Would Quantum Communication Affect Time Dilation if at All?

If you agree with the all of it, you have to agree with the last line because they’re saying the same thing.

Anything that is presented has having, definitely, probably of likely happened, probably has firm evidence to support it.

So something like “what is dark matter” is currently speculative, that dark matter exists, or the Big Bang occurred is not.

Kinda like gravity. I’ll see myself out. 

Correct.

We don’t know what produces gravity, we just know how it works.

So in this case, the idea of a graviton is speculative; but no one is saying that gravitons actually exist.

How gravity works, time dilation, frame Dragging, etc is not speculative at all.

As I said ...Semantics.

Based upon how I interpret the definition of speculation, dark matter and big booms are therefore speculative. 

And the second line of  #31 is a semantical and grammatic nightmare...and also rife with indecision.

I'm certain that probably isn't synonymous with definitely.

And something cannot be probably definitely....Something is either probable or definite.

Similarly, something that is only probable, might have supportive evidence, but not conclusive evidence.

And something that is likely to have happened, therefore didn't necessarily happen.

Please stop saying two things that are fundamentally and inherently different things boil down to semantics.

Science works on levels of confidence - not absolutes. No one can say what definitely happened, only give you a level of confidence - based on evidence that a thing happened.

In this respect - science does not assert that any specific thing definitely happened - so the original question you asked is nonsensical.

In terms of speculation - almost all definition specify that speculation is conjecture that is not supported by firm evidence. Colloquially it’s used to mean spitballing or guessing solutions 

Some scientific theories may very well have started off as the latter; and the progressed to the first once the idea was self consistent and could not be ruled out.

But those things are not “believed” or assigned a level of any confidence.

However, theories like the Big Bang - or the acceptance that there is some form of dark matter and dark energy in the cosmos is based on actual firm evidence, that confirms the claim. Thus is absolutely not speculation.

Perhaps you are confused at the difference between confidence and certainty - and are assuming that if one is merely confident then the reason for that confidence is speculation.

That’s just silly: if one has firm evidence that something is probably true; then suggesting  it is probably true is not speculative any more. And in that respect - no accepted theory (explanations so well supported by data that we can claim that they’re almost certainly true) can be considered speculation.

As I said the difference between us is only semantics.

For instance:

"Firm evidence that something is probably true."

One has acquired data to support a theory...But unless said data can be proven to be unequivocal...Then the theory remains speculative.

Evidence is not fact and probability is never unequivocal.

And "firm" is an unnecessary prerequisite

And "suggesting probability" will always be speculative.....And similarly, confidence is never certainty.

And if evidence is able to confirm a claim, then the collective data becomes factual and no longer subject to probability.