First of all, your first quoted above statement isn't true since I answered your questions and if you don't understand something in the answers then you should ask about it rather than to repeat the questions. Then I might try to explain it to you in a simpler language that won't look to you like an "impressive word salad".

I don't know you since BAUT displays on my comp with a lot of errors and doesn't allow to see the profile of the person whom I'm responding to (neither allows to set a profile). I was able to figure out that you are not a physicists if you have to look to wikepedia for definition of Poynting vector. Had I have known this I wouldn't use Poynting vector as an example but I'd try to use some other vector that is also conserved and which you might understand better. Like e.g. (pseudo)vector of angular momentum (I hope you know this one). Since the principle works for either of them the same way in curved spacetime. This way you might start understanding what it is all about and why your ideas about conservation of energy in curved spacetime are ATM ideas.

Of course you need to understand what curved spacetime is, but if you want to discuss Einstein's universe coming to this thread you have to understand at least what we are talking about here.

This doesn't sound promissing since apparently you aren't aware of the fact that we all live in a curved spacetime (otherwise there wouldn't be any gravitation where we live) and so the physics to be accurate has to work in a curved spacetime without even mentioning it. That's why what you said above makes no sense to a physicists. Since you didn't know that, it was easy to guess that you are not a physicists. Which is of course OK since everybody should understand the world including non physicists.

Second, your questions aren't about "Einstein's universe" that I hoped to discuss in this thread but they are your private ATM questions on a different subject (and so your action is called here "highjacking the thread" and is a bannable offense).

Third, I'm not interested very much in discussing your ATM ideas on curved manifolds and Noether theorem, that you don't understand. What I answered is a plain mainstream response and if you don't accept the mainstream you should open your own ATM thread dedicated to those questions and put there your point of vew on conservation of energy. I might come there and explain to you why you should rather stick to the mainstream point of view.

I said in my first message that I hope to bring into the discussion "people who are supporting the mainstream view (others don't need to apply)" and I'd like to keep it this way. Your ATM ideas, though interesting, I can handle when you open a thread about them. I might come there and explain all your doubts in detail. Just make your own thread and don't highjack mine.

Fourth, wikipedia does not represent the mainstream view. By design it expresses the opinion of majority (decided by editors through concensus) in hope that it turns out to be the mainstream opinion. In most cases it is unless about things that people have strong opinions about. An example may be wikipedia's article on gravitation where the authors, almost a century after Einstein's gravitation theory has been discovered, are still talking about the "attractive force", since this is what the majority still believe in (they think that Einstein didn't explain gravitational force just made it more accurate -- whatever it means). Of course it is not the mainstream opinion. The mainstream uses Einsteins gravitation since always. If you want to follow wikipedia blindly then you are bound at some point to get into conflict with the mainstream (like those "gravitation" authors).

I may be a sculptor, but I have also MS in electronics, so I happen to know a lot of physics and math and since I'm involved in gravitation for over 20 years and I'm right now doing my PhD work in it I could also explain to you some interesting things if you are willing to learn. At least I can tell you what's ATM and what's the mainstream. I don't have any business in misleading you about anything and if wikipedia delivers partial knowledge don't blame me for not agreeing with wikipedia but rather learn what is the mainstream view on it from some mathematical physics or astronmy professor whom you trust.

Fifth, about your questions: let specify in sufficient detail what you didn't understand in my last response. When I know what you don't understand I may explain it to you better. Repeating the same thing twice without saying what part you don't understand makes no sense.

I propose to skip this question as irrelevant. E.g. all astronomers opposed Copernicus (one guy) because of lack of paralax and yet it turned out that they were wrong and paralax was simply too small to be observed. So it turns out (and you must know that) that the truth can't be decided by concensus (and that's why wikipedia isn't a reliable source). Let's rather limit our discussion to relevant issues for this thread which is only Einstein's universe.