There are physicists who express similar dissatisfaction with this theory. Perhaps you'd be interested in Philip Mannheim's opinion at the University of Connecticut. I won't try to paraphrase his work, since I'm only a physicist-in-training, but he teaches an astrophysics class in which he addresses this problem. My take: If the theory doesn't work witht the data, it's because the theory is wrong--you don't go invent something just to satisfy the theory. Likewise, "laws" are theories we really like while the non/existence of something is absolute (well, generally). There are various takes on the evidence for dark matter, but altogether my understanding is that it's virtually undetectable (no E&M interaction)--so it can't be disproven, only "not yet verified".
see for more info
Slashdot Mirror
There are physicists who express similar dissatisfaction with this theory. Perhaps you'd be interested in Philip Mannheim's opinion at the University of Connecticut. I won't try to paraphrase his work, since I'm only a physicist-in-training, but he teaches an astrophysics class in which he addresses this problem. My take: If the theory doesn't work witht the data, it's because the theory is wrong--you don't go invent something just to satisfy the theory. Likewise, "laws" are theories we really like while the non/existence of something is absolute (well, generally). There are various takes on the evidence for dark matter, but altogether my understanding is that it's virtually undetectable (no E&M interaction)--so it can't be disproven, only "not yet verified". see for more info