but, again with regard to my essay, some seem to wish to limit the debate to math only. I see in one of the comments above that you have not treated entanglement. I invite you to read my essay and find out why you may not have to do so and I invite any feedback you might have.My best regards,Edwin Eugene Klingman