Based on the sources provided, here is a list of named entities and the actual facts presented that directly contradict them: **1. Standard Model of Particle Physics:** * The continued **lack of direct experimental evidence for many Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) particles** predicted by theories aiming to solve the hierarchy problem (like supersymmetric particles at expected energy scales) can be seen as a contradiction to the expectations of those specific extensions . (While the hierarchy problem itself is a theoretical inconsistency, the absence of predicted particles at expected energy levels is an observational fact). * The Standard Model's inability to explain the observed phenomena attributed to **dark matter**. The existence of galaxy rotation curves and other gravitational effects that cannot be accounted for by visible matter directly contradicts the Standard Model's completeness regarding the matter content of the universe. * The Standard Model's inability to explain the observed **accelerating expansion of the universe** attributed to **dark energy**. This observed phenomenon requires an explanation beyond the Standard Model's particle content and interactions. * The vast discrepancy between the theoretical calculation of **quantum vacuum energy** based on QFT within the Standard Model and the observed **cosmological constant**. This enormous difference (often cited as many orders of magnitude) is a significant contradiction between a theoretical prediction within a framework connected to the Standard Model and an observed value related to cosmology. **2. ΛCDM model of cosmology:** * The **persistent absence of any confirmed non-gravitational detection of dark matter particles** despite numerous and varied experimental efforts. This lack of direct evidence contradicts the assertion that dark matter is composed of new fundamental particles that interact weakly or through other non-gravitational forces. * The success of **Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) in explaining galaxy rotation curves and other galactic-scale phenomena without invoking dark matter**. MOND's ability to accurately predict these observations based on modifications to gravity at galactic scales directly contradicts the ΛCDM model's requirement for substantial amounts of non-baryonic dark matter to explain these effects. * The **cosmological constant problem**, the enormous disparity between the theoretically predicted quantum vacuum energy density and the observed value of the cosmological constant. This significant mismatch contradicts the ΛCDM model's use of the cosmological constant (Λ) to represent dark energy, especially if that constant is associated with vacuum energy. * Discrepancies like the **Hubble tension**, where different methods of measuring the Hubble constant yield inconsistent results. The significant difference between the value inferred from early-universe observations (assuming ΛCDM) and the value measured from late-universe observations suggests a potential flaw in the ΛCDM model or unaccounted-for systematic errors. * Recent DESI DR2 results potentially **favoring late-time phantom-crossing dark energy (w < -1 transitioning to w > -1)** appear to be in tension with the combination of Early Dark Energy (EDE) models (often considered within a modified ΛCDM framework) and the high H₀ value from SH0ES. This suggests that specific attempts to resolve the Hubble tension within the ΛCDM framework might create new contradictions with other observational data. **3. Big Bang theory (without inflation):** * The observed **uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature across the entire sky** . Without an inflationary epoch, regions now far apart would not have been in causal contact to reach thermal equilibrium, making the observed uniformity difficult to explain. **4. Newtonian gravity:** * The **anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit**, an observed fact that could not be accurately predicted by Newtonian gravity alone . This discrepancy was a key piece of evidence supporting Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which correctly explains the precession. **5. WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) miracle:** * The **ongoing failure to conclusively detect WIMP dark matter through direct or indirect detection experiments** [0, 7, 11, 15, 21, 2403.15860, 59] despite significant experimental efforts contradicts the simplest and most elegant scenarios of the "WIMP miracle," which predicted WIMPs would have properties making them detectable by now. **6. Naturalness arguments in Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) physics:** * The **lack of discovery of many low-mass particles predicted by naturalness arguments**, such as supersymmetric partners expected to be within the reach of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), challenges these specific theoretical motivations for BSM physics. The absence of these particles at the expected mass ranges suggests that naturalness might not be a reliable guide for physics beyond the Standard Model. **7. Assumption of universal constancy of the speed of light ($c$) across all frequencies and conditions (within the SI framework):** * While $c$ is now fixed by definition within the SI, the source argues that this enshrines the postulate of its universal constancy. The ongoing development and testing of theories that propose a **varying speed of light** present a theoretical challenge to this assumption, even if direct measurement of $c$ varying within SI units is now not the primary way to test it. However, the sources do not present definitive experimental facts *within* the SI framework that directly contradict the defined value. The contradiction lies more in the philosophical and theoretical implications of fixing a value derived from potentially incomplete theories. **8. Assumption of inherent energy quantization ($E=h\nu$) embedded in the definition of mass within the SI framework:** * Similar to the speed of light, Planck's constant ($h$) is now fixed by definition. The source argues this embeds the assumption of energy quantization. The proposal and exploration of **alternative continuum-based models where discreteness emerges contextually** represent a theoretical contradiction to this enshrined assumption. However, the sources do not present direct experimental facts *within* the SI framework that falsify the consequences of this definitional fixing. **9. Geometric flatness and applicability of linear approximations via standard calculus for the universe:** * Observations conflicting with predictions made within a framework assuming geometric flatness and linearity, particularly concerning **gravity, rotation, or behavior near fundamental thresholds**, create discrepancies that might lead to misinterpretations within that framework. The source argues these discrepancies (like dark matter and dark energy) could indicate the limitations of these ingrained assumptions. It's crucial to understand that some of these "contradictions" are interpretations of the *absence* of expected evidence or the *success* of alternative frameworks. The self-referential nature of the SI system, as argued in the sources, makes direct empirical falsification of its foundational assumptions inherently difficult.