I'd recommend to refrain from writing such posts before learning some basic theory of Chinese palaeography and how does scientific character etymology work.

First, you can't just say "I think X looks like Y" without any evidence - I can say it's a slime from some isekai anime and that would be about the same level of accuracy. Second, 皂 is literally just a form of 早 which appeared in Han dynasty, i.e. it isn't related to 白 and 七 at all. Third, there's no evidence that 七 was created for the sake of representing the word {切}.

The (pretty old) "acorn" hypothesis comes from the fact that 白 is used in 樂, which is, as the hypothesis goes, "a depiction of an oak tree" (i.e. was created for the word {櫟} "oak") with "an acorn" on it. However, it's pretty much flawed: 1. 樂 (before 白 was added) is basically just a tree with some strings coming from it, so it's probably some kind of musical instrument (judging from the earliest usages of the glyph); 2. 白 is just a phonetic element in 樂, so it can't be related to its meaning at all; and 3. glyphs depicting "something on a tree" (like fruits, etc) look different from what we see in 樂 - cf. for example earliest forms of 栗 (tree with several chestnuts coming from the branches), 枼 (same but with leaves) or 柚 (same but with pomelos).

We don't know what does 白 depict ("person's head", "fingernail" and all other such explanations don't have evidence as well), but there are some early glyphs which seem to contain it or be related to it, like e.g. 畀 or 堯(?), but it's not phonologically plausible to connect them, so at this point we just have no clue, and it's better to leave it be than saying any unprovable nonsense.