RE: Geocentricity in Modern Physics
Dark matter and dark energy are very different. The concept of dark energy arises as a direct result of the observation of the accelerating rate of redshift per distance. Due to the assumption of motion as the cause, it led to a string of interpretations that brought about the concept of dark energy.
First, Doppler shift alone was considered the cause. However, due to redshifts greater than the value of 1 observed, which would imply motion greater than the speed of light, expansion of space was then added to the model to explain this "cosmological redshift". This was considered to produce a linear rate of redshift per distance. Then, when we noticed that redshift per distance is not linear but rather accelerates with increasing distances, the concept of expansion of space was insufficient to explain the redshift and so another new concept was introduced as an explanation: dark energy. In the Big Bang model, dark energy is the cause of accelerating redshift per distance. For this reason, it is extremely flawed intrinsically because it is a necessary addition to the fundamentals of physics that further complicates the foundation of how the universe functions.
Dark matter, on the other hand, is a bit different. It comes about due to observations of gravitational effects that are unable to be accounted for from the observed amounts of matter in the cosmos. Like you said, this miscalculation could just be a result of undetected matter that does not emit light sufficient to be recognized.
In an infinite universe model, just as individual masses get bigger and bigger--from planets to stars to black holes and beyond--they also get smaller and smaller. This leads to the existence of what has been called the "ether", which would be composed of these smaller and smaller particles. They are ordinary matter--nothing special about them relative to any other matter--but they just happen to be so small that they are undetectable from a light emission standpoint.
This ether of smaller and smaller particles, then, is still influenced by gravity and still influences other systems with its gravity. This would lead to the observations that we see in terms of what led to the concept of "dark matter". Though the ether has been supposedly "disproven", dark matter is claimed to exist and they are one and the same.
Importantly, electromagnetic fields prove the existence of this ether because, like I mentioned in my previous comments, the gravity of a given body pulls sufficiently smaller masses into Figure-8 orbitals where they physically travel through that given body and out the other side. The ability of small mass to pass through large is observationally recognized by our detections of neutrinos passing through the Earth. This leads to a Figure-8 orbital of proximal ether to a mass which arises in the observation of electromagnetic fields as a result of gravity. Every electromagnetic field in existence shows the ether's existence--and thereby what we have come to call "dark matter"--it is just a matter of which layers of the ether produce the largest gravitational effects. Perhaps it is larger particles like atoms and we have miscalculated the amount of them around given masses which leads to an interpretation of different degrees that each systems of similar masses surrounding a body influences it. But ultimately, the sum total effect of this ether is what we see to produce these gravitational variations that lead to the claim that "dark matter" exists.
The key to it all is really the recognition of how gravity can cause electromagnetism. By so drastically reducing the fundamentals of physics--the causeless causes--it is possible to explain all observations using gravity alone and this brings the logical deduction to the point where, from a fundamental level, there is only gravity. Occam's Razor can be used to see that the simplest model having the greatest degree of explanation of observations is necessarily true. This means that the universe can be recognized to be factually infinite and the result of one cause alone. It is no accident that the infinity symbol is the same shape as an electromagnetic field; electromagnetic fields arise literally due to the universe being infinite.
As a carpenter I see daily why Occam's Razor is compelling, however, sometimes the simplest solution isn't reality (that's why I get the big bucks, as I am able to do what is necessary, rather than what is simple, cheap, or easy alone).
It is a complete departure from consilience that defies ontological conception - my greatest disaffection with quantum mechanics.
BTW, are you familiar with Emergence Theory?
I'd say even the most complex solutions start from simple steps, no? Certainly it does not end with simple, but understanding the most complex is essentially impossible without first grasping simplicity. I don't mean to imply that simple means easy either, it is just a targeting of the most fundamental understanding to then branch out from into other areas that can benefit from it. If our interpretations are "wrinkled" when they are off-center from reality, then it acts as an iron repetitively running over the surface to smooth it, or like using finer and finer sand paper to bring surface roughness to a minimum.
I am not familiar with Emergence Theory but from some quick reading into it, it sounds like an attempt to merge all present mainstream models into one (quantum, relativity, standard model, etc), which is extremely flawed from a logical standpoint. It would be akin to plugging wrong answers from one or several math equations into another math equation and expecting to somehow arrive at the correct answer.
Not to hate on it as I have put very little time looking into it in particular, but I feel present models are approximations that only match observations to a point and then they fall apart because they are simply not accurate descriptions of the infinite universe, so anything that uses the same line of thought is easily recognizable as having the same mistakes. I do notice a focus on consciousness which I like. :D
What are your thoughts on it?
Well, as I am in agreement with you regarding present physics models, and Emergence theory seems to have come from an attempt to proceed from the requirement for an observer that the Copenhagen school insists is the explanation for the double slit experiment, I feel it is flawed from the very outset.
The projection of a 3D quasi-crystal from an 8D crystalline underlying reality I don't really have my head wrapped around, so despite the superficial concatenance with particle physics, I don't hold much stock in it.
I don't really hold much stock in extant theories, as quantum mechanics defies ontological principles, and thus consilience with the rest of science, classical physics continually falls prey to shortcomings, such as dark energy and matter, and even Bohm-de Broglie (Pilot Wave) seems to fail to account for the 'choice' of form that occurs during the double slit experiment, although it presents a decent rationale for how particles do incorporate waveforms.
String theory simply makes no falsifiable predictions, and essentially can be twisted to any potential form, so it's more like a variety of potential descriptions rather than a theory of the universe.
I'm yet to fully grasp how gravity might create electromagnetism as you propose, so I am not yet fully behind your theory either. I haven't written it off, but can't fully endorse it until I feel I completely understand it.