…your ‘Crack’ thread being evidence of that? Cool 
Because you are not where you need to be.
Consider this “purgatory”.
I am aware of this. All I am writing here now (with some small exceptions) is deliberate nonsense. I am investigating my emotional ties to ILP. They turn out to be superficial but no less active. I am embracing these ties and their nature for now, assuming I’ll get tired of it quickly. It’s not unconsciously wasted time, it is indeed a purging.
Magsj - I have been building here the past years but stopped quite recently. You may not have noticed because you do not (I think) read any of the philosophy written on this site. My crack threads were me amusing myself after having drunk some strangely potent wines. I remember especially finding the sentence ending with “Flannel bitch” hilarious. It still makes me smile even though I can’t figure out what’s so funny.
Dark Matter is the worst kind.
And there’s so much of it.
And the only actual problem with the world is that there is far too much of it.
It’s opposite is seriously needed merely to reduce the excess, if nothing else.
I guess that maybe I should mention that “dark matter” is the essential element in an “anti-gravity” drive and functionally similar to the fictional “warp drive”.
And you only thought to tell us now 
I understand that in terms of application, so please proffer more of this up rather than the raw Science that it derives from. 
Sorry. I’m a Texan. I think slow, but most assuredly.
I would be happy to oblige… if I only knew what that meant. “…rather than the raw Science..”??? 
„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory.
How do people know this?
This question assumes that “people know this”. Before one asks how people know this, one has to ask whether and, if yes, how many people know this. Most people don’t know anything about the “dark matter”, and among the few people who know something about the “dark matter” are many people who don’t know wether “dark matter” really exists or not.
The physicists can not explain why the matter “refuses” the expansion of the universe so much, so that their calculations are no longer correct. Therefor they have two “solutions”: (a) “re-launch” / reintroduction of Einstein’s constant; (b) introduction of dark matter. They have decided against Einstein’s constant.
If there were no dark matter in the universe, the whole matter would tear away because of the expansion of the universe which is stronger than the aggregation of matter.
Because of the fact that the physicists don’t really know, whether their hypothesis of the “dark matter” is right or wrong, they prefer to say it is right. And therefore I say: that is an excuse or an alibi.
Actually, although I do agree that Science over-uses excuses to an extreme, in this case, I can verify the necessary existence of “dark matter” (unless they foolishly define it wrongly as they did with aether).
Dark matter is actually a gravity field without a mass object presumed to be the cause of it. In reality, mass does not create a gravity field, but rather a gravity field creates the mass object. Dark matter is the field before it has created the mass. And it might not ever create that mass because it requires an extreme accumulation and concentration for particles to form to produce matter.
Within a vast cloud of dark matter, there are very probably small particles, possibly even rocks, merely too small to see from a great distance. But the particles are not required for the gravity effect to still be present. So Dark Matter is simply a cloud of gravity field or better known as a large cloud of “Affectance”.
Instaed of “„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory” I better should have said: “„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a probably false theory”.
I understood the critics viewpoint. Much earlier in the thread I raised the issue of non-observables and at what Point one can say ‘it exists’. Liked that there is an extra planet beyond Neptune. It was though very likely and later confirmed. Perhaps they even spoke of it as existing. How direct must one sense something for it to be considered observed? When the nature of that something is different - and issue that separates Pluto from Dark Matter, since the latter is not simply an unseeen version of something we have already seen - how much indirect evidence must we have and what kinds? As far as I can tell Dark matter is very common in the lay press as simply a given. In the mainstream Community it is consider to be very likely the case due a number of different phenomena that it would explain, not just the one you mention around the expansion of the universe. So what was first a hypothesis is no longer merely one, but is not considered a theory at the level of, say, evolution. They are modeling the cause of phenomena they have observed, and in a way that fits current models - The Standard Model. Pretty standard practice and, sure, many are likely too certain - and if you say something is matter but is not reactive to light is this an oxymoron? and other issues certainly arise. Might have been better if they had black boxed it a bit more. On the other hand whatever is in the black box does seem to influence things like matter does in a number of other ways.
But the way some of the critics are arguing, here and elsewhere, it sound like scientists are just guessing or perhaps merely trying to make discrepencies work,f ill in the whole with random posited entities. I don’t Think that is the case. (not saying they are correct to call it matter or incorrect for that matter) Even within the mainstream of science there are some other ideas about what might be causing the discrepencies. I suppose I want to add that a discrepency, once regularly encounted in information and information about essence. IOW it is an empirical observation and one that repeats. It is pretty standard to come up with models for what that is and also to build from what one is more certain of. Fallible, sure, but part and parcel of scientific empiricism.
But when I read in your post that Dark matter is an excuse and alibi, etc., now you bear the burden also. Now you seem to know that it is not a form of matter and that modeling it that way is wrong. Adding your hubris in that direction to the hubris of scientists who are too Confident in their direction does not make for some better set of analyses.
Now I have someone expressing utter certainty in the negative. Along with certainty about motives.
Maybe that the “dark matter” exists, but who really knows? And because of the fact that they know nearly nothing about the “dark matter”, I may say that the hypothesis of the “dark matter” is false.
I know (even more certainly than they guess).
It certainly exists, but I can’t say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist.
Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them.
I don’t really see the first sentence going with the second one. And it is more than a hypothesis and less than a theory from what I can see as a layman. But it seems like you just skipped past most of what I said and are just restating your position, so we can leave it here.
What I was trying to say with those two sentences was that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows) really knows what the “dark matter” really is, and that in that case, and because of the fact that physicists are no gods (who knows?), they should not say that they know what the “dark matter” causes because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the “dark matter” in order to support the theory of the “big bang” and especially of the “inflation of the universe”!
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” causes the “ever” increasing acceleration of the expansion speed.
Dark energy: about 70%,
Dark matter: 25%,
That what we can see: about 5% .
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” functions similarly to the cosmological constant.