>>13984057>Cope. Not an argument. The arguments you ignored followed that generality I made
>Also see >>13982355UhhhhI literally quoted and explained why your "see also post" is wrong in the very post you were responding to. You clearly didn't read
>figure out the source of the discrepancy and refine your prediction, or admit that your theory is wrong>That's falsifiabilityNo, it's not. Tons of predictions about dark matter have been wrong. Is DM now falsified? Of course not and you've outlined exactly why it's not achieving falsifiability: one can be in the state of "figuring out the source of the discrepancy" in perpetuity. We may never figure out the sources of the discrepancies, hence one never logically must "admit" the theory is wrong and therefore would be unfalsifiable.
>Anyway, you're clearly emotionally invested in a very specific narrative, so there's no sense talking to you.HAHA talk about projection. You glossed over what I said, demonstrating you didn't read it, due to being invested in your flawed thinking so much you didn't even realize I responded to a post you told me to read. I have no idea where "emotion" fits into any of this. That must be more projection.
Please don't respond. You have no idea what you are talking about and your projection is off the charts.
