I've sat through most of this hour long video from February of this year to get some idea of how "dark matter" theory is presented to scientific peers in 2015, and of course to the public as well. It was discouraging to say the least.
All four "justifications" for exotic matter theory came from BB theory exclusively.
Two of the four justifications for exotic matter theory were a tacit admission that they simply cannot begin with a Big Bang creation mythology, that is based exclusively upon only ordinary forms of matter, and get a proper data fit to two of the data sets, specifically the CMB power spectrum, or the threaded/clumping structures we observe in the mass layout pattern. I'd call both arguments a form of special pleading. If big bang theory doesn't work right without exotic matter, then exotic matter must exist! You'd think that would be their first two clues that there might be a real and serious problem with big bang theory, but *noooooooooo*!
For what it's worth, Dr. Hooper does present the power spectrum information in a very elegant, and simple to understand manner. Kudos for his presentation of that concept, even if I wasn't impressed with his "solution" to his curve fitting problem.
He does a good job explaining how and why they have to fudge the power curve numbers just right, and how they arrive at their need for X amount of exotic matter to save their otherwise falsified model from instant falsification without a magic matter fudge factor.
The third justification was based on that hugely flawed 2006 bullet cluster lensing study. It's amusing to see him overlaying the optical images with the "dark matter" regions in blue. It clearly shows the effect of them grossly underestimating the number of entire stars in galaxies by a whopping 3 to 20 times, as well as their underestimation of the plasma around every galaxy. If anything, that whole argument is *destroyed* by the later revelations of stellar miscounts, and that 2012 study on the million degree plasma they finally found around our own galaxy, and which must surround all galaxies. That argument was a pure implosion with with 20/20 hindsight with respect to stellar mass underestimates. Unfortunately none of that newer information about stellar miscounts and additional mass discoveries was even mentioned in the presentation.
The only really "semi-valid" argument was the galaxy rotation pattern argument, but alas all their movement models are based upon pure gravity without respect to any EM field effects on a mostly plasma structure.
It also showed IMO that while there are differences in the rotation patterns, they are *extremely* difficult to see unless you have the advantage of millions of years of time to watch the rotation patterns unfold, and *only* if you discount all possible EM field influences on the rotation patterns.
The most "amusing" part of the video IMO comes about the 19-21 minute mark where he explains all the reasons why they have to rule out every potential subatomic particle from consideration if they want to get all the proper fits to the aforementioned Big Bang theory data sets. The last three particles left standing after all the ad hoc properties were considered were the neutrinos, and he explains why those don't work either because they are "hot", and would therefore mess up the fit to the other data sets.
The amusing part is when he actually states rather bluntly that this conclusion could be considered a "catastrophe" (presumably for exotic BB based matter theory only), and then proceeds to explain why denial is more fun, and why it's actually a "playground" from his perspective.
I'm also miffed by the whole concept that he needs to eliminate all the subatomic particles known to humanity, yet he can also assign ad hoc properties to this mythical BB matter in terms of supposedly emitting gamma rays. Based on his drawing, apparently this happens during a "collision" between dark matter particles, even though they can't get them to collide with any ordinary matter at LUX, or PandaX, Xenon100, etc. He doesn't even really explain how or why or where dark matter particles might produce gamma rays "out in the open" rather than in say some dense core of a sun where it would simply be absorbed by the surrounding plasma. He basically just "assumes" that this mythical matter must 'occasionally' releases gamma rays out in visible space somewhere, in some unexplained "process' that supposedly takes place in locations where the gamma rays aren't instantly absorbed.
Now of course all this depends on them have an understanding about the amount of gamma rays emitted by various suns, and by the interactions of cosmic rays in stellar atmospheres, which I doubt they even fully considered. It's obviously prone to the same pitfalls with respect to stellar miscounts, and the fact it doesn't including any EM field effects associated with gamma ray production in the atmosphere of Earth or the sun in very ordinary electrical discharges in their atmospheres.
In fact, when he shows the original FERMI image, its very clear that the raw gamma ray images can be linked to known objects in the universe, and suns in the galaxy in particular, as well as some known high energy objects in space. The whole galaxy is lit up along the edge of the disk just as we would expect it to be lit up if solar emissions, and cosmic ray impacts on the solar atmospheres are the primary cause of gamma rays. Now of course we could add more current to the inside areas of the galaxy, and we'd have a *known and demonstrated* source of gamma rays to discuss, and a logical way to explain why we see them from Earth too. We'd have a logical way to explain why high energy collisions occur *outside* of the solar cores, rather than *inside* of them where the gamma rays would never been observed.
The more I listen to the mainstream claims, the more convoluted and ad hoc they sound. It's pretty clear that the industry is very electrophobic, and their dark gap filler is directly related to that problem.
I must say that the biggest "whopper" I heard was around the 55-57 minute mark when an astute member of the audience noted the fact that dark energy theory violates the conservation of energy law. I was totally and completely disgusted by his answer.
The conservation of energy law one of the best tested laws in all of empirical physics, not to mention the fact that his answer was inconsistent with his *own* theory! Holy Cow. He's personally claiming to be turning "dark energy" into light (energy), and then ignoring it's implication with respect to the conservation of energy. His own claim would insist that some amount of galactic "mass", supposedly the most abundant form of mass according to him, is slowly but surely being converted into a different form of kinetic energy. Sometimes I wonder if these guys even think about the implications of their own theories and beliefs. It never adds up when you look at it logically.
I kinda wanted to hurl when he called himself an "empiricist" while promoting a purely *hypothetical* form of matter based entirely upon an affirming the consequent fallacy. Wow!