The basis is the mechanism of time. We know that time is dynamic, ever changing. Is the transitory nature of time a movement of time going by us or are we in motion that we recognize as time.
We see time as past, present and future. All things in the universe only exist in the present. Is the present the same over the whole universe? Is there only one now?
Special Relativity makes the mistake of treating time as relative, when in fact the relationships about time in Relativity are about physical limitations. Time does not change with velocity, only all clocking functions change with velocity.
No matter how your clock may change with velocity, you never leave the present. If velocity changed time then whenever you moved, your time would slow down and you would disappear from the present. Since nothing ever leaves the present velocity has no effect on real time.
This is the type of consideration that should be given to the basic concepts. The same type of examination can be made for gravity. This is the type of misunderstanding that is throughout science. None of this is taught in the schools. When the topics are present in school, they are stated as having no questions and presented as unquestioned fact.
I’m trying to understnd, is it science you want to abandon our coherent knowledge in general?
Seriously, you’ve now declared perhaps the most “successful” (in secular scientific terms) idea in ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES (Einstein’s paper first intorducing the concepts we now refer to as ‘Special Relativity’ (it is ‘special’, because it only concerns an inertial frame of reference)) a mistake.
Why? Because you seemingly want to reassert a hypothesis of absolute time. Fine, introduce it, apply it to predict experimental outcome or use it to explain previously accumulated experimental data.
In other words, show, in secular scientific terms why your theory serves any purpose other than your vanity.
We need a reasonable criteria as to what should and should not be taught as science in schools, and rather or not you had an epiphany after, say, a late night in the bathroom battling a gnarly 7/11 burrito is not a good one.
I understand fear of science. It often requires us to expand our understanding of God, while there is a natural tendancy to try to keep one’s concept of God very small and managable.
But to try to talk about existing scientific theories in the context of, say, dope usage and Pink Floid albums is just a waste of time. It may sound infinitely insightful, but the only meaningful context for discussion is the framework in which the theories were developed.
Even if you wish to disprove that framework you have to learn the language and the means. Waving arms and talking about lack of spiritual satisfaction (or whatever) just demonstrates fundemental ignorance of the subject at hand.
On the original subject, it seems worth reiterating some clear points that have already been made. Despite the intriguing name, “Dark Matter” is not an inherently complicated theory. It just means that we observe a lot of gravitational effects with no obvious source. This led to speculation that there is matter out in the universe that we cannot, for some reason, ‘see’ - hence the name “dark”. Since it was first proposed, our ‘vision’ has improved and we are starting to get glimpse of the various forms matter takes to account for the observed effects.
Dark Energy is quite different. In simplest terms I would say it is an attempt to explain the observed accellerations in the universe. More technically, it is probably reasonable to describe it as an attempt to explain the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology. The model is very successful in predicting experimental outcomes and measurements, but we are still working on ‘why’ it works.
You’re not really Yogi Berra, are you?