Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

I'm feeling verbose. So here we go.

Dark matter: Maybe something that we'll one day make lunch boxes out of. Maybe also a rounding error. Of some sort. In some way. You haven't got the mountain-of-data yet. A lot-of-data is a good start. This doesn't mean the missing matter isn't some super-energy infused version of something we already know about. For all we know, its simply "ordinary" matter we'd otherwise already have accounted for but seen/detected in distorted ways due to some new phenomena altering our perception. So, its real as opposed to unicorn droppings[0]. But thats only a small part of the story.

Neither dark energy or matter exist as permanent fixtures, or even as just two singulars. They are placeholders while the search for the underlying phenomena continues. The moment the unaccounted matter/energy is discovered due to phenomena A, B, C, D, E, F then those two broad individual placeholders will be replaced with more detailed names, likely in honor of someone famous or otherwise noteworthy feature of the discovery, eg shape, some quantify etc. We'll go from "dark matter" to phenomena A,B,C to something1, something2, somestate3 or whatever.

People like saying dark[1] because it sounds cool, mysterious and edgy. Its the flair for the dramatic. This is fine for awhile as long as it helps. It is a mystery. But today its a big mystery and tomorrow its on someones balance sheet. There's a lot of tomorrows to allow that to happen.

Very important note: Our knowledge is not dark. Knowledge shines light over the unknown so we can see it for what it is. That is the whole point.

[0] I'm asserting for sake of argument that unicorns aren't real. Some could say that horses with a horn were hunted to extinction and we just haven't found a sample. Thats valid as well. I'd still prefer to see some evidence like a skeleton. But for now, I'll just assume for the sake of argument they don't exist and leave the real answer as homework for the interested[2].

[1] Dark. Or transparent. Maybe we are seeing through it instead. Plastic bags in water become "unaccounted for" and can visually disappear due to transparency. Some ocean creature could easily call that bag the equivalent of what we would call dark matter. Its got water in it and around it. Ordinary matter surrounded by something they don't understand. Hydrocarbons. In explaining it we'd mention the multiple processes and atoms responsible for the formation because we know how hydrocarbons are formed. And probably not just one thing. (No I'm not suggesting dark matter is hydrocarbons but I retain the option to ironically laugh if they are a form thereof).

[2] I know an 8 year old who is highly motivated to believe they're real and with enough skills at genetic manipulation she might make it happen. And apparently they eat meat. The small-hill-of-data implies we should be careful out there.

Quarks and electrons act like they're actually points. Nobody can be totally sure, but the standard math says they are, and nobody has managed to smash them apart into something smaller or measure them as anything other than "smaller than anything we can measure." They might be small loops of energy instead (this is part of string theory), but if they are, they'd be so small it would be beyond known science to prove it. It's easier to prove something has a size (by measuring it) than to prove the opposite. Every instrument has some margin of error, so you'd never be able to exclude there being some size.

The weird thing about the Big Bang is that it's really all of space that banged, and to a first approximation, space and time as we know it didn't exist before a singularity at the beginning of the expansion. It's very possible that's wrong (there may have been a "parent universe" or a "big bounce") but to a first approximation it seems to be that there may not have been a "before" the Big Bang.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

Space is filled with virtual particles that are constantly popping into and out of existence. As space expands, do these particles keep appearing in a given volume at the same rate? Or is the density of virtual particles declining as the volume of space increases?

Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects.

Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment.

If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.

Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics...

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

Here's the EU critique:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra...

The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the working of the universe using only Gravity, theories require esoteric mathematics that are by nature not observable.

Instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket, we should look at each of the foundational assertions of modern cosmology with skeptism & reevaluate our positions, particularly when there are non-observable mathematical artifacts. We have better technology & instruments now. We don't need to double down on the same religious beliefs using ever more esoteric math that is increasingly not falsifiable...

From the definition of "pathological science". Looks more like it applies to the Standard Model from these points...

* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

* The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

* There are claims of great accuracy.

* Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

* Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

* The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.