Most definitions for dark matter and dark energy do not make them unverifiable by definition. If that were the case, there wouldn't be over a dozen experiments trying to detect dark matter. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, but a statement like the one you made, offered with no support, lacks credibility.

Also, dark matter and dark energy deal with completely different phenomena and evidence. Dark energy has to do with the accelerating expansion of the universe, and as the video describes, we know less about it than we do about dark matter. This is because the observations that indicate its presence are much newer.



Have you done extensive research into the actual state of the field and the various forms that the evidence takes? If not, that sounds like a problem with you, not a problem with the evidence.



Some particles do not interact electromagnetically, which means those particles can't be "seen." We already have examples of such particles: neutrinos. Positing more such particles, given the actual state of the evidence (not just your (lack of) understanding of it), seems well-justified. No one has concluded yet that any specific such particle actually exists, because we haven't had direct detections. I'm not sure why you're so against physicists doing research in the most likely avenues. Do you think that you understand the field better than people who have spent decades studying it?