They ironically forget their skepticism.

Pachomius

So here’s my question. What is the standard of evidence, before a hypothesis becomes a theory? I mean, quarks are widely accepted to exist, right? And yet, I am still skeptical of DM & DE which is asserted to comprise the majority of everything, and yet is unobservable.

I assert that Occam’s razor points to simpler answers than inventing an unobservable “something” that we call “dark” because, quite honestly, science does not have a clue on the issue. Science has experienced unexplained phenomena before, many times. It’s more honest to say “we don’t know” than it is to say “Dark Matter. Take it to the bank. Dark Energy. Count on it.”

Hey, I’m willing to give the scientists some time. They deserve that much. However if there’s no direct experimental evidence in 50 years (maybe that should be 20), then DM & DE is going to be properly viewed as a house of cards.

But I’ve never seen dark matter or dark energy – apparently because it is unobservable by its nature.
Convenient.

I tend to agree. It takes chutzpa to claim that these things are experimentally proven. They are merely asserted.

We’re not the only one to be sceptical. Lee Smolin has issues with the way that certain edgy hypotheses are regularly referred to as though they have entered the territory of widely accepted theories:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-is-search-for-immutable-laws-of-nature-wild-goose-chase/?searchterm=lee%20smolin

Among these hypotheses that have precious little evidence to back them up: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory. What is worse is that, when pressed, nearly everyone agrees that not only are these not proven, they may not be provable at all, ever!

All you need to know about DM & DE is contained in the phrase “…this phenomenon that can’t be directly seen or measured”.

I’ve said it before. If you believe in unobservable phenomena, then I have some unobservable Yetis, leprechauns, and snerts that you’re gonna just love!

The point of the article is that we now have a little more evidence in the existance of dark energy, yet it referred to as a fact? How about “other than that it theoretically makes up most of the universe…”

It looks to me that dark matter & energy are merely fudge factors to account for observation and theory not matching.

Do you mean “energy counterpart”?

Richard L Erickson, PhD

Dear Fellow Researchers:

There’s not a shred of evidence for a direct interaction between light and gravity in the empty vacuum space just above the plasma rim of the sun; a direct counter to the light bending theory of General Relativity

Recent findings in observational Astrophysics convincingly show that the important fundamentals of Mathematical Physics and astrophysical observations have been incorrectly applied to the so-called gravitational lenses. Since the discovery of solar light bending, researchers have always assumed that gravitational lenses are due to a direct interaction between light and gravity. Historically, astronomers have noted that light rays from stars that pass near the plasma rim of the sun appear to deviate from their linear trajectories. The astronomical observations reveal that the effects of the gravitational field of the sun on the rays of light from the stars have been due to an indirect interaction between light and gravity and not due to direct interaction. An application of Gauss’ law that encloses the gravitating mass of the sun inside of an analytical Gaussian sphere shows that a direct interaction between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars in empty vacuum space just slightly above the solar plasma rim does not take place. A recent press release: http://www.pr-inside.com/important-fundamentals-and-astrophysical-observati-r1382324.htm

Detailes: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

A paper on this subject has been published in the renown refereed journal Astronomische Nachrichten, “Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity”, Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, Issue 2, 2007, pp 186 -191

Comments and Feedback are welcome.
gravityfindings@verizon.net