Yeah, that's a good point.
haha, that's funny
im impressed by the level of noise in that data
The "60 different dark matter types" are 60 guesses as to what dark matter could be... if it turns out to be some form of exotic matter. The reason for the label "dark matter" is that our observations such as the orbital speed of stars in galaxies and gravitational lensing requires more gravitation and a different distribution of the source of that gravitation than can be accouned for by the matter we can observe (such as stars). We don't have a clue yet why. It may even turn out to be that the reason what we see at those scales don't match the predictions of our models is that our models need refining.
Are you really not aware of any historical attempts to explain things that appear laughably naive with respect to modern science?
It is difficult to impossible to tell what explanation will turn out to be outrageous until after the fact. Luminiferous aethers, phlogiston, humors, etc. all sounded "perfectly reasonable" to people at the time they were proposed as explanations. Today we have unexplained observations and "dark matter" as some exotic theoretical substance like sterile neutrinos (as in the article) is being offered as an explanation. A better answer is we just don't know but that there are many many possible explanations, none of which should be taken too seriously but all investigated. It is when someone assumes they have the answer (when there really isn't enough evidence for that particular assumption) then ignores other possibilities that it becomes outrageous, unless they happen to be right which is damned rare.
