>>13986520why are you so mad about the name? would you still object so much if it was called "anomaly nr. 5"?
>>13986539>error in measurement no, if it's an error then it's a systematic error which means there is some mysterious thing systematically skewing all of our results even those in telescopes millions of kilometers away
>instead absurdly insist that 90% of the universe is composed of matter which defies realityhere is the funny thing. this dark matter doesn't have to necessarily be matter. it could be some unexplained gravitational phenomena. there are multiple solution candidates to the problem of dark matter.
also your entire reasoning is wrong. it's "absurd" and "defies reality" according to YOU. the universe doesn't revolve around your immediate experience
