Not quite abreast of the astronomer's interest in Dark Matter (DM), being merely an ontologist, I have come to fathom their dilemma:  the need for DM to set the Cosmos straight, particularly in light of the June issue of Time Magazine.  But not being an astronomer, throughout thirty years of study, I was never compelled to make any association between the Random Field I was working with then and DM, though today their immutable association is understand.
    Basically, dark matter is a field comprising homogeneous substance and form, being that (1) there are no other alternatives and (2) these objects (substance and form) are so simple as to not be precluded by anything else.  Ontologically speaking, their presence is not predicated by anything else, making them fundamental.
    Hoping not to raise you ire, both are understood in theory to be equivalent to luminiferous ether.
    In respect to substance, it is considered unbounded both spatially and temporally;  or that in the least, time and space are meaningless to its presence.  For argument, one may claim it identical to zero space (the space between things, such as particles, where within nothing exists, including all forms of energy);  such a claim though counterproductive to understanding substance (not matter), by implying substance to be nothing.  In terms of complexity, substance is least complex.
    Though substance itself provides no spatial frame of reference, within a finite Descartian rigid frame of reference, any location of substance can be represented by three variables (i.e., x, y, z).  In terms of time, substance occurs in the NOW, thus not being subject to Lorentz Transforms, time being always equivalent to zero.

    In and by itself, though substance can do nothing, it serves as a backdrop to form, where without, form would be meaningless.  Of these forms, three of which are basic:  the point, the line and the surface, only the surface, within a three-dimensional field of substance can undergo significant interaction, which brings us to strings in space--the energy manifestations of dual-resonance particle studies.

 

    Though studies of this sort do not shown visible strings, three-dimensional plot points of energy zones, produce a linear array, unquestionably corresponding to the intersection of surfaces, a narrow region of potentially frequent interaction between surfaces themselves, providing these surface are intersecting at a very shallow angle.

    In this adjacent illustration, finite sections of two surfaces (red and blue) are shown intersecting along a white line.  The white line represents a string in space.  The necessity of a shallow angle is based upon field noise, the the propagation of minute field waves, called simple waves, moving between surfaces.  If the surfaces intersect at a steep angle, the waves cannot successfully impinge orthogonal to the next surface, thereby undergoing interaction. It is this interaction between surfaces which serves as the causative agent to forces at-a-distance, and which is no doubt detected in particle studies, as a somewhat random occurrence obeying a linear projection in space as illustrated by yellow plot points.
 

    As form, surfaces have no volume, being that they are infinitely thin.  Because of this, they are without structure, and therefor not rigid.  Because they are not rigid, they are free to move, bend and undulate, hence the potential for simple waves.

    In earlier work, surfaces were defined as contiguous position in space, implying that each surface was a smooth continuum unto itself.  But what if a surface was subject to conditions which might cause a tear, cusp or other discontinuity to appear?  If this were to occur, it would not seem reversible, hence the discontinuity could only worsen and grow larger.  What astronomers call the Great Wall could be an example of this;  a discontinuity, which in time has grown to embrace galaxies.

    Since all forces are conducted along surfaces as a lateral moment, the abrupt cessation, of say the force of gravity, between two portions of a torn surface could manifest as an anomaly, visually detectable as a uniformly anomalous displacement of stars and galaxies.

    I know that this can only be meaningless banter for the most of you, despite the most recent developments in both the detection and velocity measurements of dark matter, understood in theory to be equivalent to luminiferous ether.
    Hopefully you will treat me better than those guardians of Einstein's Relativity salted all over the Internet, angrily calling me a liar and other names, as well as insisting that the issue between relativity and luminiferous ether is closed.
    Not to be denied, and realizing two things, that (1) no amount of dialogue or publication of my theory would ever be recognized, and (2) any results I might present through experimentation and direct observation would be discredited in some way.  Hell!  It was done to Newton by religious advocates then, and considering today that 97% of scientists are religious, thus being pseudo scientists, it was being done to me.  In fact, most disappointing, Newton's Chair is now held by one of these pseudo scientists.
    As I say, not to be denied, in order to get around this juggernaut, I built a machine based on all that I told you, which upon a rather simple detection apparatus, tracks the center of our galaxy.
    Like they say, the proof is in the pudding.
 

Professor J. Emerson Webb - Ontology UCLA

See also preliminary debunking of the Time Magazine article and the Big Bang.