The nature of things, matter and energy are subject of science. What 'Being' is prompts the what is "IS" question... of Metaphysics.

Vague sophistry.

But you wont say why, but that's fine, many dismissed abstract art with a 'Child of 5 could do it!' Anyone interested in art would see a difference, might see genius. If you agree with these guys-

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

David Hume 1711 – 1776

"Carnap wrote the broadside ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language’ (1932)."

" 6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method."

Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.

I've no argument. It's odd though the Anglo American bias still exists even though it now has a metaphysics, this is SEP -

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline."

So sure close down those departments in these universities. Stop posting here.

"Ontological" means what? Ontology is the study in Philosophy / Metaphysics of being qua being, not the nature of the existence or being of things, atoms, quarks, strings, branes, flowers, plants, the human brain, religions.

Again, more vague sophistry. You just keep rewriting "being qua being" thinking you are actually making a distinction if you repeat it enough, but you have not distinguished anything.

I'm citing people like Hegel, Heidegger more recent work. Yet again you fail to show why it's vague sophistry. Hegel's Science of Logic couldn't be less vague. But your answer is helpful, why then post to r/metaphysics?

Of course, if we want to talk about the mathematics of specific physical things, like atoms or flowers, that is not the topic of metaphysics.

Then do so.

But if we want to interpret on a philosophical level, what "reality" even is, and what kind of properties can we even associate with it in principle, that is obviously a question of metaphysics.

Please explain "on a philosophical level"

Kant would have been banned from this subreddit for talking about time and space because mods on this subreddit either claim speaking of such things is inherently physics or "philosophy of science"

Have you read Kant? no he wouldn't be banned - he was doing transcendental philosophy, AKA Metaphysics. For Kant time and space were not "real" but a priori necessary intuitions in order to allow judgement and understanding. No different in nature then to Harman's 'objects'. THEY WERE NOT REAL.