Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

[Michael Mozina]

Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet
https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397

Universe's highest electric current found
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ent-found/

We already have strong observational evidence that powerful electric currents traverse almost unimaginable distances of spactime. We also have mathematical models that describe the physical formations observed in currents in plasma, specifically field aligned "Birkeland currents":

http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF
https://youtu.be/fllqgFicLO4

One of the most important and unique predictions of a Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is the prediction that electrical currents move plasma in different directions at different radii from the center of the galaxy. Some plasma current can be moving in one direction (clockwise), and other currents (further from the radii) moving in the opposite direction (counter clockwise), and it's fully capable of easily transporting a bi-directional flow of current.

What we should "predict" that we should find in a Birkeland current driven galaxy rotation model are instances of counter rotational movements in at least some galaxies. Likewise we would expect that at least some few galaxies wouldn't necessarily have much current flowing through each and every galaxy, in which case gravity alone should suffice to explain the rotation patterns of galaxies without strong external currents present. In both instance, both predictions have been observed.

Counter-Rotation in Disk Galaxies
https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1263

We certainly do observe galaxies that display counter rotational elements in them as predicted by Birkeland currents. We also observe at least some galaxies which seem to be well explained by gravity alone.

Unusual Galaxies Defy Dark Matter Theory – W. M. Keck Observatory
http://keckobservatory.org/df2-df4/

Considering the far greater range of "predictions" made by a Birkeland current driven galaxy rotation model, compared to a dark matter model, the Birkeland current rotation model seems far more robust. It not only explains why some galaxies rotate faster in some instances, it also explains the existence of counter rotation rings in some galaxies as well.

We also have additional evidence of field aligned currents over a billion of light years long:

Why do galaxies align?
http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/news/ ... xies-align

Everywhere we look, galaxies trace out the paths of these filaments. But it turns out galaxies don’t just illuminate the cosmic web — they’re also shaped by it.

From the planetary scale, to the galactic scale to the billion light year scale we see evidence of currents in space. The Birkeland current model of galaxy rotation is *far* better than the dark matter model at explaining various galaxy rotation patterns and in terms of explaining why galaxies are formed by and shaped by the filaments of spacetime.

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I posted this same thread to the r/space forum on Reddit twice and it was removed twice, without even bothering to tell me why the post was removed, or even telling me that it was removed.

The mainstream really can't handle an honest scientific debate on any topic in astronomy. The moment they feel threatened by the content, they simply remove it.

[D_Archer]

FYI, I posted this same thread to the r/space forum on Reddit twice and it was removed twice, without even bothering to tell me why the post was removed, or even telling me that it was removed.

The mainstream really can't handle an honest scientific debate on any topic in astronomy. The moment they feel threatened by the content, they simply remove it.

I feel ya Michael, i had a Stellar Metamorphosis thread on the science section of the GrahamHancock message board for 5 years that just got moved to the 'Paranormal' board... anyhooo this is off-topic, and als the EU mods do not allow SM in the EU parts of the forum
---

On topic...

The greater galactic motions are governed by greater extra galactic forces, this is how nature operates. Luckily the scale repeats for the smaller scale, motions in stellar systems and likely in atomic systems...

I am thinking about how EU might be able to not just do Safire but also Birkeland current laboratory experiments. Maybe Billy Yelverton can do this, create a an electric field with spinning plates, or a microwave emitter (maser) and an offset pyramidion to create a twisting current filament... put some dust in there and see what happens..

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I posted this same thread to the r/space forum on Reddit twice and it was removed twice, without even bothering to tell me why the post was removed, or even telling me that it was removed.

The mainstream really can't handle an honest scientific debate on any topic in astronomy. The moment they feel threatened by the content, they simply remove it.

I feel ya Michael, i had a Stellar Metamorphosis thread on the science section of the GrahamHancock message board for 5 years that just got moved to the 'Paranormal' board... anyhooo this is off-topic, and als the EU mods do not allow SM in the EU parts of the forum

Instead they only want to talk about a cosmology model that requires 4 metaphysical constructs and fails every lab test and observation test that I can think of. Go figure.

---

On topic...

