>>14244812>Wait, so you haven't even scanned the Wikipedia article yet?Why would I scan a non scientific site that doesn't do tests?
Why would I use a site that isn't even acceptable as a source in elementary school?
Why would I use a site that specifically tells me itself that it is not a reliable source of information?
Last, and most importantly, why would I trust ANY "source" for a claim that was never actually proven? My trust would be blind faith...and that's for religion. Because the "source" pulled it out of their ass and because the foundation is shit, all it's backed by is faith. Faith from simps like you, coping and defending a literal phantasm like a deranged hobo.
>Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field>it does not>which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation (like light)>it does notWow. All of that to tell me what it doesn't do. One might say that's all you could ever say about something that doesn't actually exist, but who would waste their time arguing over nothing? I think we all know who, and that's not me singling out the religion of dualist rhetoric.
>>14244867I have evidence of a shadow so they must be real. I can see them and measure them too! They're quantifiable!
