RAZD, most of the stuff you've mentioned is in General Relativity.
I'm going to ask you now "What do you think General Relativity says and what is it about, what is it a theory of?"
You say that the idea of Dark Matter is dogmatic in physics, but surely of all the thousands of physicists trained over the past few decades, some of them would have come to the conclusion that the Dark Matter idea was wrong if the flaw was so obvious.
The reason Dark Matter is accepted, is literally a combination of the Scientific Method and Occum's Razor.
It had the most observational observation, far more than alternate theories of gravity.
Also the fact is that General Relativity has withstood so much tests within Solar Systems (not just our own).
So the first thing you presume when subbing in all the Stars in a galaxy for
T(u,v) and you don't get the right galaxy rotation curve isn't "General Relativity is wrong", but that perhaps there are sources of Stress-Energy we missed.
So far this assumption has more evidence than an alternate theory of gravity.
Thats Dark Matter.
As for Dark Energy, it's already in General Relativity and isn't an epicycle in any manner.
What your saying is a perfectly valid criticism when it comes to Dark Matter, but of the two options "Dark Matter" and "New theory of Gravity", the former has the most evidence and thats why we go with it.
Look at the microlensing searches that ran from the 1970s (and in earnest from the 1980s) and are still running.
Most importantly those that looked at the large Magellanic cloud.
™ Version 4.2
