the more i listen to the lectures in different sciences the more i see/hear baseless assumptions. many of those assumptions were taken from thin air (“educated guesses” as proposals for further scientific investigation) and in the end the logical/mathematical deliberations had produced the right answers.. but in fact different sets of assumptions can in some cases lead to the same results. also in physics. we cannot always be sure that the results are based on underlying facts of nature (which are not measured directly) or are instead mathematical similarities with different phenomenae, coincidences (universe repeats itself due to the laws the universe is built upon, thus coincidences are rather a rule than rare exceptions), not proving the underlying assumptions. the more complex some theories are growing the more difficult is to get it all right, without including speculations.
nb! in so many science lectures the scientists are laughing themselves about several components included in their formulas, which have been taken out of nowhere, just to get the right results, expecting these new inclusions to be proven by observations later. i personally see nothing there to laugh when scientific terms are misused — even as i understand the sense of humor in their talks and i like science presentations with some good humor included, one should take science more seriously and not call such things ‘theories’ but what they really are: scientific speculations. which is not in a bad sense though, you must try something to get to the truth, but calling a calculation with many baseless assumptions (or ‘conjectures’, as scientists like to say, to confuse and convert others into believers in the proposed formulas/logic) a ‘theory’ is a way of making science cheap and may end up with some scientific notions losing their value and respect.
about coincidences in mathematics: for example right now there are two completely different ‘theories’ in physics on how the universe began, with absolutely different starting assumptions about the reality, but both are leading to — by precise calculations built on the assumptions — exactly the same proven and measured results. only more precise measurements in future can perhaps discard one of the theories as not valid.
same with the gravity: some scientists assume that gravity is negative energy (regardless the theoretically presumed field never being measured directly nor particle being found), some say gravity doesn’t exist (einstein) but is only the effect we see due to the warped space, and yet others say that gravity is a statistical phenomenon, something like entropy. all of them provide their mathematical calculations and arrive to the correct results. oh, i forgot to mention the theory of quantum gravity which also claims to be correct. thus we can’t be sure which assumption about gravity corresponds to reality.
therefore, as long as physicists keep arguing between themselves about underlying truths of nature below our observable reality, i have all the rights to propose my own theories about the reality of relations between physical phenomenae, based on my observations, while discarding some accepted ‘truths’ about physics which are not making sense — don’t correspond to the reality based on my obsevations in nature.
here are some notes to think about:
it seems that einstein had made an error in his thought experiment about gravity, claiming that acceleration/deceleration and gravity are the same effect, that gravity doesn’t exist but is the phenomenon arising from curvature of space. these effects look similar but are off by factor of too many. imagine how much a small acceleration/deceleration must (un)bend the space to account for the same effect that gravity produces. solving this error could free us from the speed of light being the absolute speed limit in the universe, fixing it only to certain special circumstances.. which in turn would solve the mystery of “spooky action at distance” — the effect of quantum entanglement, the mystery of inflation and several other ‘impossible’ facts about our universe, like information exchange in cosmic scale not letting it to collapse into lumps. perhaps gravity acts faster than speed of light and is the result of quantum entanglement between objects (the latter i made just up, a quick speculation so to say).
if matter warps space-time, and black holes have so much gravity that even light can’t escape, why is it that the gravitational lensing improves our vision of farther away celestial objects, not diminishing the light as it should fall into the black hole which warps the space.. where is the logic? is it taking light in and gathering even more light from around? due to the lensing there should be areas with less visibility instead of improved visibility of farther away objects.. or.. perhaps the black hole shouldn’t be visible at all (as a black area in space) because the warped space should close in without leaving any trace of the black hole, like a visibility cloak does (invisibility cloak). and what about time differences due to the gravitational lensing? (please note there’s a huge difference between the lensing principle of light passing through a magnifying glass which bends gathered light and the lensing by a black hole which absorbs light).