Dark Matter soon to be found !

The BBC has just reported that the search for dark matter is reaching a crux http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24733131 as measurements are now sensitive enough to have a high chance of finding it, if it exists.  I don't think it will be found, and now that a result is expected, it should start to change the direction of big physics when it is not.

As the article says "Dark matter is thought to make up 27% of the Universe. But astronomers have only been able to infer its existence through the gravitational effects it has on visible matter in the Universe". Surely it is much more reasonable to look for a gravitational explanation for the phenomenon, than to seek stuff that does not absorb, emit, have temperature or any other detectable characteristics.

We know that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing.  I am also hanging my hat on the assumption that gravity is not a real force, but a fictitious force like centrifugal force.  If so it means that another set of physicists trying to reconcile gravity with the three fundamental forces are sort of wasting their time.  So if we have a system comprising a horizontal perfectly smooth table with a hole in the centre, a string through it holding a mass underneath connecting to a mass on the table, when the upper mass orbits the hole at a speed giving equilibrium, we have tension on the string caused by two fictitious forces balancing each other.  Tension in the upper part is centripetal force causing the upper mass to change its direction twice every revolution.  The equal and opposite lower-string tension is what is traditionally called the reaction force of the Earth opposing gravity's force, but is in fact the string accelerating the lower mass (F = m a) (though it appears stationary) at a rate of 9.81m/s^2 upwards.  Everything sitting on the surface of the Earth is experiencing a push upwards which amounts to the same thing.

This means, as I understand it from L2 Physics, that we are in a rotating (non-inertial) frame of reference (not the Earth rotating, that is irrelevant, I mean the whole of spacetime).  I expect that general relativists know this very well.  The quandary is that our environment is shaped such that the distance between ourselves and any recumbent antipodeans is not changing even though our relative acceleration is -19.62m/s^2.

The reference point is the centre of the Earth, the thing that is bending spacetime locally to result in this behaviour.  So the question is either (a) are three spatial + one time (3S+T) dimensions enough, and time is real enough to enable gravity, or (b) is a fourth spatial dimension (4S+T) required, as I have been arguing for a while now.  My reading of the subject so far tells me (a) that there cannot be a fourth large spatial dimension, or the inverse square law would have to be inverse-cube law, which it isn't, and (b) that physics doesn't need time, except to deal with entropy.  Well I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

If GR already explains how masses accelerating away from each other can also not be changing their distance apart, then surely the role of time is fundamental, and surely the shape of the Universe should be something that can be described in some way.  I look forward to seeing it.

Meantime I wait for the news that dark matter is made of cheese . . .