Q: What is the difference between faeries and dark matter?
I'm really disappointed in the huge number of astronomers who actually espouse support for such a bankrupt concept. They have violated one the basic tenets of science: If continual observation does not support your hypothesis, you throw it out and start creating a new hypothesis based upon the observations. You do NOT become emotionally attached to an old hypothesis, and then start attaching crust to it order to "make it fit."
"Dark matter" is in the same category as gremlins. Just because you don't understand how a mechanical device works (and thus how it can break down) does not make gremlins any more real. Likewise with so-called "dark matter". The observations do not support the old Hubble theory, but so many astronomers have been indoctrinated with "Hubble right; everyone else wrong", that they can no longer see the trees.
Get a clue, people. You're like Brahe laughing at Kepler for using his observations in "such an absurd manner."