Your whole theology is based on invisible entities that do not and never have shown up in any sort of empirical lab experiment Tim. What you're trying to pass off as "empirical" is nothing more than absolute "religious faith in the unseen".
You don't understand how science works. Sometimes we run across things we haven't seen before or observations we can't explain. When that happens, we try to develop hypotheses and theories that could explain them.
Example: Observation of the orbit of Uranus led to prediction of new planets: Neptune and the dwarf planet Pluto. To this day, neither Neptune nor Pluto have shown up in any laboratory experiments on earth.
Example: When the neutron
WP was first seen in a lab, its discoverers assumed it was a form of radiation already known to science, such as electromagnetic radiation. When all such explanations were found to be untenable, scientists realized they had discovered a previously unknown form of matter.
Example: Quarks were proposed as a possible explanation for the behavior of hadrons (baryons and mesons). Quarks weren't produced in laboratory experiments until several years later. Had quarks not been proposed as a theoretical model, their discovery in laboratory experiments would probably have been delayed by many years.
Moral of story: Predictions often come before experimental confirmation. Were that not so, there would be no prediction, only postdiction, and science would not be scientific.
Like I said "dark matter" started out as just a recognition of "missing mass", a realization of the limitations of our technologies. You've since turned "dark matter" into a "religion" that requires faith in the exotic unseen, and you can't even tell us it's actual energy state. Anyone that doesn't buy your faith based song and dance routine is subject to personal attacks galore. Yawn.
Neptune and Pluto started out as a recognition of "missing mass". Scientists didn't stop there, but looked for them.
Neutrons started out as observations in need of explanation. Scientists didn't stop there, but proceeded to rule out known forms of matter as an explanation.
Dark matter started out as observations in need of explanation. Known forms of matter have been ruled out pretty well, which is why dark matter is now believed to consist of as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter.
Believing that as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter may exist is less arrogant and less religious than your dogmatic belief that the known forms of matter are the only ones that exist.
More telling is your aversion to any and all criticisms of your beliefs. The moment I point out the limitations flaws, you get all butt hurt and nasty and accuse me of "worshiping ignorance" for not bowing to your Phd. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/jaw-dropping.gif[/qimg]
You're confused.
Tim Thompson has not asked you to bow to his PhD.
This statement is patently absurd. *NINETY SIX* percent of your theory is a no show in the lab Tim, NINETY SIX PERCENT! Inflation isn't "empirical", it's "make believe" and I can even tell you the individual that "made it up". Dark energy isn't "empirical physics", it's another ad hoc creation to prop up your otherwise falsified theory that "failed" to predict acceleration. Your exotic brands of "dark matter haven't been seen either. Less that five percent of modern cosmology is based on actual empirical physics Tim. Your claim to the contrary was simply absurd! Not even 1/10 of current cosmology theory is based on known forces of matter and energy.
Neptune and Pluto weren't make believe. Neutrons weren't make believe. Quarks weren't make believe.
History has demonstrated that your form of argument is unreliable.
I could say the same thing to you and how you treat a Nobel Prize Tim. You're peddling what the Nobel Prize Ph'd Scientist called "pseudoscience" his entire working career. Worse yet you refuse to even acknowledge the error of your fallacy (appeal to authority) even when I turn it right back around on you! You're blowing off every opinion of every amateur that disagrees with you because they don't have that Phd, but if I use the exact same logic with Aflven's Nobel Prize, you ignore him. You can't have your cake and eat it too Tim. If the extra work that Alfven put into MHD theory and his Nobel Prize on MHD theory isn't worth squat to you, then why should your Phd mean anything to me? Think about it. You can't play both sides of that argument.
You're confused.
Tim Thompson has not asked you to bow to his PhD.
Ironically, you're upset because we aren't bowing to Alfvén's PhD or Nobel Prize. Some of the reasons we aren't bowing have been documented in
a spin-off of this thread.
Are you guys sure this isn't a religion?