any real understanding of a concept requires a solid grasp of highly complex mathematics.
Math is just a language, not "truth." Math must eventually relate to the real world; simply checking that the units on each side of the equation balance out is not enough.
But back to the original topic of dark matter, which was created as an ad hoc patch to a cosmology that could not properly account for the structure and movement of galaxies. Dark energy was added after that to balance out problems created by dark matter. Together, these patches make up 95% of the "stuff" in the universe.
I may not have fancy degrees in math, but the above sounds more like attempts to "save the phenomenon" (Big Bang) than a useful, predictive model. That is, it sounds like junk science. The layman sees one group saying, "The universe is non-intuitive and incomprehensible. You'll just have to trust us." Meanwhile, another group of equally degreed and working researchers says, "It doesn't make sense to us, either. We'd like to suggest an alternative model."
Some laymen are just gullible enough to listen to or even entertain some of the alternatives. I read it all because it's entertaining; I have no stake in any particular model.
A question for the math wizards—your professional, informed opinions—just out of curiosity: What do you think of the suggestion made in the original post? Keep in mind that hypotheses must be testable, and the OP involves substance that has not yet been detected and dimensions we cannot reach.