I did read your message, but it does not contain the answer to this specific quesiton, simply because it contains an example of an educated guess (predicting where your wife will be) and a fact (looking on the gps), but it failed to highlight the supposed substantial distinction between eduacted guess and hypothesis.
The difference is right there in your description. The difference is the testable nature of the proposal, and then the test itself. A hypothesis is a TESTABLE PROPOSAL, not an educated guess.
I repeated many times that saying a hypothesis is an educated guess isn't a negative thing, so I am not tryign to denigrate anything.
It isn't accurate, either. If they are one in the same in your eyes then why not use the term that all scientists use: hypothesis.
As to dark matter, scientists are proposing testable explanations, and then testing those explanations. That makes it a scientific hypothesis.
It would seem to me that supermassive blackholes at the center of galaxies suffer the same "problems" that dark matter suffers from. You can't directly observe a black hole because they do not radiate light. However, they do have a strong gravitational field. When you map the movements of stars in the center of the Milky Way they are all orbiting around a single point, but no luminous matter can be observed at this single point. When you calculate the mass needed to produce these orbits you find that only an object with several million solar masses can produce the observed orbits.
So would those who argue against dark matter being actual matter also argue against supermassive blackholes (also the result of matter) for the same reasons?