Strange

OK. Wormholes come out of exploring the math of relativity (i.e. they are not a "presumption"). They are an interesting artefact but I don't think many people consider them to be real (like singularities). There is certainly no evidence for them (at present) so they are not part of mainstream science. So you seem to be condeming all of astrophysics because of some obscure mathematical results that are really only popular with journalists and science fiction writers.

The other point is that there was NEVER any evidence for the aether. It was just a "common sense" assumption. An like many such assumptions, it turned out to be wrong, or rather, unnecessary.

How about: "science"?

Well, that didn't last long.

(As an aside, you should proof read your sentences before posting. They are often very confusing. Note the lack of a closing bracket in the above, for example. It makes it hard to guess where the parenthetical clause ends.) I don't think you have established any such thing. Can you give an exmaple of something that is 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated in quantum mechanics? Experiments and observations are repeated all the time, as well as new experiments to test the theory being devised. In cosmology, while I will concede that there just a single universe, people are constantly reviewing the models and working out new predictions to be tested, and then devising new experiments to test them. Or, occasionally, coming across new observations by chance. This is how the steady state model(s) were eventually rejected, because of the growing level of evidence that could not be reconciled with the theory. New observations, with increasing detail and therefore new information, are constantly being made of the CMB, for example. When I worked at a university in my youth, one of the experiments I did some work on was to measure the CMB. Then, the best we could hope for was to measure the temperature more accurately and perhaps find some spatial variation (there was none within the level of accuracy of our measurements at the time). Now far more is known and new models can be eveloped and tested against it. Similarly, new observations of more distant red-shift values showed an unexpected acceleration of expansion, which requires new theory to explain it. Similarly, new observations of galaxies has led to the need to hypothesize dark matter. I see nothing 'fixed' in any of the above. I see no inability to do repeated observation and experiment. In short, I say your claim is wrong. As explained above, the category you wish to name does not exist. [To avoid breaking the forum rules, I will ignore your "fringe" theory]

You said that various branches of science are not based on repeated observation and experiment. That is (pretty obviously) false. "Fringe science" is a well established term that you are using to mean something different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science I don't really know what that means. The interpretation or explanation provide by relativity is that the 4D geometry of space-time is observer dependent; it puts time on the same basis as space, as a geometrical dimension. It does not dismiss space. I interpret it as totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Unless you have some repeatable, experimental evidence for the existence of the "ether". (Even then it is irrelevant, and would require its own thread, in Speculations, to discuss it.)

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use a word with an existing, well-established and widely understood meaning (in this case "fringe science") to mean something else. I see nothing to distinguish that random collection of fields from any other branch of science. They all build models and test them against repeatable observation and experiment.

Away from your black/white polarizations.

It depends. Such arguments seem to be ignored.

Rot. As always. Models are changed or discarded when they don't match observation. Also rot. As you say, models are tested against reality(*). However, "nice" a mathematical model is, if it doesn't match reality(*) then it will not be accepted. (*) Just in case anyone is going to be moronically pedantic (I'm sure that won't happen, but you can never tell), by "reality" I mean "what we observe".

She is not contagious. (You will notice that there has not been a massive outbreak in Scotland.) You have evidence of these "carriers", I presume?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34483584

It is still not a black and white issue. It might be important to save some species and not others, for example.

I am quite sure there are physicists out there who think that. I'm fairly sure I have made that point myself. People have a rnage of different opinions and beliefs about the work they do. You are the only person claiming that they think that.

Then no on can say what those unknown actions are, what their effects might be, or even if they exist.

It is not a problem of analogies, it is your inability to be clear about what you are saying. Killing everything or killing nothing is not an either/or choice. You might say it is OK to kill for food, or for self defence. So it is a very grey area. In this case the simplification just confuses people. (You are a prime example.) Humans choosing to kill other animals has little or nothing to do with natural selection.

Your (unreferenced) quote said: "So, over the course of our lifetimes, about 5,000 neutrinos will wind up smacking into one of our atoms in our bodies." That is 5,000 per LIFETIME. That is 5,000 per SECOND. And that is just one source, your total radiation dose is many times higher than that. If they enter the black hole they will never come out. The source you quote is about neutrinos being generated outside the black hole.

"Humans should kill everything because we naturally posses the abilty to" is not the same as killing a bug. Which is why I called it extreme. 1. "Survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's description. 2. It is a really crude and often misunderstood (apparently, who'da thought it) shorthand. 3. "Fittest" does not mean strongest, it means the best fit for the environment.

Good point. And timely: the Nobel Prize for chemistry was "for having mapped, at a molecular level, how cells repair damaged DNA and safeguard the genetic information". Fair enough. You have already seen that it would make no difference. Any neutrinos hitting the black hole would be absorbed. Any passing by would be lensed like photons. It will be mainly plasma (protons and electrons). Neutrinos wouldn't be affected by a shock wave (because they only interact via the weak force) but it might cause interactions that generate more neutrinos, I suppose. They fall in and stay there.

Science without models is not science.

That is entirely possible - most of the paper was way over my head! And, thinking about it,it mentioned neutral current interactions, which I think means they wouldn't be absorbed. If anyone wants to read more, searching for neutron star neutrino opacity will generate quite a lot of results.

Maybe you need to explain what this "different perspective" is. You haven't done a good job of that so far.

Why would you bother? Interesting question. A quick skim of a paper that I could barely understand, seems to show that the neutrino mean free path is around a metre (depending on temperature, density and nature of the neutron star stuff, etc.) So they would be pretty effectively absorbed. As with anything, with or without mass, they would fall into the black hole.

Well, if all of the mass of the universe is collapsed to one or more singularities, then yes. The classical (non quantum) result from GR is that the entire mass of the universe was initially in a singularity. But I don't think many people thank that that singularity, or those in black holes, have physical reality. We need a bigger theory. I really don't know. But there isn't any evidence for black holes, or anything else, having 5 or more dimensions.

It does raise some interesting questions. I don't know if anyone has done any theoretical work on this (some sort of formal analysis of what is possible or not). Could be an interesting PhD project for someone ...