The greater galactic motions are governed by greater extra galactic forces, this is how nature operates. Luckily the scale repeats for the smaller scale, motions in stellar systems and likely in atomic systems...

I am thinking about how EU might be able to not just do Safire but also Birkeland current laboratory experiments. Maybe Billy Yelverton can do this, create a an electric field with spinning plates, or a microwave emitter (maser) and an offset pyramidion to create a twisting current filament... put some dust in there and see what happens..

Regards,
Daniel

I think you're absolutely right that BC lab experiments are an absolute must, and I would love to see SAFIRE empowered (funded) enough to try out Birkeland's full range of solar experiments, including a cathode solar model.

Between those two types of lab experiments, and plasma redshift experiments, it's probably possible to explain just about every observation that we see in solar physics and the universe at ever larger scales. It's pretty much a given that EU/PC theory scales well.

I'm really dismayed about how much money and wasted effort that we're squandering on dark matter research and dark energy stuff, inflation, string theory, multiverse nonsense, etc. With a *tiny fraction* of that cost we could be learning the secrets of the universe from empirical laboratory experimentation.

I do believe that Scott's Birkeland current model is the single biggest scientific and mathematical threat to the LCDM model. There are two currently accepted (at least discussed) mathematical models to describe galaxy rotation, MOND theory and dark matter. Neither of them predicts counter rotation, or complex counter rotation patterns. There is already confirmation that at least some percentage of galaxies exhibit counter rotation. Dark matter models do not predict that. MOND models don't predict that either. Neither of the two 'discussed' galaxy rotation models comes even close to explaining both simple counter rotation processes, but also *very complex* counter rotation patterns. We already have confirmed complex counter rotation on Jupiter, so we know it works on a planetary scale. If we find ever more complex counter rotation patterns in galaxies, that's ever more evidence that the cause of counter rotation is Birkeland currents.

Scott also discusses Markland currents that tend to separate the rotation zones by ionization potential, with iron near the center, and hydrogen further from the center. This type of elemental separation would be interpreted by the mainstream as "older" (more metals) stars in one rotation zone, and "younger" (fewer metals) in other zones. That's another possible way to test the model.

If the reaction at /space is any example, they're frightened to the core that a Birkeland current model will replace their dark matter galaxy model, particularly if it's presented in a three way comparison with MOND theory as well. MOND is currently "acceptable" to the mainstream because it doesn't include electricity, and is a gravity-centric perspective of space, but the counter rotation patterns don't jive with those two models. The dead give away is the counter rotation. You need currents to sustain that counter rotation pattern.

The mathematical model of the counter rotational processes *is* of interest to the mainstream. They can try to deny it, or hide that mathematical model from fellow astronomers by wiping it off their boards, but they cant deny their own inquisitive nature forever. We already have ample planetary evidence of concentric Birkeland currents and even complex Birkeland currents on Jupiter. We already have several galactic examples of concentric Birkeland currents too. The more complex those patterns that we discover at the galactic level, the more it provides additional evidence to support Birkeland current models. They haven't even been looking for such counter rotation patterns until recently (last couple of decades) and already they have several examples.

The moment Dr. Scott's galaxy rotation model is mathematically compared to the other two models, it's game over at counter rotation. They can't handle that part of the debate. The moment they embrace Birkeland currents in space, is the moment they're forced to admit we live inside of an electric universe and it's game over for the whole LCDM model too.

So what do they do? Remove the content and run and try to bury their heads in the sand in the middle of the information age and the internet age.

The fear factor is simply amazing. I think my first posting attempt at /space lasted about 10 minutes before it was removed, and it lasted about 20 minutes the second time under a slightly different title and a minor upgrade. They can't remove that model fast enough because it's a mathematical challenge to their DM model and they can't handle counter rotation.

It's like watching a Ptolemy majority trying to come to terms with Copernicus and Galileo. Their great fear of electricity in space isn't going to change the fact that there's electricity in space, and the evidence of it's existence is undeniable on every scale.

[Michael Mozina]

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... thographic

This link that Dr. Scott suggested is awesome. Check out the Earth's solar polar region and the counter rotational wind patterns at the high range of the Height setting. Change the setting by clicking on the bottom left corner of the screen and selecting different heights above the surface. The further from the landmasses, the more the wind resembles an ordinary Birkeland current, complete with counter rotation. The further we get to the surface, the more the landmasses interact with and change those wind/Birkeland currents.

