10x for the throughout response.
Without any intent to advocate some alternative theory, I will only talk about the box of modern science. Since the days of Einstein science has shifted from practical to theoretical. There is nothing wrong with that, but there are so many scientist that act like they are fathers/children/relatives to the universe, who say they understand it, but IMO what they understand is not the universe, but their own theories. It may sound like fiction, but if someone claims to understand the universe itself, then that person should be able to interact with it in a more sophisticated way.
For example, Joe is a car mechanic, and as such, he understands how cars work. He is able not only to repair, but also to modify and improve cars. It may sound far fetched, but I think if someone has the actual knowledge of how and why the universe works, his theories should be able to morph into practical applications like anti-gravity, FTL, free energy and so on.
I don't want to solve tons of equations, I want to explore space, to go to different worlds and so on. Theoretical science does nothing about that unfortunately.
Then there is the strongly moderated science - for example, mainstream supporters get research grants, and their work gets funded, in contrast, those who don't agree with the mainstream, and have their own ideas, no matter how promising or interesting - those researchers get cut out, they have to fund their own research, and it happens so that not every person is a billionaire. Furthermore those people get labeled as charlatans, pseudo scientists and so on, just because they work on something that does not fit in the box.
I have the feeling science no longer works to find out things, it works to find some specific, predetermined version. And no matter all the holes in the standard models, and numerous indications it may be headed the wrong way, it gets pushed and insisted upon. There are countless examples, Einstein did his work on the general relativity, but left it unsolved, when people began to solve it, it turns out there is a huge hole, occupying over 90% of all there is, so science does not investigate the equations, it assumes it is correct, and adds hypothetical things like dark matter and energy, that cannot be observed or measured or anything, in order to make the whole thing work. And it's not just that, for example, when science wondered how come protons and neutrons stick together in an area that has only positive charge and by all logic should explode - no investigation of that matter is done, instead we go to say "it is a strong force that does it".
And probably the most controversial of all claims - I read that gluons are no longer hypothetical, but have been confirmed to exist, so I read about it. And what a confirmation it is - turns out that no one ever managed to produce a free quark, so the "logical" explanation was there "must be" gluons to prevent that from happening. Note that a free quark has never been produces, and then see how things top on each other, the FAILURE to produce one hypothetical particle is the confirmation of another hypothetical particle. It doesn't make sense, unless you are after proving your theory, and not after some unbiased form of scientific achievement.
To me it seems the current scientific views have a hard time building a truly "relative", free and floating theory, that could hopefully some day yield into something practical, so instead it concentrates all efforts, despite all the holes and evidence of mistakes, into a theory that has both a starting point and also a fundamental particle. The more powerful colliders we build the smaller particles we manage to produce, and chances are we can keep doing this for as long as we can put more energy into those experiments.
Well, no matter how much effort you put into building up, supporting and reinforcing, if the fundament is flawed the whole structure is doomed to collapse
And what if there is no starting point and no starting particle, all the time, effort and resources would be wasted...
I've always been interested in science, but it seems to the majority of established scientists, science is not what it should be, but more like a religion they swore allegiance to. It is no longer about advancing in all directions, it's about one very narrow, predetermined and biased direction along many signs that say "wrong way".
I hope people see that as my unbiased ideas, not like BLASPHEMY of some sort
My 2 cents...
EDIT: I got a PM that I am breaking forum rules and being anti-mainstream, it may sounds like, but that is not the case, I agree with everything that works for my logic, my frustration is with very limited instances that in my humble opinion simply don't work. Skepticism should be applied with no bias as well, and this is not math or Newtonian physics, it's theoretical cosmology, that is not set in stone.