It's worse than a theory. It's an excuse for a theory.

Either way- eventually, it’ll be discovered.

Faith is not science.

The mathematical models are so far holding true based on observation.

It's not dysfunctional, it's that ordinary matter can't be used to explain the observations because there would be other signs of it there. It may not even be matter, and I'm sure there's a theory out there that uses other things to explain the gravitation without a mass. In some ways that would be cleaner, but much harder to validate.

Observed galaxy rotation doesn't fit the centripetal force equation (classical Newtonian mechanics). You are 100% free to make any new equation that fits observations, as well as the rest of useful physics equations. Dark matter is simply the best explanation so far, but not a barrier in any way to better ideas.

"If particle doesn't interact with anything, does it exist? " is an interesting analog to "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?"

Because the motion of the things we can see leads us to suspect that something else is there, even if we can’t see it directly.

To use the blindness analogy, it’s like if you’re talking to someone and their voice suddenly becomes muffled, you might suspect that some kind of “silent matter” is affecting the sound.

The big problem is that circles are special. Radians make sense in some sense, but also don't allow a rational division of the whole circle, and so many real-world applications need a rational ratio that is an integer divisor of the whole way around the circle. 360° is pretty nice for that.

The advantages of metrication just don't apply to circles. That's part of the reason why metric time doesn't work, either.

There is no matter at all. There is only energy. Some of energy is in stable state but most of it is not. We are just unable to expand e=mc^2^ equation. I think the equation is not complete just like velocity equation was not complete because it was missing time dilation. There must be something like energy dilation. There is exponential decay that in theory is mass dilation but my mind stopped there.

The galaxies in the universe don't match the speeds we get from the proven set of physics.

So either something is physically there contributing mass, or the proven set of physics behaves differently at those scales.

Don't worry, people are looking into alternative equations that match what we see without dark matter, but the search for those equations have been just as elusive as dark matter.

So for decades the sky has looked wrong and we simply haven't been able to find or prove the answer why. That's why it feels like everyone's grasping for straws.

There is something more here that we have not directly detected.

That's a big difference. Dark matter can literally be celestial dust, it doesn't need to be some exotic form of matter.

Dark matter has not been observed directly so can not be said to conclusively exist but given our current understanding it is by far the best model for describing how the universe works. There are other theories but they do not describe reality as we observe it.

Dark matter does describe reality as we observe it we just haven't observed dark matter itself.

we're running out of theories of where dark matter could be

we better find it soon

+1 to identifying Sabine Hossenfelder as a grifter. She's the worst.