Sure it does.
Yes, by definition of "movement". At the borders of the time the photon is copied and the old one erased - which is how we implement "movement" on a computer screen.
I predict that in another reference frame Planck length would be longer. You can't say space is anisotropic if in another reference frame it has longer units.
The definition of movement is time. The shortest interval of time involves movement and the shortest possible movement takes time. No time, no movement, no movement, no time. The minute a photon ceases to move it ceases to exist.
Not sure what you are implying but by copying if you mean absorption and re-emission, then there is a change of state and an exchange of energy, therefore a loss.
Can't even guess what that means.
Well yes I can. You only say you can't based on an unfounded prediction. Anyone can theoretically speculate anything, reality does not follow theory.
you know that the reason for the apparent diameter of the sun and moon on the horizon is still unexplained don't you? so unless you want to explain what you just said, or can you? you would have to build it without patch work logical cause and effect from ground up, you aren't going to find that, not yet.
Spacetime don't need to absorb and emit: I postulate that spacetime can copy a particle onto a new position in space and erase the old copy instantaneously.
Come on: think of a spot on the screen that is set into motion.
Come on: the definition of isotropy is: "looking the same across spacetime" not across reference frames!
This is as close as I could find so far:
Is this because white light is all the colors of the rainbow that it can be scattered to show prominent colors?
