Replies

Factual science now involves “the unobserved but inferred”. It has to be there because our current worldview is that we believe it’s there.

No, we theorize it's there because that's the only thing we can come up with that fits what we can observe. If you want to win a Nobel Prize, show that the measurable data fits another interpretation better.

I don’t particularly care about winning the Nobel prize.

I just don’t think theory should be passed off as fact. Considering the current theory is just the current theory. Before that there were other theories that didn’t pan out. But some are still clinging to them. This one too will probably not pan out. But will be embraced as fact for as long as it is, until another hot little theory supplants it.

In the early 1900’s, some chemists and physicists still questioned the atomic theory of matter. Einstein’s paper on Brownian motion (not that he called it that) is one of the classical confirmations of the molecular hypothesis.

Not one gram of dark mater has ever been found. What are the properties of dark matter? Show it to me. So the acceleration of the universe dose not fit the math, so lets just assume there is dark matter to fix the math to what is observed. What if some of our preconceived notions of the big bang are wrong, and that is why the math is wrong. In particular, we do not know how the density of the universe changed right after the big bang. Based on empirical evidence, the initial expansion was not uniform. This means that we simply do not know how the universe aged at the big bang. Our understanding of the geometry of the universe at the beginning is probably wrong. In which case the cosmological constant may not be a constant, but a variable (not locally invariant). Some interesting research is being done in this area. I have always felt the tensor equations are too rigid in this regard. I think some of the new research in continuous deformation geometry will fit the observed universe better without the need for dark matter.