I guess that maybe I should mention that “dark matter” is the essential element in an “anti-gravity” drive and functionally similar to the fictional “warp drive”.
And you only thought to tell us now 
I understand that in terms of application, so please proffer more of this up rather than the raw Science that it derives from. 
Sorry. I’m a Texan. I think slow, but most assuredly.
I would be happy to oblige… if I only knew what that meant. “…rather than the raw Science..”??? 
„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory.
How do people know this?
This question assumes that “people know this”. Before one asks how people know this, one has to ask whether and, if yes, how many people know this. Most people don’t know anything about the “dark matter”, and among the few people who know something about the “dark matter” are many people who don’t know wether “dark matter” really exists or not.
The physicists can not explain why the matter “refuses” the expansion of the universe so much, so that their calculations are no longer correct. Therefor they have two “solutions”: (a) “re-launch” / reintroduction of Einstein’s constant; (b) introduction of dark matter. They have decided against Einstein’s constant.
If there were no dark matter in the universe, the whole matter would tear away because of the expansion of the universe which is stronger than the aggregation of matter.
Because of the fact that the physicists don’t really know, whether their hypothesis of the “dark matter” is right or wrong, they prefer to say it is right. And therefore I say: that is an excuse or an alibi.
Actually, although I do agree that Science over-uses excuses to an extreme, in this case, I can verify the necessary existence of “dark matter” (unless they foolishly define it wrongly as they did with aether).
Dark matter is actually a gravity field without a mass object presumed to be the cause of it. In reality, mass does not create a gravity field, but rather a gravity field creates the mass object. Dark matter is the field before it has created the mass. And it might not ever create that mass because it requires an extreme accumulation and concentration for particles to form to produce matter.
Within a vast cloud of dark matter, there are very probably small particles, possibly even rocks, merely too small to see from a great distance. But the particles are not required for the gravity effect to still be present. So Dark Matter is simply a cloud of gravity field or better known as a large cloud of “Affectance”.
Instaed of “„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory” I better should have said: “„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a probably false theory”.
I understood the critics viewpoint. Much earlier in the thread I raised the issue of non-observables and at what Point one can say ‘it exists’. Liked that there is an extra planet beyond Neptune. It was though very likely and later confirmed. Perhaps they even spoke of it as existing. How direct must one sense something for it to be considered observed? When the nature of that something is different - and issue that separates Pluto from Dark Matter, since the latter is not simply an unseeen version of something we have already seen - how much indirect evidence must we have and what kinds? As far as I can tell Dark matter is very common in the lay press as simply a given. In the mainstream Community it is consider to be very likely the case due a number of different phenomena that it would explain, not just the one you mention around the expansion of the universe. So what was first a hypothesis is no longer merely one, but is not considered a theory at the level of, say, evolution. They are modeling the cause of phenomena they have observed, and in a way that fits current models - The Standard Model. Pretty standard practice and, sure, many are likely too certain - and if you say something is matter but is not reactive to light is this an oxymoron? and other issues certainly arise. Might have been better if they had black boxed it a bit more. On the other hand whatever is in the black box does seem to influence things like matter does in a number of other ways.
But the way some of the critics are arguing, here and elsewhere, it sound like scientists are just guessing or perhaps merely trying to make discrepencies work,f ill in the whole with random posited entities. I don’t Think that is the case. (not saying they are correct to call it matter or incorrect for that matter) Even within the mainstream of science there are some other ideas about what might be causing the discrepencies. I suppose I want to add that a discrepency, once regularly encounted in information and information about essence. IOW it is an empirical observation and one that repeats. It is pretty standard to come up with models for what that is and also to build from what one is more certain of. Fallible, sure, but part and parcel of scientific empiricism.
But when I read in your post that Dark matter is an excuse and alibi, etc., now you bear the burden also. Now you seem to know that it is not a form of matter and that modeling it that way is wrong. Adding your hubris in that direction to the hubris of scientists who are too Confident in their direction does not make for some better set of analyses.
Now I have someone expressing utter certainty in the negative. Along with certainty about motives.
Maybe that the “dark matter” exists, but who really knows? And because of the fact that they know nearly nothing about the “dark matter”, I may say that the hypothesis of the “dark matter” is false.
I know (even more certainly than they guess).
It certainly exists, but I can’t say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist.
Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them.
I don’t really see the first sentence going with the second one. And it is more than a hypothesis and less than a theory from what I can see as a layman. But it seems like you just skipped past most of what I said and are just restating your position, so we can leave it here.
What I was trying to say with those two sentences was that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows) really knows what the “dark matter” really is, and that in that case, and because of the fact that physicists are no gods (who knows?), they should not say that they know what the “dark matter” causes because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the “dark matter” in order to support the theory of the “big bang” and especially of the “inflation of the universe”!
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” causes the “ever” increasing acceleration of the expansion speed.
Dark energy: about 70%,
Dark matter: 25%,
That what we can see: about 5% .
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” functions similarly to the cosmological constant.
I can also tell you that there are electric fields playing a role in planetary and star motion, which seems to be left out of the modern model of the universe.
The Big Bang is almost definitely false but if there was a bang of any kind, it was certainly just extremely large black-holes merely coming together after traveling incredible distances thus colliding at extreme velocity. The effect of that would match everything they claim about the spreading of galaxies. But in reality, there is a good chance that there is very little spreading but rather merely the appearance of spreading for any of several reasons.
