Some would claim that I know as much about Dark Matter as I know about Keynesian Thought, which I believe to be flat rude; I believe the proper current term is Discouraged Student (I always wondered Who was doing the discouraging). I can state for the Record that I read considerably on John Maynard Keynes before a Car Accident destroyed much of my memory some 30 years ago, and it returns only in slight wisps on the Night air. Still, it has led me to make several observations: Paul Samuelson was wrong, and there is not a clear Math solution to every economic problem; Probability theory is improbable as it is stated; and elasticities can always be stretched. I will turn to Dark Matter in such vane (vain??).
Dark Matter devotees all assume that Dark Matter must be repellent to ordinary matter. My imagination suggests that there would be several Big Bangs rather than One, if the later were the Case. I like to think of Dark Matter in terms of Elements and Compounds. It seems like a much greater advantage in understanding, with infinite options for combination. Elements, as We know them, combine with Elements of Dark Matter as We do not know, to form combination Compounds which We cannot imagine as yet. Here We have a very viable Construct of the Universe, without necessary appendant conditions to excuse aberrant Results in the system.
I do not claim to be an Expert on the Issue, but I think Thomas Edison said something about the only Expert is the One who comes up with the correct Answer. Before I leave the Reader to contemplate his Navel this Weekend (I know, I never got that either), I would urge the Readership to consider How far off standard knowledge can be; One does not have to establish a Probabilities curve with statistical anomalies. One has only to ask if any specific theorem seems to fit, or whether there are too many caveats attached to make the proposition worthwhile. I find little Gold in a pan fill of gravel. lgl