From John de Boer:

Re: Dark energy, or just dust? Findings raise questions (March 1, 2008): The madness of it all... Would it not be both rational and ethical to provide a clear definition for concepts such as “dark energy” before pretending that it is a verified theory or actual substance. It is of course true that new words in a language will become established and end up in the dictionary if they have been used and are found in written material for a certain length of time, but for physics the procedure of the introduction of contrived theories or substances in this manner is improper. However, it is a rampant practice and occurs with ever increasing frequency. This deceptive procedure has produced a great deal of misinformation and has brought about much confusion. A very good example of the introduction of make-believe theories/particles is the graviton. The mythical graviton came into being, not because it was ever observed or located, but because the Law of Universal Gravitation made it essential. There are many of these manmade inventions such as:

Dark Matter, clearly is in the same league as Dark Energy. No one has ever actually seen nor verified the existence of dark matter, however, according the physicists it just has to be there because that is the only way they can account for regions of extraordinary gravitational strength in space while the source of the phenomenon is invisible. This source would have to be the existence of a great deal of matter, because it is believed that the gravitational force is proportional to the mass of a body. Unfortunately, it has not been considered that, ‘forces in proportion to masses’, is a constant which was invented to accommodate the mathematical science and is in fact challenged by Newton himself.

The Expanding Universe: This hypothesis is based upon the fact that light, reaching us from far away in the universe, tends to shift towards the red spectrum. This would appear to indicate that its source is receding to account for this phenomenon. There are at least two problems with this concept. In the first place, the nature of light is not clearly understood, or in the least it is ambiguous, being both a wave motion in a medium as well as being a kind of matter or quanta. Then the ‘nature’ of space needs to be examined, because Einstein introduces the idea of the physical fields of space, which, according to him, is the same as the ‘ether’. (More about that). What is being disregarded is that there is verified evidence that light is influenced by the gravitational phenomenon, which in fact could account for light slowing down as a result of the gravitational influence created by the very source from which it originated.

Physical Space: Here Einstein lays the foundations for his theories, because he needs two concepts upon which to build his mathematical structure. The first one is the gravitation constant without which his theories are groundless, while the next is his need for physical space.

In his book: The World As I See It, the chapter is: The problem of Space, Ether, and the Field in Physics, Einstein writes: “... the ether is firmly fixed in space - that is to say unable to move at all... - Physical space and the ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are physical conditions of space”.

The constant of gravitation as well as the concept of the ether/physical space, are the foundations required by Einstein upon which he can constructs his mathematical theories. One wonders if indeed the universe is expanding, if Einstein’s physical space already exists in these ‘new regions’ or if this physical space is being created as the universe expands into the virgin areas.

The Fusion Debacle: Here is yet an other theory which has remained just that, a theory. The actual theory is of course based upon the premise that the sun releases its energy in all forms as a result of the fusion of Hydrogen into Helium. The surplus mass is released as energy when two Hydrogen atoms become one Helium atom. After much and very costly experimentation in the US, it is now the turn of the EU to tackle this dilemma. There is of course little doubt that our energy problems would be solved if this would come to fruition. Now as far as the origin of the theory of fusion is concerned, it finds its rationalisation in mathematics. Simply put, it just has to be this way, because there are no other options. These conclusions come from those who are at a loss to explain the origin of the forces of matter and their interrelationships, who lack a concrete explanation regarding the structure of atoms, while the nature of light is still a mystery to them...

Universal Gravitation: This is the constant upon which the science of physics is based. As mentioned, the mathematical sciences require certain constants upon which to build. That is the very reason why this questionable Law has been maintained, because without that Law, physics has nothing to stand upon. The truth is that if the Law of Universal Gravitation were tested with the Scientific Method, including requisite control experiments, it would prove to be an absurdity. Solutions: If we would begin anew and accept that there are no gravitons, dark matter, expanding universe etc. , or even hot nor cold fusion taking place within the sun, there would be an opening for an all encompassing concept. We can have all of the energy ever required by utilizing the actual process which takes place within the sun and all stars. A propulsion system operating on the very principle which makes the stone fall, is well within our reach. Chances that this route will ever be taken are very slim however, not because we are unable to comprehend the nature of matter and its forces, the obstacle lies within the nature of humans.