Earth is relatively small compared to Jupiter, and Jupiter has a stronger magnetic field, so the counter rotation patterns are far more complex, and separated into more bands.

It probably works that way with galaxies too. A bigger galaxy in the middle of a intergalactic freeway sized Birkeland current is likely to exhibit some really complex counter rotation patterns. Small galaxies might not be as complex. As Scott suggests, they can even be severed from external currents and gravity alone might dictate such rotation patterns.

In terms of the mathematical potential, Scott's model is *huge* scientific threat to both MOND theory and DM theory as it applies to galaxy rotation patterns. Neither of the other two models even predicts counter rotation, and neither of them predicts *complex* counter rotation nor is either other model applicable to planetary events. Scott's model already enjoys observational support at the planetary scale, and even support for complex counter rotation at the planetary scale.

More importantly however, it already has support for counter rotation at the galactic scale as well.

This is like a slam dunk in basketball. Counter rotation is the hoop. Scott just made a slam dunk.

[nigma46]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for posting. I've noticed the counter rotation on Earths south pole using the nullschool data also, including your remark about the lower in elevation you go the more the effect of the landscape dominates and hides the more regular simple rotation of the higher elevation winds.

I posted a comparison on twitter:

[Michael Mozina]

It seems like there is pretty good evidence that planetary wind patterns may very well be related to planetary sized Birkeland current flows through their poles. There's also this same counter rotation process occurring at the scale of galaxies too, and the galaxies themselves are aligned along these currents.

I really do think that Dr. Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model could be the catalyst of change that brings us out of the dark ages of astronomy into the light of empirical physics. There's no other galaxy rotation model that even comes close to explaining counter rotational galaxies. If you watch Scott's presentation at EU 2017 he plays a video of the mainstream astronomer Merrrifield trying to explain a counter rotating galaxy. It was hilarious. He essentially describes a "hot gas" pouring into the galaxy at just the right spots and directions so as to perfectly describe a Birkeland current without using the term. He also does a nice job explaining how difficult it would be to find such counter rotation patterns in galaxies using our current technology. Even still, we have plenty of examples of them already.

The part that makes me optimistic is the fact that Dr. Scott provided a *mathematical model* of how galaxy rotation works, and the model itself makes incredibly unique and easily testable predictions about the speed and directional flow of matter in galaxies. MOND theory and dark matter theories can't touch those counter rotation predictions, and the kicker is the fact that such counter rotational properties have already been found in multiple galaxies. I'm optimistic that the mainstream's love of unique and powerful mathematical models will eventually allow them to overcome their horrible case of electrophobia. The real trick is getting the Birkeland current galaxy rotation model out there for public debate.

[Michael Mozina]

Make that three times /space has removed my post about Birkeland currents.

The fear factor in astronomy is palpable. They simply cannot handle an honest scientific debate.

[Michael Mozina]

Dr. Scott's Birkeland current paper and galaxy rotation paper/model really is the killer app of cosmology theory. Right now there are only two "official" galaxy rotation models allowed to be published in astronomy oriented magazines and neither of them predict counter rotation, let alone complex counter rotation patterns. Counter rotation in various types of galaxies have already been observed and documented. A third "official" model is therefore a necessity, and it has to include counter rotation. The Birkeland current model does so without adding any new ad hoc elements to electromagnetism or particle physics.

Dark matter theory is not compatible with the standard model of particle physics. It's attached to a cosmology model that grossly violates the conservation laws of physics on cosmic scales. It's key predictions are at odds with actual observations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... edictions/

Dark matter is a hypothetical entity. It makes no predictions related to counter rotation of galaxies. It's physical descriptions change from paper to paper, and it *still* makes no predictions about counter rotation. It's a complete disaster in the lab.

MOND theory doesn't address or predict counter rotation observations either. It requires a modification to Newtonian equations, which then must be married to a GR based cosmology model? The self conflicted implications of such a Frankenmodel that's based on Newtonian dynamics, general relativity *AND* QM in term of explaining inflation, etc, is simply unfathomable.

