Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations.

Presumably, you are just ignorant of the scientific evidence that contradicts your claims. People here have tried to explain some of your errors but you refuse to listen. You have demonstrated yourself to be closed-minded and unwilling to learn, so I am not surprised by your ignorance of the evidence. It would have been more productive to study some science, instead of wasting your time making up random nonsense.

That was a selection of your random guesses that contradict known science (or just make no sense). In response to: But maybe your English is worse than I thought, and you didn't mean you wanted examples of your guesses that contradict known science. Science is entirely based on using evidence to confirm theories. So that is a ludicrous statement. As I have seen several major changes in science in my lifetime, which have overthrown "what was drilled into my head", I have learned that all science is always open to question. This requires evidence, of course. The idea that science is dogmatic is one of the more idiotic tropes of the crackpot.

Sigh. As you seem to have forgotten, lets pick a small sample of things from this thread that are either factually incorrect or just wrong. Most of the remaining posts are pretty much incomprehensible because of your poor grasp of English, I'm afraid.

I'm not daft enough to claim I have one. Nor are any scientists. That doesn't validate your idea.

It is not a theory (because there is no model and no confirmation by evidence). It is just some handwaving guesses that contradict known experimental results.

Evidence? No, of course not.

You may believe that, but without evidence no one else is going to.

You really aren’t. You have small number of people trying to explain to you how science works, why you need to use language correctly, have a mathematical model and evidence. You may think you have clever idea, but you are not going to convince anyone else with this sort of handwaving You would have been better off spending that time learning some basic science. As you didn't and are not able to present a model or any evidence, it looks like you have wasted your time. No one is going to take this seriously, as it is supported only by a variety of false claims and some random buzzwords. It is incredible, the number of people who post their crackpot theories and think that the fact they have wasted years (or decades, in some particularly sad cases) on it somehow validates it.

How is that relevant?

Even making allowances for the fact you may not be a native speaker, it is very hard to follow you. What does “grant it spacetime” mean? And this (apparently meaningless) statement does not answer either of my points: you are wrong when you claim we cannot observe the mass of a black hole; and spacetime is continuous over the event horizon. So no evidence then. That is just as meaningless. But, again, we can measure the wave properties so your vague claims are wrong. Again. How do you refute meaningless waffle?

I don’t know what “catch quantum waves” means but we can measure the wave properties of “particles” (note that things are not either waves or particles as you seem to think). We can observe/measure the mass of black holes in multiple ways. The curvature continues inside the black hole.

Spacetime continues beyond the event horizon, so there is no “gap”. And, as far as we know, quantum physics behaves just the same at, and beyond, the event horizon. If you are going to say that there is a “good chance” of something, then you need to provide the evidence to support that.

Well put. (I was struggling to put something like that into words.)

Yes. As far as we can tell, the speed of light is the same everywhere (and always has been). The speed of light is related to many other physical effects so, for example, if the speed of light changed then the way stars convert hydrogen to helium would change. But very distant stars behave in exactly the same way as nearby stars. I’m not sure what “relative to his space location” means. But someone stationary at that point would measure the same speed of light as that moving observer.

More seriously (!?) though, humour probably does tell us something about consciousness: the way that laughter is contagious (even hearing a recording of laughter with no context can make us laugh) probably says something about the way we understand that other people are conscious in the same way that we are ("theory of mind"). There has been a lot of research on this, such as how people react to real versus faked laughter, laughter being culture-specific, etc.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are deliberately pretending not to understand the difference between consciousness and being unconscious for humorous effect. It is hilarious

Yes. Anything with no mass can only travel at the speed of light. (And that would be an invariant.) Yes and yes. Not really. If an object is moving at 99.99% c (relative to you) then someone moving at 50% c (relative to you) would see that object moving at roughly 50% c (relative to them). (One should take relativistic speed addition into account to work that out properly, but it is too late for that!)

As you can see, the H0LiCOW and SH0ES measurements are already fairly precise, as are the very different Planck and DES results. The difference between these is far greater than the error bars. The slightly shocking thing is that the other new result is in the middle of these. So ... who knows ...

! Moderator Note Logic and reason might quality (as long as you don't mean the crackpot definition of logic: "it makes sense to me"). But this site is not a place for just expressing beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.

Yes, the speed of light is "invariant" - in other words, all observers see the speed of light as being the same, regardless of their state of motion. They are not moving"relieve to spacetime". You can only measure speed relative to another object (or, more accurately, frame of reference)

! Moderator Note No. It is for discussing science. And mod notes are not up for discussion.

Several new methods of measuring the Hubble constant have produced inflicting values and more evidence that new physics is needed https://www.quantamagazine.org/cosmologists-debate-how-fast-the-universe-is-expanding-20190808/

That may be true, although it is clear that the universe has not always been in its current state. There many hypotheses about the early universe, some involve the universe always existing in some form, others where it came into existence. There is, at present, no solid theoretical or evidential support for any of these. So it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for your contention.

There are two meanings of “conscious”: having self-awareness/consciousness and being awake/alert. Clearly, (given the topic of the thread) I meant the former.