Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_jc7n4yd wrote on March 14, 2023 at 5:10 PM

Reply to comment by YawnTractor_1756 in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin

That's not manipulative. It's reality.

>Matter" means something objectively detectable made of physical particles which you're able to interact with.

No it doesn't. And you don't get to decide that it does. But it does tell you something about the way "dark matter" is expected to behave based on observation. So does the "energy" in dark energy. These words are meaningful within the context, although like with all things in physics, words will always fail to convey a concept based on math, because they're meant as labels for things you are already informed about, not as a way to convey understanding.

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc8iqji wrote on March 15, 2023 at 1:33 AM

Of course it is manipulative. Just like Tesla's "Full Self Driving" which is not fully self driving is manipulative. Words have meanings and contexts of their own, which was defined way before me, or the guy who coined Dark Matter, which is neither dark nor matter. Inventing context where black means white and claiming it's not confusing (and ultimately manipulative) is ridiculous.

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_jc8l2fm wrote on March 15, 2023 at 1:49 AM

Yeah, sorry, that's just not how it works. It's not misleading to call something that doesn't interact with electromagnetism, and thus light, "dark", and it's not misleading to call something that is acting like matter "matter". Whatever hangups you have about these words are really on you. It's not even close to misleading, and even when the short terms given to complex ideas are "misleading", it still doesn't make them manipulative. Things catch on, and once that happens, it isn't getting undone. That's not a conspiracy to manipulate you.