Neither of those two options is particularly compelling with respect to working well with other branches of science.

The Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is fully compatible with the standard model of particle physics. That's certainly a more attractive option in terms of working well with other branches of science.

More importantly, it makes incredibly unique, and highly unusual 'counter rotation' predictions compared to either the MOND model or the dark matter model. This offer us an opportunity to "test" all three models and potentially falsify the Birkeland current model.

All the galaxy rotation models are potentially capable of explaining the rotation *speeds alone* of any given galaxy. MOND theory doesn't explain the bullet cluster paper, but many flaws in the baryonic mass estimation techniques make that a moot point IMO. Only one of the three models can and does explain counter rotation features as well, including even potentially complex counter rotation processes.

Most importantly, the Birkeland current model is based *exclusively* upon Maxwell's equations and the physical principles described in and by those equations. It "better" explains the whole range of galaxy rotation patterns, including counter rotation patterns.

Since neither of the other two galaxy rotation models predicts counter rotation, the only logical choice of a clear winner is the model that is compatible with the standard model of particle physics, based entirely upon Maxwell's equations, and which is more predicatively useful.

We even have observations of complex counter rotation occurring at the poles of Jupiter, so the Birkeland current model is scale-able to many orders of magnitude.

Maxwell's equations allow us to predict a counter rotation process present in all current exchanges between objects in space, including complex objects like galaxies and planetary atmospheres. Scott's paper includes two very unique predictions (counter rotation/ionization state separation of elements) that warrant "testing", and technically both of those predictions have already been observed through spectroscopy.

The more galaxies we study, the more complex galaxy counter rotation processes we're likely to find. Each and every one will be another feather in the cap of the Birkeland current model of galaxy rotation.

Scott's model is well supported by the polar atmospheric movements around Jupiter and the Earth. The Birkeland current model offers cosmology a mathematical mechanism to better understand the wind patterns around planets and rotational patterns of entire galaxies.

This is one galaxy rotation model that could be mathematically enticing enough to get mainstream interest. The dark matter galaxy rotation model really offers no explanation for counter rotation or complex counter rotation (3 or more counter rotation bands). Dark matter theory has failed a number of it's own internal tests too. There's nothing to be lost by abandoning a metaphysical concept like DM, and embracing Maxwell's equations. In fact there's everything to be gained, including a full understanding of counter rotation in planetary and cosmological applications.

The one 'sticking point' in the past was the lack of an observation of *no dark matter*, and the lack of having multiple examples of galaxy counter rotation across a variety of galaxy types. Since that confirmation now exists, it's really only a matter of time before the Birkeland current model becomes "popular".

When one embraces the Birkeland current model, there's no way to ignore the electrical aspects of space, and the LCDM cosmology model just looks like an inelegant metaphysical monstrosity.

Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model could indeed be the 'killer app' of cosmology that finally kills off the LCDM model.

[Michael Mozina]

So.......
Here's the response that I got from my OP on Reddit over on the /space forum finally. Note that I've posted a version of the OP of this thread over there four times in total and they simply removed it the first three times with no explanation whatsoever. This is the message that I got today only after the forth time that I posted it and they removed it.

MOND, Dark Matter or Birkeland Currents?
no anti-scientific/sensational content

So essentially changing Newton's laws of gravitation to suit yourself is considered to be pro-"science", as it the introduction of hypothetical forms of matter that are not compatible with the standard scientific model of particle physics and which has failed every test on the books.

However, the introduction of Maxwell's equation to plasma is somehow "anti-scientific/sensational content". Wow. Irony overload. At least they finally cited a specific reason for simply removing the content again.

I think that the observation of counter rotation of galaxies is the mainstream's Waterloo. Their two approved galaxy rotation models are not even slightly competitive in explaining galaxy counter rotation patterns, so they simply remove the content that threatens their downfall. How predictable.

The mainstream adamantly and dishonestly claims that they want to see mathematical models and published support of EU/PC models, but when you hand it to them on a silver platter, they immediately remove the content. What a bunch of completely unethical hypocrites.

