That is exactly what the “dark” in “dark matter” and “dark energy” means: that our theories require it to exist to explain our observations, but we have no way to detect it, ergo it is “dark”.

It’s like the infamous cosmological constant that Einstein initially added to the theory of relativity. Just like the “dark” things it had no physical analogue, and was there so that his equations held for a universe of constant size. When Hubble demonstrated that (contrary to the belief at the time) the universe was expanding the cosmological constant was no longer needed.

It is entirely possible that a new theory will explain what the dark stuff is and we will be able to remove those terms from the equations that need them in order to explain our observations. It is possible that we will find some kind of actual matter that interacts with the gravitational force but not the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces, which I think is what would be needed for a “dark matter particle”.

In my personal opinion, the best explanation I’ve heard is that the error terms are best explained by the expansion of space itself. Specifically, we have some very recent evidence that the expansion of space isn’t uniform, and that might explain a significant amount of the dark energy. PBS Space Time does a good job with relevant videos and keeping up with the science.

No physicist will tell you that we know what “dark matter” or “dark energy” is, because we don’t. I think most would agree with you that ultimately we will find multiple explanations that add up to “dark matter + dark energy”.

I think the one thing that I disagree with you on is that science is “bogged down” with theories and maybes. The theories and maybes are where the most exciting research is happening!

Science isn’t the body of knowledge that results from experimentation; it’s the cycle of theory and experimentation that generates new knowledge. We don’t remember the hundreds and hundreds of false theories that had to be argued about and discarded to get to relativity or quantum theory. Today we only read the papers that were proven right in hindsight. If you look at “dark matter/energy” science of today we’re in that churn, so it looks different. In time, all these disproved theories will be forgotten, too.

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” are the “errors in the prediction of Mercury’s orbit” (relativity) or “errors in the predictions of black-body radiation” (quantum) of our time.

This is a very good point, have an upvote.

The maritime treaties are the ones that I assume the most countries have signed, because they rely on such old principles, but I didn’t go check details on this one.

EDIT: Damn it, you made me go down a Law of the Sea rabbit hole, what with your “facts”.

The US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, you’re right. But it did both sign and ratify the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which guarantees the right of innocent passage, which is what is at issue here. Iran also signed this treaty, though never ratified.

Further, both the US and Iran signed UNCLOS, even though neither has ratified.

Further still, Oman, who is the other half of this agreement with Iran, has both signed and ratified UNCLOS.

The US also supported the definition of innocent passage in a 1989 joint statement with the USSR.

UNCLOS has specific enforcement mechanisms behind it. I don’t know enough detail to know what they are, but yes, it’s founded on an international treaty. My point was Iran wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they got something in return: on UNCLOS specifically they get free passage for their own ships in others’ territorial waters. More broadly, they get the stability of the post-WWII international order.

The US has turned its back on that international order by attacking Iran. Therefore the incentive for Iran to participate in that order has greatly diminished.

If all international treaties are “playing nice”, then fine, they were playing nice. I prefer to see them as a mutually beneficial exchange. We’re getting dangerously close to “laws are just threats” territory though, and I think that moves us away from a conversation whose definitions are useful for dialogue.

There has been a long-established principle of the law of the sea that allows free passage through things like the Strait of Hormuz. While this principle has been around since… I think the 1800s but I’m not 100% sure, its most recent incarnation is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So Iran wasn’t “playing nice”, they were playing by the rules.

Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t care about the rules. By going to war with Iran, he then gives them permission to also defy the rules. Iran will say: “We’ll follow the rules when the US does”.

N.B. Yes, it’s really called “the law of the sea”, maritime law is also a thing but a different thing