[Right Winged American]

I always start getting—ah—nervous when physics starts relying on an ‘invisible & undetectable’ thing to explain observations. When a theory relies on something that cannot be tested, you’re in trouble. It’s the same problem I had with the various ‘string—super-string’ theories.

Remember ‘Phlogiston’(sp?) physics?

Personally, I’m leaning toward lots more hydrogen than assumed. And maybe one of the ‘open’ universe hypothesis’.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I always start getting—ah—nervous when physics starts relying on an ‘invisible & undetectable’ thing to explain observations..."

No problem, that is healthy skeptisim. I too find that the "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to be too much of a convenient "crutch" to lean on. My post was NOT to defend "Dark Matter" specifically, but rather the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that is investigating it.

"...Remember ‘Phlogiston’(sp?) physics?..."

My point precisely! A scientist "proposes" an explanation, and you test it to the point where it is either pretty well accepted, or you have to junk it. ‘Phlogiston’ has been tested and has been "junked". Right now, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are being tested. I suspect that we are on the verge of learning some things where something big is going to have to give.