First, let me start by saying that I, too, am extremely skeptical about dark energy and dark matter. The proof that they are real is that the astronomers and astrophysicists are unable to explain their observations without them. Ether was essentially proved the same way, until it vaporized in a flash of quantum mechanics. It just does not seem to occur to these guys that maybe they have some errors in their observations that they have yet to account for (e.g. maybe the supernovas that they use for distance tracking are not as exact as they calculate). They also do not explain the asymmetry of the expansion. The three axes expand at different rates (+/-“X” axis is one rate and +/- “Y” and “Z” are a different rate).

Supposedly, the forces of dark energy and dark matter are very weak. They are like gravity, which is the weakest of the kn own forces; it is only responsible for holding the entire universe together. In fact, dark matter is gravity, a supposedly missing mass that would explain why galaxies don’t seem to follow the rules of gravity, based upon the matter that we can see (stars and the X-rays of black holes). Atoms and molecules are held together by the strongest of the forces, and the “anti-gravity” of dark energy is far too weak to affect such small structures.

On the other hand, the very tiny effect of relativity is observable in Mercury’s orbit, so we could try to find indications of the effects of dark energy and dark matter in its orbit, or Pluto’s orbit, or elsewhere. I keep wondering what distribution of dark matter would explain the observations of galactic rotation. Wouldn’t it also effect the attractions of galaxy clusters, too, both within and between clusters?

inhomogenous cosmologies like timescape that don’t assume flat FLRW don’t need dark energy to explain observations in conflict with lambdaCDM

dark matter can be explained by relic PBHs from the quark-gluon plasma era

no new particles or physics needed

How does a new dark energy force push galaxies apart but does not push molecules and atoms apart.

Newtonian physics works on both the small and large scale. Until you try to slip in Dark stuff.

They need to admit they just do not know YET or that they have their ,measurements wrong.

And I will assume you are aware of what was accomplished by the Egyptians 5000 years ago.

But first lets take a look at this one “little” project which took this guy 7 weeks to nibble away at to just make 1 bathtub out of a granite boulder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFdkO2mlIOM

And of course he used a heavy equipment and multiple powered diamond cutting tools.

https://youtube.com/shorts/nMn7DWTYgAs?si=fyyJbf24e4Z0rbvU

Absolute precision, granite within thousandths of an inch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKaB_uSFMbA

Mind blowing.

Not to mention that the pyramids were supposedly built in 20 years? 20 years? 2.5 million blocks plus massive multiple hundreds of tons of internal granite structures.

The pyramids, built? Or excavated?

The more you study it the more puzzling it becomes, just like studying the universe and how old it is or what exactly it is composed of.

But you are going to have to study and analyze the MKDAVIS video analysis, it is just not a suit.

If its not a suit, then what exactly is it?

Native Americans have over 400 names for Sasquatch over thousands of years due their experience with them.. What’s that about?

I know, its a crazy subject, but there it is anyway.

Nessie? I have not seen any evidence that says it is one thing or another or that it exists at all.

Sasquatch? Evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTiO69A1PA4

A shock wave running through the leg muscles as the leg contacts the ground? The butt cheeks move? Big honkin boobs? A “lady’s” face that only a blind man or a mother could love? In a suit? Now that is some next level effects.

Remember, the universe does not care what you are able to comprehend and understand or not.

“The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative ”

https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/as-a-scientist-im-not-allowed-to-tell-the-full-truth-about-climate-change/

“What is the basis for this claim and why are media outlets and influencers promoting it so wildly? Listen in as Professor Allison Kirkpatrick (Kansas University) and I dissect the claims and where we go from here…”

Is star in our galaxy older than the universe.
https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html
The ironclad hold on cosmology and physics is starting to crack. The equivalent of Galileo convincing the priest to look through the telescope. Will facts and observation overcome indoctrination and heresy?

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/

Her book is

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

Sabine Hossenfelder
Basic Books, Jun 12, 2018 – Science – 304 pages
In this “provocative” book (New York Times), a contrarian physicist argues that her field’s modern obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science.
Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades.
The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these “too good to not be true” theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.

Throw out the Face on Mars (Bovine effluent), and add Sasquatch, all potentials as unlikely as they may be to believe are possible.

Not a suit: https://youtu.be/ngVH-7tMpjo?si=o1GqYDL3ur00aB8E

And if it’s not a suit then what is it?

Evidence is what it is, make of it what you will. It does not fit in with what you are comfortable accepting because it exists outside your reality? The universe does not care.