the_JerrBear t1_jc8ysof wrote
Reply to comment by dern_the_hermit in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
Okay, I concede you that. It started out as "matter we can't see," and today a popular interpretation of that is that it doesn't interact with light at all. My mistake.
But, that also wasn't really my point.
dern_the_hermit t1_jc8zs1t wrote
Your point was some crude dismissal of dark matter based on what seems to be a gross misunderstanding you have. Sorry for correcting your misunderstanding. It must hurt your feelings, being corrected.
the_JerrBear t1_jc90lsw wrote
at no point have i dismissed dark matter, i have only presented arguments against the evangelization of dark matter, which this article supports. you argued beside the point, and have now volunteered yourself to exit the conversation.
rest easy, your words are as sharp as you are
dern_the_hermit t1_jc91i3y wrote
"the bit where he says that no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist is frankly embarrassing" was pretty damn dismissive dude, GTFO with that dishonest-ass nonsense lol :D
the_JerrBear t1_jcfency wrote
if you interpreted that as an outright dismissal that dark matter is correct, then again, you have entirely missed the point... Saying that "not having evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is not a strong argument for dark matter, or a strong argument against alternatives. It's pleading, and doesn't really imply anything meaningful. I hear it when people ask for proof that god exists.
I don't understand why you insist that I have claimed dark matter is incorrect, maybe I am failing to communicate my point properly, but that definitely is not it at all. I would appreciate it if you took some of your valuable time to respond to literally anything else that I have actually said, thanks
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments