This discussion seems to lead to nowhere. Anyway, I will answer your points, at least now.
-Consider for one moment that maybe the data is wrong. Perhaps you where even lied to. To not consider this would be, by definition, naive and gullible.
300 years of data being wrong? That would be a huge conspiracy...
If I predict something ridiculous (such as a thing that has no dimensions or takes no space)and you could not prove me wrong, would that make me correct?.
I gave you an counter-example already.
-Computers take up space so I don't see how they have anything to do with point particles.
The way electronics works relies on quantum physics.
-And I would like to see an example where you can add to the mass without weight changing. Weight is just a measurement of mass. In the way that distance is a measurement of the volume. and quantity is the measure of density.
This is not what I have said. Weight is a force. Mass is not.
Where is the thing (for instance: light) if it takes up no space?? Seriously where is it????? If it takes up space you could define its position (the space where it presides). If it is not some where it is NO WHERE.
That's a macroscopic vision. It does not apply to the microscopic world. Check out Heisenberg's uncertainty relations.
To find the Mass of a black hole or a point particle you must divide the density (1 sun for example, or one particle) by the volume (no pace is zero volume). You can not divide anything into Zero. If you do not believe me get your calculator and divide any number by zero.
That's not the only way to evaluate a mass, and it does not apply to everything.
Personally I have never seen anything that came from nothing. And if it takes up no space it obviously is not here.
Does it make it correct or wrong? It is not because you (or anyone) have not seen it that it does not exist.
Try to imagine a "thing" that is "no where". This is the theory of point particles and black holes. No one has or can witness ever witness these fictional, impossible entities.
The theory behind black holes is called general relativity. This is what make GPS functioning by the way... Moreover, black holes have been observed both directly and indirectly. Whatever you can conceive this or not, data exists and demonstrates general relativity works.
I am not trying to attack your science, friend. It would not be science if we did not question it.
It is not 'my' science. It is how we, humans, managed to understand nature, and it has been built by several hundreds years of research, experiment, trials and errors. This is by far not the novelty of the year... What we call the Standard Model of particle physics is well established, and backed up by data.
What is the goal being saying it is wrong (or a lie, as you wrote), without proposing anything else to explain observations. Except trolling, I don't see.
Tell me friend. Do you believe in the Big Bang "theory" where the universe was born from nothing in an explosion??
I don't believe in anything. The Big Bang theory (or the Standard Model of cosmology) is the simplest option that explains all observations for the moment. There is not any other proposal that works that well, even if there are issues. Moreover, note that this theory does not explain what happened at what you seem to call the beginning (and should not be applied at this origin of time).
I guess that then there is no point of continuing this discussion. You will probably qualify anything that I would write, without any proof, of lies. No matter how I back up any claim. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that either one must agree with them, or we are part of the conspiracy... I guess that I must thus be part of this conspiracy... Should thus the two of us avoid losing our time in a sterile discussion?
This is what you think, but that's incorrect. Please back up this statement if you believe it is right. In particular, it does not apply to the elementary building blocks of matter.
That's what fundamental physics is about. Take an electron or a positron. They definitely exist and have no volume or density. Only a mass. That's a fact I am afraid, despite you like it or not.