In a situation where one is not well informed about a subject, the responsible action is to become informed before shouting a dissenting opinion from the rooftops. That means doing research on the topic with a willingness to change one's mind if proven wrong, rather than simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit one's preconceived notions. It's the difference between being rational, and rationalizing.



The detection of the accelerating expansion of the universe was made using distant galactic superclusters; the explanation you suggest simply doesn't fit the scope of the evidence. One of my professors was a graduate student in one of the groups which first discovered that phenomenon, and I recently had the chance to speak with the group's principal investigator, Dr. Saul Perlmutter, in person. I can confirm that they spent a huge amount of effort in both data acquisition and analysis (this was done over the course of years), and their results have been confirmed in a variety of ways since then.

Dark energy may very well be a direct consequence of the cosmological constant, although that isn't known for certain yet. A positive value for the cosmological constant produces exactly the effects we see, but the question then becomes why the constant has the necessary value. (Note also that we have known about the cosmological constant in principle since Einstein first developed his field equations, so this would be in fact a case of reusing an existing explanation, albeit slightly modified from Einstein's original and flawed use of the constant.)



I still don't understand the distinction you previously made. Also, the question you asked about neutrons and protons doesn't make sense, because they're not fundamental particles. Their electric charges or lack thereof occur due to the combinations of specific sets of valence quarks.



I don't know what has led you to this impression that you personally need to police the goals of every scientist doing research, but you should take another look at whatever it was. The evidence will show what it shows, regardless of the scientists' goals. If one scientist tries to push an explanation that isn't well-supported, there will be five more ready to take him down. This is how things have worked, and they have worked indeed, for at least the past two hundred years.



As a physicist who works on the LHC, I can tell you definitively that such an attitude is hardly present, let alone prevalent, among the scientists and engineers on the project. This is, as I've mentioned several times, a case in which you're confusing the portrayal by popular media with what the professionals are actually doing and thinking.



The point is that dark matter detection experiments are just barely getting to the first mile, which is something you would realize if you took the time to educate yourself about the topic.