I should be clear: ordinary matter cannot explain the rotation curves with conventional gravity. One can come up with ad hoc modified theories of gravity, but none appears to be consistent with all the evidence.
See my comment above. Watch the whole video. Once you understand it, which you will, you will never talk about galaxy rotation curves again. Dark Matter may still be necessary, as a lot of unexplained has been dumped into the theory, but it is no longer necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves as a much simpler explanation exists, namely, gravitational tidal forces created by other galaxies in a cluster, which is very well understood and entirely explains curves of galaxy rotation and solves the winding problem.
Will a paper be more convincing? I think there's a book. Write the author and ask him.[1] But the simple and unambiguous explanation of galaxy cluster tidal forces is devastating to Dark Matter Theory in regards to galaxy rotation curves. Why anyone is still talking about Dark Matter as a viable explanation for galaxy rotation curves likely has to do with the paradigmatic nature of science which resists any change, plus that there are myriads that have wasted entire academic and scientific careers on Dark Matter.
A paper would tell one the thing passed peer review, and also let us look for papers publishing rebuttals. If it sank without a trace in the refereed literature, that's a screaming red flag.
I am very dubious the idea is correct. If objects at large distances from the galaxy center have these large relative velocities induced by external objects they wouldn't be bound to the galaxy.
> If objects at large distances from the galaxy center have these large relative velocities induced by external objects they wouldn't be bound to the galaxy.
Right. Tides must be caused by something other than the Moon because it's just too far away. No, wait, large masses have do have an effect across large distances. There are no isolated reference frames without gravity. Galaxy clusters do orbit around their center of gravity. Would you like to know how many theories in theoretical physics been proven? Precisely none of them, including Dark Matter Theory. This dubiousness is specious and, fwiw, a bandwagon argument.
You still haven't engaged on the idea that we haven't been doing full fidelity calculations based on vanilla general relativity and doing so yields non-negligible impacts on the lensing apparently. If you are using models which were meant to have their numbers crunched on an 80s pc then its possible it got too dumbed down. The assertion is that the theoretical error bars were improperly computed and should have been much larger.
