The End of Dark Matter

To be blunt, I've always thought dark matter was a kludge. As it has grown from a weird theory in the 80s to a part of the Standard Model, I have watched with dismay. Why?
1) There is no evidence
2) The theory is ad-hoc
3) The theory has no real mathematical or physical basis (hence the constant spate of press releases about how the newest model in particle physics is dark matter
4) It is... inelegant

I have been a proponent of an alternate theory, that space is discrete not continuous and leads to a non-uniform Newtonian gravity field for mass, i.e. gravity gets weaker at long (and oddly very short) distances. This has it's own flaws of course
1) There is little evidence, and what there is is open to other explanations
2) It seems, again, ad hoc
3) it doesn't have a mathematical formalism

Until now...

This seems to be excellent progress toward turning this into actual science.

We have made the theory complete, connected the loose pieces of theory by one nice formula, and we think this formula has deep physics behind it. This theory is now fully specified so we can check it now."
This is the crucial part of any scientific theory: if it is capable of being tested and therefore falsified, it can be taken seriously. If scientists fail to knock it down, the theory gains credibility.
The new formula will be debated at a meeting at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory in April, when Dr Zhao and Dr Famaey, of the Free University of Brussels, will demonstrate their new formula on dark matter and gravity to an audience of experts from ten countries. They can expect a stormy ride.
"When people say 96 per cent of the universe is dark, that's an assumption," Dr Zhao said. "We don't need to introduce huge amounts of dark matter to explain the astronomical phenomena.