Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "The Inexplicable Cosmic Coincidence That Suggests the Universe Was Designed | Part 1" video.

  1.  @BikeHelmetMk2  Photons do not have mass. /end It'd be easy to explain why my socks keep getting lost if we permit that gnomes exist...
    2
  2. Oh boy, another layperson who's heard of aether. Don't forget to give us your opinions on epicycles and Vulcan.
    2
  3.  @estelyen  Everything you say just reinforces that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and are reasoning from superficial similarities in subjects you don't understand. If that's all it took, we could easily find examples in the history of science that contradict what you're saying. For a long time people didn't believe atoms could be real. No one had seen one. No one had indirectly detected one. And the equations that atomists were deriving required atoms to do bizarre, paradoxical things, like be waves and particles, or to be not "real" in the physics sense. And yet, atoms do exist. We just needed better means of detecting them.
    2
  4. Oh look, another layperson who's heard of aether. I can't wait to hear about your opinions on epicycles or Vulcan. Guess what, several centuries ago some people believed that all things were composed of incredibly small objects called atoms. But many scientists did not believe that could be possible. After all, no one had ever seen an atom before. The atomists were busying themselves with equations based on something that had no physical proof and to which, moreover, they attributed ever stranger paradoxical properties, like the ability to be a wave and a particle, or to only have qualities when measured. Boy, those atomists sure were wrong. The problem with your comparison is that it's nothing like the case of aether. Science is quite different, our understanding much greater, and our instruments both more precise and accurate. And while there was little evidence for aether, there actually is solid evidence for dark matter, like bullet clusters. But science isn't made from comparisons. As I just showed, it's as easy to find a comparison that flatters dark matter as it so to find one that disparages it. You're not the first person to make a facile connection with dark matter or dark energy and other defunct concepts in physics. You may not like it, but so far dark matter is the much better candidate to explain flaws in the theory of gravity on a galactic scale. Other attempts, like MOND, have not fared so well, and if anything they evince the kind of ad hoc approach you think dark matter/energy represent.
    1