Isn't the point of this that it explains the phenomena that is commonly attributed to dark matter? Therefore wouldn't the things we observe that would point to this be the same things that we observe that point to dark matter? I guess the thing I don't understand is why we would expect to observe something different because of this than what we attribute to dark matter.
flerp
joined 2 years ago
I don't understand any of this so this question isn't snarky but something I'm actually wondering. How would we be able to see "topological defects" in space with telescopes?
The brain is a material organ that has some amount of control over the rest of your body. If that organ believes a certain thing, it is not supernatural or spiritual for that to have a material effect on your body.
You're begging the question(s).
As far as we know, matter can't be created or destroyed. Before asking "what created it" you have to demonstrate that it even CAN be created.
And "what set it in motion?" Have you ever seen anything NOT in motion? Everything is moving relative to everything else.
As far as we have observed, there is no such thing as "nothing" or "motionless." To ask a question like how does something come from nothing, or how did things begin to move, you are assuming states that we have never observed to be possible.
Just remember that those are the stupid people because they don't understand that sarcasm isn't only about the reader but also the writer. Some people's sarcasm is much clearer than others and for the one's whose sarcasm isn't is heavily noticeable, the /s helps.
Also, whining about non-harmful stuff that people do that isn't what you would do instead of just living your life doing what makes you happy is generally pretty stupid anyways.
It doesn't matter if it looked like a real gun, or even if it WAS a real gun. He had a real gun too, should he also have been shot for having a real gun that looked like a real gun?
Where did they say the government handed out credit scores? The meme was pointing out a double standard, not saying the government hands out credit scores.
This entire comment is just you admitting you have below average reading comprehension.
"Trust me, I could totally answer your question and it would blow your mind and totally convert you. I won't, but trust me I could if I cared to."
Seems like the bible says you're not a very good Christian in that case:
1 Peter 3:15
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
YMMV. For me soup sounds like a good idea but I find it annoying to eat so for me personally it is a bad idea.
But without evolution we wouldn't have bears!
And you explained all of that WITHOUT THE OBNOXIOUS GODDAMNS and FUCKIN SCIENCE AMIRITEs
Hmm, I'm not sure how to correctly word my question.
It was really just aimed at the implication in the comment I replied to that if this were true, we should have seen evidence for it in telescopes already. So my question was, what phenomena would we expect to see because of these topological defects that we don't already see and have attributed to dark matter.
As far as I'm aware (which really isn't that far tbh) gravitational lensing is explained without needing any new hypotheses. But if dark matter was implicated in it to heighten the effect, that would still be something we have seen in our telescopes which could be explained by this so it still would answer the comment to which I replied as being something we have observed.
Edit: OK I looked it up and yeah dark matter (or another explanation) is required to account for the amount of lensing we see. But still, that's a thing we have observed so I guess my question would be, does this new idea not account for the same effect? If it does, that should answer the comment I was replying to.