Darkness does not exist as thought conventionally.

Your lack of training, knowledge, and the history of science concludes the above rather than the reality of what science actually is. Every scientist understands the problems of the past and the traps of the present. Still science goes on better than ever before. You should tread lightly dismissing this advice and the peers of science. You haven't discovered anything of import and now your agenda is in plain sight.

 

Well actually my only agenda would be to have my name on Wikipedia , put to a piece of science. I understand science quite well, however you fail to realise that people have different styles of learning. I haven't discovered nothing of importance? I am not too sure on that. If you feel that relative correctness is not important, then no I have discovered nothing important. However I have discovered dark is a thing.
Just because you do not particularly like my notion, that does not make it a false notion.
I never lightly dismiss peers or advice, over the years I have took on board lots of advice. If you had spoke to me at the start of my science ''adventure'' several year ago, you would not even understand me in conversation. I have had to improve on my English literature just to present such notions.
In this thread I have discovered that darkness is a thing and corrected the definition to be exact in explanation. In other threads elsewhere I have discovered several other problems about other things. My big discovery I believe is yet to come and I still have years to do this.

p.s I do not think I am in any way special and beyond science.

 

No, you have discovered nothing beyond what exists in your mind. It is not important although I've applauded you for your imagination in making the attempt to discover. This is currently your greatest asset. You need training and the formal education which goes with it to form the backbone for your imagination to work properly. Who knows what great work(s) could reside?

 

I would have to guess at the answer because we have no observation of the dark matter that may or may exist. At the moment my best guess would be that it is invisible so therefore neither dark or light.

p.s and besides I think the electrodynamics of moving bodies and charge is the cause of expansion rather than a dark energy or dark matter.

 

I don't disagree, of course I need to iron out all the cobwebs in me. You may or may not realise in time that what you think only exists in my mind, is process of the Universe I am manifesting in my mind. By this I mean I am objectively thinking , the evidence suggests I may be correct. Notice I say may, without live discussion with peers I could never be 100% sure.
But yes I would have to go through all the basics etc to catch up in areas.

 

I have traits of all these learning styles and can sort of variate at will.

Activist
Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now, and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is: "I'll try anything once". They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves with others but, in doing so, they seek to centre all activities around themselves.

Theorist
Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.

Pragmatist
Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They are the sort of people who return from courses brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to get on with things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them. They tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practical, down to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to problems and opportunities 'as a challenge'. Their philosophy is "There is always a better way" and "If it works it's good".

Reflector
Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think about it thoroughly before coming to a conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others' observations as well as their own.

I do prefer the theorist character though out of my multiplex style of learning.

p.s and yes I could write a thesis on learning styles.