That link also claims that the results you're listing are not likely to hold up, including comments from an author of the paper used for the article. So if one of the paper;s own authors expects these claims to disappear once more data is gathered, then maybe it's too early to claim the end of dark matter.
After all, DM has been measured in many different ways. One surprising finding doesn't negate hundreds of surprising findings without significantly more evidence.
> shows that they are "Keplerian", i.e. following classical behavior without the influence of any purported dark matter.
That is NOT at all what the paper says [1]. if you actually read the paper, and don't interject your beliefs and reword it, in every instance they use the phrase "Keplerian decline," which does not AT ALL mean classical, which would break relativity and be a massive surprise. The phrase "Keplerian decline" means the measured items are less than expected for the previous model. The movement, even with this decline, are far beyond what Kepler's laws would imply (and even Kepler's laws are demonstrably wrong in our solar system - see the precession of Mercury for example).
That is begging the question. Claiming that DM has been measured many ways presupposes that the different ways that "it has been measured" are have the same cause, which itself is the dark matter hypothesis.
Until we get a multimodal observation of DM itself we can't claim that DM has been measured many ways. We are very much still in the "guessing that these things are DM" phase.
> we can't claim that DM has been measured many ways
Yes we can.
It's shown up in 1) precise measurements of galaxy rotation curves (relevant to this paper, which only addresses this method), 2) velocity spread of bound stars, 3) x-ray emission from hot gas, 4) gravitational lensing, 5) cosmic background radiation measurements in CMBFAST and others, 6) provides solutions to issues in stellar strucutre formation, 7) supernovae behavior, 8) baryon oscillations support DM via empirical evolution compared computed with and without, 9) redshift observations support DM also. There are more.
So yes, we could claim there are 39 different causes, but that the effects of DM would give all these results, historical (and Occam's Razor, a still useful part of physics) means the most likely explanation is the simplest - 1 cause until proven otherwise.
If you dig, you can find papers covering all this with the math and experimental and computational error bounds to see how well all of these (and more) line up.
Next you'll tell me there are 5 types of electrons, despite all experimental evidence being consistent with one type of electron.
The 1st is good, but also not predicted a priori by dark matter. In it's defense, it doesn't need fine tuning to work (it works out with ~the estimated amount of DM)
For all the minor ones there's a lot of fine tuning necessary to obtain the results. So it's not surprising that an LCDM model (which can select an arbitrary distribution of DM) can fit some sundry minor observations. Again, you're cherry picking the minor ones.
LCDM has a hard time with: external field effect, renzo's rule, Tully fisher relation (requires tons of fine tuning), early galaxies, why dense elliptical and lenticular galaxies as a rule have no DM, etc. those are all phenomena explained and predicted (except for Tully fisher) by e.g. MOND.
LCDM doesn't explain how the mitochondria function, or why my dog prefers to shit in the yard instead of in the house, so it is clearly a failed model for not having explanatory power on those observations
After all, DM has been measured in many different ways. One surprising finding doesn't negate hundreds of surprising findings without significantly more evidence.
> shows that they are "Keplerian", i.e. following classical behavior without the influence of any purported dark matter.
That is NOT at all what the paper says [1]. if you actually read the paper, and don't interject your beliefs and reword it, in every instance they use the phrase "Keplerian decline," which does not AT ALL mean classical, which would break relativity and be a massive surprise. The phrase "Keplerian decline" means the measured items are less than expected for the previous model. The movement, even with this decline, are far beyond what Kepler's laws would imply (and even Kepler's laws are demonstrably wrong in our solar system - see the precession of Mercury for example).
[1] https://www.aanda.org/component/article?access=doi&doi=10.10...