You could have answered the question instead. What’s scientific about said theory? You don’t start with a conclusion and seek observations that might fit it, since it prejudices how you perceive the observation; that is unscientific at its core. Never mind the lack of observation of phenomena related to the conclusion. Cart before the horse.
Contrast atomic theory. Observation is that all substances reduce to increasingly-smaller size of particles; hypothesis is that there is an endpoint for matter to be divided in said fashion. That theory was started from the right end.
>>You could have answered the question instead. What’s scientific about said theory? You don’t start with a conclusion and seek observations that might fit it, since it prejudices how you perceive the observation; that is unscientific at its core. Never mind the lack of observation of phenomena related to the conclusion. Cart before the horse.<<
You, along with many, don’t know what a Scientific Theory is.
You can opine until the cows come home but your sophistry does not change the fact you have no idea what we are talking about.
Nice try though. I give you a B+ on the BS o meter.