There's so much wrong with this comment. > you are telling me there is something that makes up the majority of matter in the universe (27% dark matter vs 5% ma

There's so much wrong with this comment. > you are telling me there is something that makes up the majority of matter in the universe (27% dark matter vs 5% matter) and we still haven't observed a single iota of it, even after spending more than 3 decades and billions of dollars? Of course we observed it. In how galaxies spin. We did not observe dark matter directly. So far existence of dark matter is not questioned because it is backed by multiple predictions and observations. Question is about its composition. > well it fits all of our understanding of the universe and what we observe in a few things Not sure what it means. > It comes on top of things that cosmologists have been wrong for very very very long times on. Look how long they thought it was silly to consider the big bang. maybe it would be easier to accept if they were like 'well the big bang is a very interesting idea but it just doesn't fit evidence' instead of 'that's a stupid idea, my idea (static universe) is simpler so its right'. This is gross oversimplification to the point where it loses all meaning. I can't even begin to answer because it. > speaking of which, we really need to get off this 'simple idea is the right idea' dogma. The universe owes us no such obligation to be simple. I guess General Relativity is complex enough that most still try to drag what they learned in high school to fit reality > look how much relies off the idea that the universe is the same everywhere, which we now know as wrong, but cosmologists are only slightly admitting to that fact. Did I missed a Nobel Prize for proving cosmological principle wrong? Because so far all I seen was an overwhelming evidence for its correctness.