They don't care one iota about the math which undermines their own predictions and claims about satellite galaxies, or their math related to laboratory 'tests" that come up empty. They don't care that their own mathematical equations failed to predict counter rotation, and they don't want to read about any mathematical models and observations associated with any other idea that might threaten their dark matter model.

The mainstream's motto:

"Since we can't compete, cheat! Silence and burn the heretics, one and all!"

I guess the mainstream figures that if they bury their collective heads in the sand, nobody will notice them.

[Michael Mozina]

There are at least three important and incredibly unique predictions of Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.

1. Counter rotation. We've only been looking for counter rotating galaxies for the past couple of decades, it's challenging work, but already we've found numerous examples of counter rotation in virtually every type of galaxy. Neither DM or MOND predicts this.

2. Marklund convection. Merrifield has already verified that the outer disk of at least one galaxy contains more hydrogen than the inside disk. Scott discusses that issue in his video and explains why it's an important test of the BK model.

3. Galaxy collisions are not "random" or directed exclusively by gravity.Messier 82 (The Cigar Galaxy) Observable Birkeland currents direct the merger process. Stellar production is directed by current density, with the center of the current carrying the bulk of the mass.

These are all very important, and already verified predictions of a Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.

Logically speaking, the existence of galaxies which require no dark matter can "probably" be used to eliminate MOND theory. If at least some galaxies follow an ordinary Newtonian rotation pattern, then modifying Newtons formulas probably isn't advisable or warranted.

This leaves us with two remaining galaxy rotation models.

One of them predicts all three of the above mentioned observations. It's fully consistent with the standard model of particle physics, and first principles that are derived directly from Maxwell's equations.

The other galaxy rotation model is directly at odds with the standard particle physics model. It does not attempt to explain any of the three previously mentioned phenomenon in space which we have already observed. It's simworld computer models of satellite galaxies are directly at odds with the observation of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk. It not only failed it's own 'internal' predictive "test", it fails to predict at least three other known observations of galaxies.

Which of these two remaining models then is the most "predicatively useful" in terms of describing the universe that we live in?

This isn't even a contest anymore.

MOND theory is marginalized/falsified by observations of at least some galaxies following a Newtonian rotation pattern. DM theory has no predictive value whatsoever. In fact, the DM computer models are directly at odd with observations of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk of various galaxies.

The Birkeland current model is *far* superior to DM models, it's completely consistent with particle physics, and it's already been verified in at least three different ways, none of which are predictions of mainstream models.

From the perspective of science, and particularly empirical (in the lab) science, it's simply no contest. Even if we base the comparison on predictive value as it relates to galaxy observation, it's also no comparison at all. In terms of consistency with ordinary particle physics and plasma physics, it's also no contest. There's no criteria by which any other model is superior to the Birkeland current galaxy rotation model.

[Michael Mozina]

The reaction to Dr. Scott's galaxy rotation model at /universe at Reddit was amusing. For five days the thread stayed active, and there wasn't a whole lot of commentary, but it did receive an excess of up votes. Eventually (five days later) someone did 'complain' about it in the message section, and the post was removed without even notifying me at all.

Even when you hand astronomers published supporting material galore, and mathematical models galore, they simply discard them like so much trash, and actively hide them from other readers.

The mainstream isn't the least bit interested in truth or physics, just job protection and ego protection.

[Xantos]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for posting. I've noticed the counter rotation on Earths south pole using the nullschool data also, including your remark about the lower in elevation you go the more the effect of the landscape dominates and hides the more regular simple rotation of the higher elevation winds.

I posted a comparison on twitter:

Thank you!!! I was looking for someone to bring up such a comparison. It is just like I always imagined it would be.

As I suggested to people in astronomy / climate science / physics - but to no avail, since I don't have the correct pedigree - we have all of the LEGO puzzle pieces available to us just by looking up the sky in our vicinity.

If you are interested in how planets form, you HAVE to find a way to fund research into Saturn's rings and its fringing properties (proto Moons). Planets are just a bigger form of a Moon. Earth is to Sun as Moon is to Earth. And I bet you a top dollar even Earth had rings at one point in its history.

If you want to know how Sun influences winds and climate (and how climate is of extraterrestrial origin, not caused by humans), look at Solar weather, Jupiter and Saturn.

