@physicists I’m not sure what to make of this proposal. Is this legitimate or not? Seems almost stream of consciousness in the reasoning, but I don’t have the expertise to assess.
Not. Just skimming through it I found so many mistakes that my head hurts. I am surprised that Scientific Reports published it.
I was pretty skeptical.
It seems that they were arguing that the black hole at the center of the Galaxy was having a large effect on distant stars independent of gravity, and this some how ensured galaxies had a double spiral like DNA???
How did that get published?
@PdotdQ take a look at this equally baffling self-citation from that article:
The author seems to have taken a number of concepts that he does not understand, and jumbled them up.
If you have the time and inclination and a handy bottle of aspirin, I’d enjoy a cursory list of some of those mistakes and why physics shows them to be mistakes or misunderstandings.
The forum has many posts of this type on biology dealing with posters who ignore or misconstrue the biology, but not many on physics. One example for physics was your exchange with the poster who (I understood) was trying to formulate a modified Newtonian approach to explaining the observations usually explained by dark matter.
Maybe not this time, I’m running low on time and aspirin.