Completely agree and feel the same way about dark energy.
The universe started with a single Big Bang, but is maintained by an interrelated force continually applied that keeps allowing it to resist collapse, the resulting system allowing local minima such as Earth's sweet spot of smallish sun + gentle orbit.
It's almost like it was designed to be perfect, with nicely balancing counterforces, all set in a sea of brutal extrema, and all set to mathematically clockwork precision that is discoverable by intelligent inhabitants, whose bodies, themselves, operate under those same physical laws. Almost ;-)
It’s almost like the ones that aren’t ideal for life don’t tend to have much life to notice that fact.
Be thankful there's no humans on Uranus.
Hell, penguins don’t even like the tropics on the same planet.
That's totaly wrong. The movenent of electrons arround rhe nucleus is explained by the Schoedinger equation that does not use dark energy at all.
I don't think so, but I'm open to learning.
The eigenvalues are the energies. The differences if energies are easy to measure experimentaly looking at the light of discharge lamps. Most of the science of early 20th century is triying to find a theory that explains the colors in that light.
The eigenvectors of the Schoedinger equations are the clouds distributions of the electrons. I'm not sure how difficult is to measure them directly, but they are important to get the size and shape of molecules and the positions of atoms inside crystals and a lot of other stuff.
The same theory that explains the the light of discharge lamps and the electronic clouds also explains the leds in the screen and the transistors in the procesor of yoyr phone.
And dark energy is not used in any of these calcuñations.
Sure, the Schoedinger Equation describes the electron cloud, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't account for why it is moving, and not spiraling into the nucleus. It can't. Put a different way, describing something's movement does not explain why it's moving. Still the SE is as amazing achievement, but it is descriptive of effects, not causes.
Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics
As Prof. Parker said, "We'll see who falls flat." (That's a paraphrase from memory; I doubt it's an exact quote.)
I apologize for not making that clear, but I only know of their very basic nature, not their mathematical-physics relationships and differences. That's not my area of expertise. I'm a general systems person, so I have some very basic knowledge of how such systems behave. This is due to my curiosity about the universe and my own self, which has given me access to persons much more deeply connected than myself.
Note that Eugene Parker, too, had a lot of maths to back his claims up, but that didn't help him convince his peers. Only when we sent a probe up that could measure the solar wind did his detractors begin to stand down. That is always the way new levels of understanding are treated by the status quo.