Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
Dark matter has plenty of supporting evidence, you just simply deny it all because you immediately assume that any and all evidence for it must be a lie because you have a strong bias.
Dark matter has no supporting evidence. Don't start this again with me, Mikey. You know how this will end. You have provided NO evidence for dark matter each time this discussion has cropped up. You have failed to produce conclusive evidence each time, this time will be no different.
Let's not start the oh yes it has, oh no it hasn't again. Let's compare aether and dark matter.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
Regarding (a), this seems unlikely as the observation of other gravitational effects appears to be consistent with what we know - including effects
predicted before they were ever observed in reality. Furthermore, the existence of gravity has been proven by experiments such as the Cavendish Experiment. Nevertheless, it is the main competing theory against dark matter. Regarding (b), this is something very easily tested in a variety of circumstances and is something so fundamental that if it were wrong a whole load of science would be very noticeably incorrect and many technologies from radar to GPS would not work. Reality has proven this to be watertight. So that leaves us with (c) which is dark matter. At the present time this seems the most likely candidate and it is not yet proven because we still don't understand what it really is or how to detect it other than by its gravitational influence.
Observational evidence for aether: none. It is only theorised to exist in order to provide an explanation for a variety of observations that do not fit with FET. It supposedly interacts with conventional matter such as aircraft by restricting how high they can fly, yet strangely seems to become more permeable the denser it becomes, as objects can pass through the upper atmosphere with less resistance. Its properties are self contradictory. Despite interfering with plane flight, it is claimed to be impossible to detect from earth. Claims are made that it refracts light although these claims are not backed up by any experiment or falsifiable observation and no scientist who has spent their career studying the properties of light has ever noticed it. Since refraction of light through a gaseous medium is dependent on the pressure of that medium, the claim of whirlpools within it causing stellar rotation makes no sense. Aether's main competitors in the pseudoscience arena are the Magic Spring, The Thunderbolt Of Zeus and A Wizard Did It, all of which explain the FET effects and have just as much observational evidence as aether.
So to summarise: every piece of evidence supporting dark matter has stood up to rigorous scrutiny. Aether has no evidence supporting it that stands up to scrutiny.
So now Vauxhall can stop claiming they're equivalent in the evidence stakes.