No, not yet, I’ll read the article soon (probably tomorrow), I hope it’s going to be an interesting one. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that my description above is a true description of nature, but I don’t yet see why this way of reasoning should be wrong. I’m looking for a fact/law/equation/anything why it can’t be true. So I’m actually looking for evidence against my own reasoning, not in favour of it, I want to understand why my description can’t be right. But while I’m explaining myself quite extensively and detailed, I’m receiving a rather short answer as a counter-argument, which isn’t overwhelming me with persuasion, if you don't mind me saying it. I've tried my best, but I can't follow you there. The photon seems to be only changing, not disappearing. I’m arguing against "established science"? I’m referring to dark matter and dark energy. The scientific community don't know what both dark matter and dark energy are, so there is no established science yet about these topic, in order to be able to argue against it. I’ll read this article, which is in disfavour of the law of conservation of energy, concluding that it's not a universal law. But what about entropy, is that also an approximate/statistical conservation law, instead of a universal one? Or what about the conservation of charge?