> The only reason there's two kinds of "dark" is because both the space aspect (matter) of our math is wrong AND the time aspect (energy) is wrong.
You're pairing space and matter, then time and energy, and comparing them as though these entities are naturally paired in current theory. They aren't. Space and time are elements of spacetime, matter and energy are interchangeable by way of a rather well-known equation, but these things don't arrange themselves as you're trying to do.
> And as for your last sentence, trust me I understand the scientific method, and how proof, evidence, and fact interrelate with knowledge.
So you didn't say, "So many non-scientists think dark matter is proven. It isn't. It's nothing but pure conjecture."
Nothing is ever proven in science (falsified, yes, proven, no). And dark matter and dark energy are both more than "pure conjecture," a domain reserved to notions lacking observational evidence.
You're pairing space and matter, then time and energy, and comparing them as though these entities are naturally paired in current theory. They aren't. Space and time are elements of spacetime, matter and energy are interchangeable by way of a rather well-known equation, but these things don't arrange themselves as you're trying to do.
> And as for your last sentence, trust me I understand the scientific method, and how proof, evidence, and fact interrelate with knowledge.
So you didn't say, "So many non-scientists think dark matter is proven. It isn't. It's nothing but pure conjecture."
Nothing is ever proven in science (falsified, yes, proven, no). And dark matter and dark energy are both more than "pure conjecture," a domain reserved to notions lacking observational evidence.