>>13841018>yet you have nothing specific to say. how come? what's up with that lensing, mate?I have nothing specific to say, because there is no way for me to prove a negative.
I am not claiming the dark matter theory is false, I am saying that it's based on nothing but assumptions and conjecture.
Maybe a metaphor would help someone with your intelligence understand my point a bit more:
There's a very excited little girl called Ellie waiting expectantly in her house, because today is Christmas eve!
However, there's something very puzzling going on, as every year on this very day, presents suddenly appear beneath the Christmas tree.
Now she thinks and thinks and comes up with an answer! It must me that Santa fellow that goes down chimneys every Christmas to deliver presents.
After all, that's the only thing that makes sense. How does he fit through the chimney? Why his magic belt shrinks him down just enough, of course!
But how does he get to every child in just a single night? Why, he has a magic stopwatch that stops time, of course!
Unfortunately, when Ellie grew older and began to understand the world more, she found out that Santa wasn't all that real and that her parents were the true cause.
>it's currently the best explanation for the cosmological phenomena that have been reliably observed.And why, in your opinion, is this the best explanation? Why is this addition to our models (without any direct evidence, I might add) more valid than the models being wrong?
>until then, continue posting wojaks and crying about da equationsMore projection? What the fuck are you even talking about? Is this your cognitive dissonance at play?
Are you claiming that you aren't 'crying' about the equations when you're literally talking about dark matter, something invented to modify the equation to be a bit more closer to reality?
