It's worth noting what the mainstream has admitted to over the last few years in terms of grossly underestimating the mass of galaxies since their flawed 2006 lensing study that claimed to find "proof" (ya, they actually used that term too) of "dark matter":
1. In 2008, they had to admit that they grossly underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in the plasma medium, and galaxies were actually about twice as bright as they had "estimated" even at *lower* redshifts. They basically underestimated even the mass of the largest stars that we can actually observe, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html
2. In 2009 they discovered yet another error in their flawed galaxy mass estimation techniques in 2006 when they admitted that they've been *grossly* (by a factor four) underestimating the number of stars the size of our own sun in various galaxies. Note that they've been *guestimating* at the number of these size stars because we cannot directly observe them.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex ... 90819.html
Were just getting warmed up:
3. In 2010 we discovered that they've been underestimating the number of dwarf stars (most common) too, by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the type of galaxy.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/
4. This is all in addition to the what they found in 2012. In 2012, they finally figured out where all their "missing baryons" were actually located:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
Apparently the mainstream is adverse to the use of proper scientific terms, and they can't tell a million degree "plasma" from a "hot gas".
5. This year in 2015 we found out that one of the closest galaxies to us has a halo that's 6 times larger, and a 1000 times more massive than they "guestimated", and this is literally our next door neighbor!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hubble-spac ... da-galaxy/
6. Oooops, now we find out that some dark matter might not even be "dark" at all, effectively *refuting* that 2006 lensing study.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-potential- ... -dark.html
Talk about important revelations. There were *at least* 4 or 5 *different* errors discovered in the mass estimation techniques that they used in that 2006 lensing study! Wow!
Now let's see how they did "in the lab" in terms of their so called "predictions" about 'dark matter"
1. LHC *crushed* every single "popular" SUSY theory on the books prior to firing up LHC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14680570
2. LUX experiments found absolutely nothing that matched their "predictions" prior to building LUX:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... s-up-empty
3. SUSY theory predictions about electron roundness turned out to be all wet too:
http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect ... 131219.htm
4. Panda X blew more SUSY theories out of the water:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092814.php
5. Darkside-50 also struck out:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0653
6. The standard model predictions related to unusual decay rates were right on the money, and SUSY theory predictions were shown to be wrong:
http://news.discovery.com/space/lhc-dis ... 130724.htm
So there you have it. Not only were their galaxy mass estimates *repeatedly* shown to be completely and utterly *worthless* in 2006, every single testable *prediction" that they have made about DM has been *refuted* by experimentation. Nevertheless, they still *claim* to know for a fact that DM is *not* composed of ordinary matter even though the evidence all says otherwise, and they absolutely, positively refuse to abide by the results of their own "tests".
The whole DM field is simply *garbage in, garbage out*. They never properly "guestimated" the mass of galaxies in 2006, so they called their gross estimation error "dark matter".
