I am unsure what do you mean by "time doesn't work that way" and "information is not what it seems". Could you please clarify?
Now, on to the rest.
Yes, Mrs. Rubins has shown that, but the current scientific consensus is that this is most likely because of dark matter's gravitational impact. The fact that we have not proven that doesn't mean it's not true, though I'm not gonna claim it is true either, it could be something else in effect there.
When it comes to black holes, the scientific consensus is that they exist. Some scientist are claiming that they maybe don't need to have a singularity at their center as far as I know, but they do agree that they exist. - some sources on that:
Time is not linear. You cannot erase the past without also erasing the future.
There are already multiple timelines, and so, the information of them, does not limit the future tied to them. All meaningful information is stored as long as it is needed.
The entire idea of black holes was laughed at until a lot of rock-e-person money was thrown at it.
Yes, scientists are trying to find evidence of a black hole, so they look and they see something, and then incorrectly attribute it to a black hole. There are many other models, which match the data far better, far more simply and far more elegantly.
When we start looking at the universe with huge long distance dual-optical scopes, we will start seeing the actual structures of our galaxy and how they all tie together.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In what way is time not linear? And your statement of not being able to erase the past without erasing the future is actually perfectly in line with the article. If you erase the past, the future then becomes non-deterministic.¨
Also, multiple timelines? What? I'm really confused about that.
Now, again, black holes.
Which models are you referring to? In what way do they describe the data better? Simplicity and elegance have no real scientific value. Do the models also describe the rest of physics correctly or do they have disparities in other places?
And I again sadly don't understand your last statement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If you erase the past, the future become non-existent.
Look under electric universe models and aether models.
Along that path, you will find that our current model has so many holes, that it may as well be thrown out just because it is so bad.
Such as, the speed of light is supposed to be the speed limit, but there have been many tests that show speeds in excess of c.
The speed of light, as measured, was changing... until scientists got together and set it.
The theory of relativity breaks down when you accept the presence of entangled particles.
Etc.
And sorry, I really can't do anything but hint at there is more out there.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, I've heard of the aether model and during my research about it I also saw that it has been disproven through experiments.
And from my very quick look at the electric universe model (and I will admit it was very very quick and not well researched), it seems to be easily disproven even with experiments potentially doable for a science fair in an elementary school.
The speed of light (which is actually a bad name for something that should ideally be called the speed of casualty) is being "ignored" by entangled particles, yes. But that isn't being refuted by physicist, it is being researched and I will not claim I know the answer to why that is happening.
But what I don't understand how it was changing until they "set it". Do Earth's scientists have some magical device that can set it universal constants? If they don't shouldn't it be possible to prove that the speed of light is actually still changing?
And you "hinting at there being more out there" is certainly true. The question is, is what you are proposing to be out there true or is it just your belief which you cannot back with scientific, peer-reviewed and repeatedly experiementally provable. Since you only put out general statements and don't provide any sources at all, I am inclined to say that it is just your belief and not science.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Back before you were born, scientists used to measure the speed of light. In the front of old science books, the current measurement was printed.
And, the speed was slowly changing. Whether that was because of measurement error or the speed changing, we do not know.
THEN (dun dun dunnnnn) the scientist got together and set the speed of light. They decided that 299,792,458 m/s was the speed of light.
It hasn't been measured since then, except as some stunt to show they could still do it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Of course I only "hint" at things. If I was going to write about them, I would be writing books.
Did you notice that all of your "supposed facts" are only because "scientists say so"? I listen and work with scientists that say different.
You also missed, as does almost everybody, that entangled particles destroys the theory of relativity. People just think that the two can coexist. Also, the dual slit experiment further destroys the theory of relativity.
As someone who was writing an article on science, I was hoping that a bit of prodding would get you thinking about why the two are mutually exclusive.
It does look like I got you a lot of steem for writing your replies to my comments. So, there you go.
I will leave you with a banned Ted talk which I believe is the one that goes into scientists stopping measuring the speed of light.
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit