I think it's probably true that we don't have a good idea about how gravity works. That doesn't make your ridicule of the people who are trying to find out any less silly.

We see gravity's effect; we really don't have any real effect of dark matter (it'll take centuries
till it becomes fuel, like in Futurama.

Maybe they could add this theory to their repetoire and work it out from there...

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=5

Why do you say we don't know how gravity works? Haven't you ever seen the demonstration at the Science Museum. You give your kids coins to put into a slot and watch them take up a decaying orbit over a coin box. The kids demand bigger and bigger coins until you're feeding the thing quarters like it was a slot machine.

Gravity is how God raises funds to maintain the place.

Silly. Gravity works by attraction.

Yes, their silliness is entirely independent of the ridicule. The swapping of one absurd theory for another and pretending it's progress is endlessly amusing.

Richard Feynmann told a story of (as a young boy) asking his father why, when he suddenly stopped his wagon, the balls in it rolled to the front. The answer: "Nobody knows." His father went on to explain that it was called inertia, and that the balls continued moving when the wagon stopped, but emphasized that nobody really knew why things were that way.

Feynmann said that that incident impressed on him the critical difference between understanding a thing and having a name for it.

What and why are two different things.

Dark matter is one possibility to explain "what," but your are ridiculing it as if it is a "why."

NB: Dark matter also explains gravitational lensing.

eski: Specify what sort of "gravitational lensing" you mean, please. I don't know if MOND folks have worked much on weak gravitational lensing or not. And depending on what you mean by "dark matter" there's all sorts of known culprits for stronger gravitational lensing events.

Given that gravity is so incredibly weak but is influential over such huge scales, it's entirely possible that extrapolating the (relatively) simple current theories to distances in excess of 10 Mpc can reveal shortcomings (although the inherent conservatism of science is going to make it tough to convince people).

On the other hand, the scientific community has mostly bought into the idea that models that take as input a remarkably stable climate history over millenia and extrapolate that everything is going to go to hell in a matter of a few decades are believable, so perhaps one shouldn't place too much trust in the sensibility of scientists...

Dark matter also explains gravitational lensing

That's exactly wrong.

Dark matter is 21st century phlogiston mixed with congealed aether. We can't see it because it only emits N-rays.

It's nonsense no matter which question you think it answers.