Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter?

[C C]

https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-derailed...ark-matter

EXCERPT: [...] The case for dark matter is regarded as so overwhelming that its existence is often reported as fact. Lately, though, cracks of doubt have started to appear. In July, the LUX experiment in South Dakota came up empty in its search for dark particles – the latest failure in a planet-wide, decades-long effort to find them. Some cosmic surveys also suggest that dark particles cannot be there, which is especially confounding since astronomical observations were the original impetus for the dark-matter hypothesis.

The issues at stake are huge. Acceptance of dark matter has influenced scientific thinking about the birth of the Universe, the evolution of galaxies and black holes, and the fundamental laws of physics. Yet even within academic circles, there is a lot of confusion about dark matter, with evidence and interpretation often conflated in misleading and unproductive ways. [...] I published these results and quickly learned what it meant to not follow the mainstream. Despite the critiques I received, I followed up on these results some years later and uncovered another major inconsistency....

[RainbowUnicorn]

Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter ?

philisophically speaking does the action of scientific process define its self as Dogma ?

(i suggest the potential of) Generically speaking Dogma is an intrinsic symptomatic causality of liniar structure in a hindsight evaluation.

while trying to avoid being all Timey-Wimey everything is an after event and when we determine process from a clearly define supposition of precluded process we inevitably run into the normative field of qualatative design.

e.g 1 + 1 = 2
err for 2 is defined by an escalating function of accumulative data into a uni direction algorythmic formula.

what do we have soo far ?
unknown force defining known variables(light & mass etc) looking at the universe etc...

our current data should equal something that we cant find.

i have pondered if what we see as the sum is maybe only representative of the state of observation and a completely different type of physics laws/principals are required to find the soo defined dark matter.

currently could i be roughly correct in suggesting method is somewhat newtonian ?
we are trying to find it bashing into something...

what if dark matter is similar to light in that it is also a wave & a particle depending on how it is observed and the only potential way we can observe it it as a wave function effecting force/(gravity-light etc) and the actual prcess to locate it and measure it is a whole new as yet unfound principal of physics which (im just gaming an idea) special as yet un found element will be the only thing it interacts with in a newtonian fashion...

just a very topical mild ponderance.
please feel free to pick it to pieces at will and whim and give your opinion.

foot note by newtonian i mean basic force mass processes where pushing or hitting like capturing as a crashing interaction)
maybe dark matter only exists before and after light matter and is in part a gravity field event like salt in water when we cant measure the salt.

maybe we can only find it with wave harmonics and it will resonate but wont gain mass any other way or something like that.
just musing here. lets say resonate at a frequency produced by an element with a plasma arcing through it or something else completely whacky sounding.

[FluidSpaceMan]

The ongoing failure to discover dark matter is a red flag telling us that alternative theories need to be entertained.

Considering objects in stable orbits around a central mass, if an expansion rate is imposed on the space-time, additional distance will be created between the satellite and the central mass over time due to spatial expansion. Therefore, less tangential velocity will be required to maintain a stable orbit. (Expansion will lift the object, so it will have to orbit more slowly to fall back down the extra distance.)

Conversely, if a space-time contraction field is imposed on the flat space-time, the satellite will require additional tangential velocity to maintain a stable orbit, as it is drawn inward by both gravity and the contraction field. (Contraction will move it closer the the central mass over time, requiring a higher orbital velocity to climb back up.)

GR predicts space can either expand or contract. What if it could do both? Suppose matter is surrounded by a contraction field, while the universe overall is expanding. Such a contraction field around normal matter on a galactic scale could account for the higher orbital velocities of stars, and create lensing of light passing through it. This would replicate the effects now attributed to dark matter.

Should we be looking for a field instead of a particle?