So a physics theory is the truth? Do you have faith in this physics theory? It is a theory, so it is unproven as a fact. Just like religion.
I see you appear not to have much of scientific background, Bryan. It would be helpful if posters in this discussion were to make a clear distinction between theory and hypothesis. It's unfortunate that the words are often used interchangeably, even in Wikipedia, as though they are synonyms.
Quite often, disputes never get resolved as a result of the protagonists not realising they are assuming different definitions of the same keys words they are both using in their arguments.
Now my understanding of a theory, when the word is used in a scientific context, is that it is always based upon evidence, and a theory is only as true as the consistency of the evidence which supports it and upon which it is based..
An hypothesis, on the other hand, is of the nature of conjecture and speculation. The evidence to support it is at best tenuous. As more evidence accummulates, the hypothesis may eventually reach the staus of a theory, at which point the theory tends to be of practical use, helping us to construct models of reality and predict outcomes. We don't build digital cameras and plasma TV sets using speculative hypotheses. We need sound, reliable and consistent theories.
Belief on the other hand, doesn't require the knowledge, understanding or appreciation of a sound, evidence-based scientific theory. Belief is emotional in nature. Presumably, those who believe in God get a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling from their belief, especially when they contemplate those endless years of joy and delight in heaven that await them after they die.
However, I'm sure the emotional nature of belief also affects scientists, but in a different way to the usual effect of conventional and traditional religions, Einstein's belief in God being an example previously mentioned.
I still remember my susrprise when I first learned that Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time, was rabidly and obsessively religious. However, he kept his religious views pretty much to himself because they differed so much from the established dogma of the time, and he lived in an era when religious heretics were still being persecuted.
I find it fascinating that despite the great scientific endeavours of the past centuries, and despite our apparent mastery and understanding of the nature of matter and energy at such a fundamental level that we can create atomic bombs, nuclear power plants and amazing computers etc etc, we still haven't got a clue what 96% of the matter and energy in the obervable universe consists of.
Or to put it in another ways, recent observations of our universe using increasingly sophisticated technology, such as the Hubble telescope, have revealed that the universe is not behaving as our theories predict. Our theories predict that we should observe a slowing down of the expansion of the universe at its outer reaches. It was predicted, once upon a time, that the forces of gravity would eventually halt the expansion of the universe which would then begin to contract and fall in on itself.
Our best current observations, which rely upon interpretation through existing theories of Physics and Astrophysics, reveal that the outer reaches of the universe are expanding at a much faster rate than predicted by our theories of gravity, which of course must be of immense relief to those who were once worried about their world eventually collapsing in upon itself, causing great loss of property and wealth.
Our theories also predict that the stars in spiral galaxies at the edge of the universe should be rotating much slower than our observations now reveal. So what's going on?
In order to explain this observed phenomenon, we either have to modify our existing theories of gravity, so that our theories will then match our observations, or cling to our existing theories, and hypothesise the existence of calculated huge quantities of truly invisible and so far undetecable matter and energy, the existence of which, if we ever detect the stuff, will preserve the integrity of our existing theories.
I find that to be an incredible situation. We're not talking here about minor discrepancies. We've discovered all the elements of matter described in the Periodic Table. We've split the atom and identified its constituent components, including numerous sub-atomic particles. We've analysed the Electromagnetic Spectrum and identified the properties of the various types of radiation, a part of which is visible light which we are all so interested in as photographers. We've even discovered particles of anti-matter, the existence of which was hypothesised by Paul Dirac many decades ago.
But all this "stuff" which we've observed, analysed and documented over the centuries, is now claimed to represents only 4% of the total mass and energy in the universe (or maybe it's 5% or 6% -estimates vary). The other 96% is totally invisible and of the nature of pure conjecture or hypothesis. Not a single particle nor wave of this mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy has so far been detected by any scientific instrument or process known to mankind. Makes one wonder, eh?
If the best scientific minds of our species do not know what 96% of the stuff in our universe consists of, what else don't we know?