Dark matter. Sounds like a catch all designed to fill in blanks that make a math model work properly.

Other way around, the math model worked fine without dark matter, and it was experimental observation that revealed DM. And yes, the term dark matter is a catch all by design because we don’t have a single theory on it yet.

The experimental observation did not reveal Dark Matter. Nobody has seen or proven Dark Matter, actually. That’s why it is called Dark Matter. The observation just showed that the math model was flawed, and they invented “Dark Matter” to make up for it.

My personal take is that they will one day add the right correction factor that should have been in the fomulas all the time.

Just like with E=mc² not being completely correct. It’s actually E²=m²c⁴ + p²c². The p²c² is not adding much, but it is still there.

I know that it is not a simple scale thing here. So it might be something else. My bet is that is has something to do with angular momentum,

And how does this fit the data?

I’m no astrophysicist - I just design computer chips. But this issue of “We need dark matter” came up with rotating galaxies, didn’t it? So I’d look into that direction if there is a potential connection. Classic bug hunting technique.

So have you actually looked into the data at all?

Sounds like the retired engineer that has a theory cliché.

Yeah, basically.

I wonder why lay people find adding a new form of particle to the stable to be so much more intuitively objectionable than hacking into our theory of gravity to make it align with observations.

Modifying the theory of gravity to fit the data might be useful even if it’s just for modelling purposes. But it doesn’t make a theory for sure.

I am also an (non retired) engineer, but alas I have no theory of my own :)))