It all seems to be in an effort to maintain a religious belief in early thermodynamics (which kicked off the Secular religious movement).
“Religious belief in early thermodynamics”? Would you ming going into details? “Secular religious movement”? Which one you mean, James?
Oh wow, well… You probably know even better than I how the Roman emperor Constantine I forced Christianity into being the imperial religion and philosophy. He provided the chains that held down the philosophical “Devil of Doubt” that was keeping the fires of chaos flaming throughout Europe. It was time for the baby to rest despite his resistance. So for about 1000 years philosophical thought was taboo as the baby slept (despite a few dreams now and again). But eventually it was time to wake up and start thinking again.
So around 1500 or so, European Man began to open his eyes a bit and gaze upon the world with a little fresher mind (the very purpose of such sleep). It took a few hundred years to shake off the chains in his mind and get a grip on his situation. Once he got his feet on the ground a bit and realized a few probable fundamental truths concerning his physical situation (mostly involving materiality and mathematics), he got inspired into taking advantage of the weaknesses of his intellectual confinement and from that grew the “new age”, “secular” foundation for belief, now known as “Secularism” (and what Hitler thought to be his “Third Reich”).
But it appears to me that the notion of thermodynamics became a cornerstone of confidence concerning the nature of the universe. Thermodynamics provided an ontology that produced ways to predict all kinds of chaos with a high degree of accuracy (thus possibly useful for controlling chaotic social masses and the devil himself). And since Chaos is the antithesis of the demanded Order that had confined him for so long and the “Destroyer” with which to overcome, like every creature, Man propelled himself zealously in the opposite direction of what he perceived as his oppression, toward chaos worship with a confident means for controlling it - “Thermodynamics”.
Unfortunately for the world, thermodynamics was only partially true (like the rest of the famous revelations and theories) and certainly not the god of the physical universe as was being worshiped (and still is in many places throughout the West). Plank, Carnot, Hess, and the like helped out during war times with their use of it so it gained serious respect. And much like Constantine, in many universities, thermodynamics is not to be questioned (I know from being one who questioned it). I proved the fallacies in it back in 1972 when I designed a device that defeated natural entropy (the god of chaos) with a physically real “Maxwell’s Demon”. But unfortunately for me, Chaos had just become the fundamental theme for the rise of Cain and Chaos in the West.
I’ve expected this answer. Now I know more about your evaluation of thermodynamics. I mean that the 1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann Helmholtz), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), the 3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), and (partly) also the 4th or 0th law of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and applicable in all of the other natural sciences. That’s great, isn’t it?
I see that they have yet again changed the wording even from the last time I checked Wiki. Most of these cases are merely word games that amount to declared definitions rather than physical laws.
In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.
This was an attempt to state a “conservation of energy” law as it would relate to heat and work. But it relies heavily on exactly how one defines both “heat” and “work”. They have a dubious relationship.
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
Not true in all cases. James Maxwell proposed a theoretical case wherein this “Law” would be violated. It came to be known as “Maxwell’s Demon” (a “demon” because it casts doubt on their newly proposed monolithic god and religion). I, along with many others, have shown that this “law”, is very often not true, yet still proclaimed as a “LAW”. A few years ago on Wiki, and in many books from years ago, it had been reworded as a “tendency” yet remained as a “LAW” anyway. In effect it is like saying:
“Second Law of Agriculture: Healthy leaves are green.”
The entropy change associated with any condensed system undergoing a reversible isothermal process approaches zero as temperature approaches 0 K, where condensed system refers to liquids and solids.
This is another attempt to declare a definition relating entropy with zero temperature. The problem is that one can change the energy content (and thus the entropy) within a system (such as a crystal) without affecting its zero temperature state. Also energy can be taken out of such a system while the system remains at zero kelvin (again breaking the second law as heat/work rises from zero temperature).
If a body A, be in thermal equilibrium with two other bodies, B and C, then B and C are in thermal equilibrium with one another.
This is just a restatement of Aristotle’s “If A = B and B = C, then A = C”.
These were a part of the obvious attempt to know the absolute laws of God. It appears that they never really got it exactly right. And nothing is worse than to get such a thing only almost right. A great deal of power ends up being used to create a great deal of needless misery. It would “be great” as it would apply to many fields of science, except that it was never quite right.
Another thing concerning the apparent worship of these laws (rather than merely scientific honesty) is that they propose Entropy to be the most fundamental law of the universe, ie “God”. In effect, they deny anti-entropy entirely. They are a worship of a Devil-god, Shiva, while denying any Savior-god, Vishnu. Again, expressing the antithesis of Jesus (aka “AntiChrist”).
Above it all, the upper insiders drive the “stock-market” (efforts of Man) up while investing in futures and then at a pre-chosen time, driving the market down while investing in put-options, thus increasing their wealth and power in both cases. They thrive off of the confusion and futile struggles of Man.
1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann Helmholtz), also called conservation of energy:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only converted into different types.
2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), also called entropy:
Energy is not convertible to any extent in other types, but only up to maximum values which depend on another state variable: the entropy (in a closed system entropy can never decrease).
3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), also called Nernst’s theorem of heat:
The absolute zero temperature is unattainable.
4rd or 0th law of thermodynamics:
If two systems are each in thermodynamic balance with a third system, then they are also among each other in balance.