Look, I get why people want dark matter to be real. It's neat and tidy—a mathematical fix that keeps our models looking good. But let's be honest: after decades of searching, we've found exactly nothing. No particles, no direct detection, nothing. That's not a successful theory; that's a placeholder we've been clinging to out of convenience. The problem is, dark matter was invented to explain why galaxies spin too fast. But maybe our understanding of gravity is just incomplete. We've already seen modified gravity explain galactic rotation curves without needing invisible stuff. Occam's razor says the simpler answer is usually right—and adding an entire invisible universe isn't simple. I'm not saying dark matter is definitely wrong. I'm saying it's failed to deliver on its promises. When a theory can't produce a single testable prediction that pans out, you have to start questioning it.

Here's a stat for you: we've spent over two billion dollars hunting for dark matter particles. Nothing. Zilch. That's not stubborn—that's a dead end. You mention the Bullet Cluster like it's a slam dunk. But modified gravity has explanations for that too. And honestly, we've been patching dark matter theory for decades. Every time a new observation doesn't fit, we just tweak the model. That's not science, that's making excuses. I'll give you this—dark matter explains a lot of things at once. But so did phlogiston and ether. We kept believing in those too, until we didn't. The fact that we're still looking for something that won't show up is the definition of a theory that's let us down. Sometimes the simplest answer is that our gravity model needs work, not that we need an invisible universe.

Here's another stat: over 30 years of searching, and not a single dark matter particle has shown up in any detector. Billions spent, thousands of experiments, and we're still chasing a ghost. You're right about the Bullet Cluster. But here's the thing—modified gravity isn't a single theory, it's a bunch of ideas. Some handle the Bullet Cluster fine. You're picking one example and acting like it settles everything. I'm not saying dark matter is impossible. I'm saying it's failed to deliver what a theory should: testable, verifiable predictions. We keep adjusting it to fit new data. That's not strength, that's survival by patchwork. At what point do we admit the simplest explanation might be that we're wrong about gravity? Occam's razor doesn't favor an invisible universe.