Perhaps the problem with some people is in semantics. If that's the definition of dark matter, why not use a better term that means "something that influences t

Perhaps the problem with some people is in semantics. If that's the definition of dark matter, why not use a better term that means "something that influences things on galactic scales that we can't yet explain". Calling it 'dark matter', implies or assumes that it must be only be what constitutes as 'matter' that's behind the cause. It closes many minds to considering the possibility that something that has no mass or volume could be behind the cause. You know something 'non-mattery'? And that begs the question, if has 'non-mattery' attributes in behavior, perhaps calling it 'matter' in definition is a bit misleading?