Dark matter was hypothesized because the universe is expanding faster than our understanding of gravity allows. The problem in that is if the universe is expanding so fast then something else must be holding galaxies together since galaxies are so incredibly vast and yet contain so very little matter.
Particle physics is currently defined according to the Standard Model. Dark matter was proposed because it plugs many of the gaps of universal expansion in contrast to the Standard Model, but not all the gaps. It would take far greater effort to invalidate the Standard Model and all of particular physics built upon it. There is also the problem of not having any other model to replace the current one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The expansion of the universe is observed as red shifts and these observations are numerous and largely uniform. Dark matter, on the other hand, has not been directly observed.
Seems like you confuse dark energy (needed to explain the universe expansion acceleration) with dark matter (needed to correct for the galaxy rotation curve)
> Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen.
Even Wikipedia says dark matter is a stop gap of gravitational models. The very next sentence, first paragraph, says experts believe dark matter exists for that reason.
> Without introducing a new form of energy, there was no way to explain how an accelerating universe could be measured.
Dark energy is an unobserved stop gap as well. Dark energy was introduced because dark matter was not enough of a stop gap to qualify the acceleration of the expansion.
The reality is that there is just as much theoretical qualifiers for the presence of dark matter as there are unexplained phenomena in the standard model that needs dark matter as a qualifier.
The best possible answer to this nonsense is that the standard model is wrong because we don’t have the evidence to form a better model. All our evidence is limited to observations from Earth surface and low orbit. Hopefully the James Webb telescope will provide better evidence.
All you're saying here is that dark matter and dark energy are evidence-based. The ideas would not exist if not for the evidence, as there wouldn't be any reason to try and think of explanations and theory modifications. This completely contradicts your original statement, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
That is the opposite of what I am saying and the opposite of the various links and quotes I have provided. They do not exist due to evidence but because the standard model demands their existence.
Particle physics is currently defined according to the Standard Model. Dark matter was proposed because it plugs many of the gaps of universal expansion in contrast to the Standard Model, but not all the gaps. It would take far greater effort to invalidate the Standard Model and all of particular physics built upon it. There is also the problem of not having any other model to replace the current one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The expansion of the universe is observed as red shifts and these observations are numerous and largely uniform. Dark matter, on the other hand, has not been directly observed.
* https://arstechnica.com/features/2014/07/dark-matter-makes-u...
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/dark-matter-link-to-...
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/more-bad-news-for-co...
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/one-night-of-telesco...
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/a-history-of-dark-ma...
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/dark-matter-still-mi...