But you haven't given the barest hint that you would even recognize relevant evidence if you tripped over it. You've given only the most vague skeptical-sounding platitudes in this thread.

Can you at least demonstrate some sort of minimal competence here so onlookers like me can judge whether it is worth presenting more detailed evidence to you? As it stands, the hypothesis that you have no clue about how any of this works, don't know or care about the massive body of relevant experimental evidence, and just want to waste people's time and/or stroke your own ego, is better supported than that you have principled evidence-based objections to the physics Selena's describing.

Just to point out the obvious: a hypothesis that fits the evidence quite well is highly valuable when there's neither blatantly contradictory observations nor a hypothesis that is simpler and fits the evidence as well, or which fits the evidence better.