Strange

Those are not the only two possibilities. Reported for lack of science.

Then your understanding is seriously flawed. How can a wave have no dimension? And if light gives up its energy, then it no longer exists therefore the wave no longer exists.

I did see that you were ten, and I didn't;t really make any allowance for that. So sorry if I came over as a bit tough. But I think it is great that you are interested in science and imaginative to come up with ideas. Keep it up. But remember that science is quite strict about ideas being tested against evidence, so coming up with ideas is the easy bit. Good luck with your future studies. It's OK to be wrong. In fact, science is all about being wrong; that is how it progresses! Actually, growing up is all about being wrong, as well. The fact we can see them means that some of the light escapes and is never sucked in.

Also, while that may be a more acceptable version, I still doubt there is any truth to it.

Here are some examples: https://futurism.com/the-most-life-life-robots-ever-created/

These are not postulates, they are based on evidence and mathematical models. You have presented no evidence and no mathematical model, just some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Is it time to ask the mods to close this because there is no science?

Other than modified gravity there are some more far out ideas like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplygin_gas. But I don't really know how well they fit the evidence.

Because the simplest explanation for galaxy rotation curves, for example, is to add some extra matter, with a suitable distribution. Of course, other explanations are possible, such as a modification to the way we think gravity works so, for a while "dark matter" was just a placeholder for "whatever it is that causes the effects we observe" ("dark energy" is still such a placeholder). However, none of the modified gravity theories actually work (*). Plus there are multiple lines of evidence that suggest dark matter is actually some form of matter. But until we have some sort f direct detection, the options will still be open. (*) Plus, most of the alternative gravity models are ruled out by the results from the recent gravity wave observation: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/merging-neutron-stars-deliver-deathblow-to-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-alternatives-b5e6d2f44d37

[deleted unhelpful comment, sorry] Is it an Android or Apple phone? (I assume not Microsoft.)

What does "space = 1/time^2" mean? Dimensional analysis shows it to be wrong/meaningless. What evidence are these graphs based on? Or have you just made it up? That is pretty meaningless as well. In which case we wouldn't see red-shift. You can't have it both ways. More to the point, what evidence do you have for it?

You are the one who needs to increase their understanding. Just to be clear, we would see distant objects actually being smaller, which we don't. Sheesh.

The mean distance to Ceres is 2.77 AU, so 23 minutes.

No. We would see more distant objects being smaller, which we don't. Don't you think you should a little basic cosmology before attempting to overthrow it? There is difference between "thinking outside the box" and not even knowing there is a box.

It is like someone who has never played golf or even watched golf, doesn't know the rules of the game or even what equipment is used (i.e. me!) who decides to tell golfers they are doing it all wrong.

Did you read the second post from Janus? There are multiple lines of evidence for dark matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

There are lots of other things that we can't see for a variety of reasons. We can't see dark matter, neutrinos, the bodies in the Oort Cloud, stars inside the Horse Head Nebula, and on and on. Does that mean all those things don't exist? BTW, there is a project to image the black hole at the centre of our galaxy: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/global-telescope-may-finally-see-event-horizon-our-galaxys-giant-black-hole

NO. Energy, pressure, momentum flux, sheet stress and various other things also contribute. Described by the stress-energy tensor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor It doesn't even mention mass - that is included under energy. Indeed. Which is why scientists always try and identify any assumptions and test them.

What evidence do you have for this "real" universe?

There are many ways that particles can be detected. Because dark matter is thought not to interact except via gravity, then it probably will not be detected directly. But that doesn't mean it can't be detected. For example, if there is a significant missing energy from a decay reaction, then that could be due to dark matter particles. Any such "missing particle" events would tell us more about dark matter. This is the same way that neutrinos were first detected.

It isn't.

The universe is expanding. The scale factor is a measure of how much it has expanded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

That would be a Doppler shift. It is true that popular science articles sometimes describe it that way, but it is wrong. Cosmological red-shift is caused by the difference in scale factor between the source and us. This is still wrong. when photons are red-shifted that means they lose energy, not maintain constant energy.

It isn't accelerating photons and red-shift reduces the energy, not maintains it. The Hubble red-shift is entirely cosmological. What else did you think it was? The steady state model is impossible: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz

In that case, there are no objects which exhibit cosmological redshift where the distance can be measured by parallax. They are too far away, by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by how it would affect matter. What does red-shift mean when applied to matter? But maybe it does affect matter. For example, the time taken for supernovae to reach their maximum brightness and fade is well known and can be related to the maximum brightness. We find that this time is extended at cosmological distance, by exactly the same amount as light is red-shifted. So the physical processes that the matter undergoes is slowed the same way as the frequency of the light.

I have already done that. I'm not sure there is even enough meaningful content for the Speculations forum, though.