How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?
Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.
How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
Irrelevant?
So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.
The same suggestion could be made for you. You don't know what dark matter is made of, you don't know what it is, what it does, or where it came from. It's equally ridiculous. Why not pixies that alter gravity? Pixies, in theory, would actually have mass and a gravitational pull that can be measured, whereas dark matter is still unobserved and unverified. You might as well believe in Gravity Pixies, because that's just as viable as "Dark Matter". It would be much simpler than "invisible weightless matter that magically has a gravitational pull".
Until you can prove dark matter without a doubt, don't knock AWT.