On Blackholes

        Mark my words, blackholes, the astrophysics thing, is not what they keeps on portraying it as. Also not the level of confidance they portray themselves as when talking/mentioning about it and so on. These blackholes do not have singularity - we think it doesn't exist. Are we correct? That's up to the reader - as we are here to share our bets, so to speak.
        Here are our bets with high wager and stake on this topic about blackhole:
● This singularity thing does not exist in blackholes
● Foremost of all, it's not a "hole", if it were, these questions will never be answered, and these questions provide enough natural counter-intuition: how big is the hole, what's the shape of the hole, is it a single dot or a circular region, wouldn't it change over time, and since it would change over time, wouldnt' there be some areas where singularity may "lose" too quickly its original space, how would the whole subsequent migickies work?
● Blackholes in our view are dense regions of the big galaxies where the atoms in there are much heavier, and the electrons over there might be very different too (not necessarily heavier, per each), but guaranteed there should be far greater mass per region of space in those areas
● Don't be naive, sonny, atoms around the universe do not have to be the same size/type/similar/clones or copies of the ones on Earth.  Just think about it: how many atoms from out of solar system has ever reached onto Earth? Any? and what percentage are those. There, now it should be ovious the assumption that the entire Milky Way galaxy must have same electrons and other elementary particles everywhere, in all of its places - that, not very scientific thinking, so to speak
● Blackholes cause noticable lens distortion of light for it has too great of a mass, certainly far greater than the region in outer central regions of this galaxy. The atoms there are denser, much denser, and the whole region around blackhole central locations/spots should be very dense and compacted with denser material and atoms than the stuff found in solar system
● I am willing to bet a country's citizens on this one right now: speed of light is not constant - nothing in this universe is set, or set to be some value - that's too artificial - if it's seriously determined by God or some other thing that it's this specific value, then how in the world why don't we have other abitraries, why this one? hmm?
● Not trying to rub shame or belittle any of those experts, but let's add one more bet: I am willing to wager everything in this universe even for this one: when one travelling close to speed of light, time does not slow down - there is no time - everything is just a flash ticking in relative slowness - real slowness - time does not exist, it doens't have to be. Along with it, this means speed of light is not a limit to things - we think it's a local phenomenom - it tends to travel at always near that certain speed, but light elsewhere, such as from blackhole regions or elsewhere could very much be a variant of it, in fact we think lots of photos travel slower than the "normal" speed, but since they are a minority of the center of distribution graph - they go undetected, or due to simply that they do not form the light we detect (does not travel in light form, they just travel on their own, so to speak)

I hope the above are all clear and understandable. Soon, with better technology and such, these bets will be verified, I hope so
Pardon for any chokes or perhaps slight error here and there, I am on a rush right now (yes I typed this up really fast, did not do one of those type of review) 

peace out, this is Glenn

Speed of Light is Not Nor Never Constant

Speed of light cannot possibily be constant for:

- violates other assumptions made, such as that the "creator" of the universe gave nothing arbitrary in th beginning

- researchers and enthusiats have to to understand that things we see are just the beginning. From our ancient lives, we had grown overly adapted to this local region, now that we use our pre-existed ideas and feelings to examine things beyond the solar system. A region that is very local on the grand scheme of things, had been home to our ancestors for ages

- light itself has been proven to be a phenomenom in nature, in the microscopic world, where photons are scattered out in wave formation of strong enough amount for our sensors to detect. For our eyes, the wavelengths have to be below ultraviolent and above infrared - that is, snudged in between the borders, while delicate instruments can capture much better and sometimes in very altered wavelengths for detection. The said, a well known fact amongst scientists and science fans, goes to show that the approach of assuming things based on childish feelings which arised from ancient world/life yields the opposite of right results. A great benefit of knowing this rule/tip/idea is that we know the auto-presumed by that route is the wrong one - a method of elimination provider.

- and plus for other reasons not listed here. Some of which include particle simulations and new lab experiments

Bonus: solar system age probably does not exceed 265 million years, judging by everything, including: 

•  shape, locations, spots of the astroids in both major astroid belts

•  surface of the moon and moons of other planets

•  Saturn's rings and the fade ring of Neptune

•  Jupiter's aurora and the auroras of many others

•  nearby stars and their velocities

•  composition of the Milky Way galaxy

•  the very macroscopic world - including info like: distance between galaxies and star clusters

•  earth geology and earth science findings

•  plant and animal life, also bacteria, fungi, amoeba, viruses and multicellular organisms

•  studies on animals and their embryos, the extended evolution theory

•  and more

If the sun and thus Earth and all 7 other planets had always been here for at least 4 biillion years, then sun must've rotated around the milky way? How is that possible judging by path of all nearby stars? Also the gravitational force needed to be pulling the sun does not stand on itself. One can look at many signs in nature that hold contridiction to that Austrian's theory of relativity, and thus the standard model itself falls to be next in line to be questioned - heavily questioned and interrogated perhaps.

       Below perhaps contains all the hints needed for next genius/problem-solver/mystery-hunter to pop out, see if thou can find it: