Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dern_the_hermit t1_jc8f9ce wrote

> If you read the article itself you'll find that those names were invented as merely labels for the inconsistencies in how Universe behaved.

That's just dismissively reductive. Those "mere" inconsistencies were like half a dozen separate observations that differed from expected values by a pretty exact amount, noted by many people, across many decades. This wasn't some flippant, casual invention but the product of rigorous observation and calculation, challenged at every step by multiple other parties with alternate theories that, themselves, do not explain all of the aforementioned observations.

By your complaints, I offer you just don't understand the data.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc8j6oh wrote

I don't know why you put so much stress on it, I was not in any way arguing or diminishing inconsistencies, I realize how they are very important.

I was arguing dark matter and dark energy are confusing and ultimately manipulative terms. Claiming inconsistency exists is one thing, claiming dark matter* exists is another. It would be like naming it "dark overlords" and claiming dark overlords now exist, without repeating all the time that there are no actual overlords, it's just a label.


dern_the_hermit t1_jc8m2py wrote

> I don't know why you put so much stress on it,

You wrote a big ol' screed baselessly attacking the article and the subject matter. Maybe don't do that?


Cthu-Luke t1_jc9rpy5 wrote

Yes but everyone knows it's just a label, if they're too ignorant to realise then that's their bad, and tbh, it has literally zero bearing on everyone's day to day existence....for now anyway.