[...]
Well, lets see what they have planned:
A. Prospective Additional Probes of Dark Energy
1. Galaxy Clusters (Number Density, Clustering and Their Evolution) The abundance and clustering of galaxy clusters is another promising technique, and has previously been considered by the DETF [12]. There are many means of identifying and measuring galaxy clusters; the main source of uncertainty in future applications of this method will be in determining the relation of the selection function and observables to the underlying mass of the clusters.
Nope. It sounds like another "point at the sky and add math" exercises and it sounds pretty darn wasteful IMO. Nobody can empirically verify any of the presumed properties of "dark energy" by looking at the sky anymore than this can be done with "inflation". You're just fudging the numbers of mythical entities to fit observation and not you'd like to waste my tax payer money on *another* point at the sky routine with *zip* in the way of a real *control mechanism*.
Just so that I don't misunderstand ...
You seem to be saying that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you? And irrespective of whether a direct line from the astronomical observations to the controlled experiments can be established or not?
To make this concrete: at least one element (helium) was first discovered in the spectrum of the Sun; later - ~a quarter of a century later - it was found in rocks here on Earth. By your criteria for assessing (astrophysics, in this case) scientific woo, helium did not exist until 1895, and all scientific work - by astronomers, chemists, geologists, etc - until then, on helium, should have received no MM-approved funding, as it would have been a clear-cut case of woo.
Did I get it right?
If you and a team had this much money at your disposal, how would you suggest it be spent, MM? Non-negotiable requirement: the money must be spent on research into "Dark Energy".
I'd invest my money in PC/EU theory research and help you explain solar wind acceleration and coronal loops and stuff that has an affect on us here on Earth. Once you finally "get it" that EM fields exist in space, it probably wouldn't be much of a leap of faith to assume that any "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe would be due to EM fields rather than some mythical fudge factor you stuffed into inflation theory to keep it alive.
Honestly, that has to be the most pointless waste of money I can think of, and in this economy it irks me that you would *waste* my tax money like that and try to pass it off as an "experiment". There are no control mechanisms. How about doing something *USEFUL* with my money like explaining solar wind acceleration? Birkeland could set you straight of course, but then *you* would have to do some reading.
Okey, dokey, ...
Follow-on question then: do I understand that you are completely and totally convinced that the only possible explanation/accounting of the various "DE" observations is "
EM fields" or "
electricity" or "
electrical discharges" (or some such thing)? That it is
utterly impossible for the "DE" observations to turn out to be some subtle combination of selection effects, stellar evolution, misapplication of GR, and downright bad luck (to make up one example)?
Further, that, in the unlikely event that a full appreciation of the nature of DE, obtained by research such as that described in the paper, leads - directly or indirectly - to something really, really, really useful (a way to greatly improve the efficiency of fusion reactors perhaps), you will still declare the research to have been "
the most pointless waste of money I can think of"?