It's all up there, no politics or Green New Deals needed.

[Michael Mozina]

Amazing!

This is the first time I have ever seen Michael run.

LOL! I hate to burst your bubble HotBlack, but you still haven't seen me run.

The mods at CF have placed a temporary ban on my participation on the P&LS forum, although I can post everywhere else on the CF board. I've been waiting for a response from the mods to point out the post or sentence where I presumably broke the posted rules, but alas I haven't received a response yet from my question. I was hoping to finish our conversation at CF, but if I don't hear back from the mods soon, I'll start a new thread on Reddit where you're welcome to join:

https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/

You're welcome to take up the conversation on Reddit anytime you wish to continue the conversation.

I mean don't get me wrong he has been a laughing stock since the JREF days when he embarrassed himself about MRx,....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=5119

That's absolutely hysterical. Almost an entire decade has passed, and I'm *still* waiting to see one of you mathematical aficionados from JREF/ISF produce a mathematical formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clinger's pathetic vacuum contraption, or even admit that Clinger produced a grand total of *zero* "magnetic reconnection" in his absurd vacuum presentation. A whole decade has passed and you're still defending that vacuum reconnection nonsense and bringing it up on CF! You folks embarrassed yourselves in truly epic fashion, and you only continue to embarrass yourselves by failing to produce Clinger's missing math formula or for failing to ever bother to set poor Clinger straight. The JREF/ISF posse has *zero* credibility with respect to the topic of MRx. Wow!

though 1=0.5

This is a perfect example that demonstrates just how unethical EU/PC haters really are. I had to *fix* and simplify Selfsim's original *FAILED* formula, and I used the simplified formula correctly to produce the correct number. The 1-.5 crap was simply sjastro's unethical BS, simply because I used a two digit variable in my simplified formula. I explained the issue a dozen times or more and I even pointed out where I used the formula correctly, and you folks still repeat the same lies. Yawn. That's why EU haters have no credibility and it's why I don't take any of you seriously. You have no ethics in the first place which is why I hear all that BS about "no neutrinos" and crap about Birkeland having three solar models on your personal blogs and websites and nobody ever points out or fixes that BS. EU haters have no ethics whatsoever.

But everytime he returns with some new press release her can't quite understand, ignores the previous points and is ready to advocate more EU woo.

Ya, and eventually you'll see me back on the P&LS forum at CF too, poking even more holes in your LCDM Swiss cheese woo.

I really think this is a sign that the EU cult is collapsing. Even their staunchest propagandists have run out of ammunition.

That's absolutely hilarious. You're clearly projecting. Your whole precious expansion model is falling apart at the seams *again*. Your billions of dollars worth of dark matter experiments have been epic failures, one and all. The expansion speed estimates between the CMB and Hubble observations are self conflicted and it *already* requires four metaphysical constructs.

The refusal of the collective internet hive mind, to allow obvious nonsense to flourish is truly inspiring.

Well done! (a lurker)

Oh the irony coming from a guy who's peddling a cosmology model that violates the conservation of energy laws and that remains self conflicted even with 4 different metaphysical fudge factors to work with. Sheesh.

[celeste]

MOND theory is marginalized/falsified by observations of at least some galaxies following a Newtonian rotation pattern. DM theory has no predictive value whatsoever.

Do any galaxies follow a Newtonian rotation pattern? I still haven’t seen one. Keep in mind, Don says his model explains galactic rotation, without using gravity at all. As it turns out, his curve also explains why we should have this spike in rotation at galactic center (without invoking a black hole). See, his curve predicts not only the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer galaxy (without using dark matter), but also the spike in rotation at G.C., without invoking a black hole.

This fits with observations that are coming in, that gravity breaks down on scales of 7000au, or only 0.11 light year.
This coming in as we search for extrasolar planets.

Remember here, that even in galaxies where gravity first appears to work, we find problems. For example, in the part of our galaxy where the inverse square law appears to explain the rotation curve, we still have the winding problem, in that any differential rotation at all (anything other than galaxies rotating as a solid disk, still leaves the arms
Winding up over time). Also, in elliptical galaxies (the shape sounds like what we’d expect from gravity), there is not motion of stars corresponding to that shape.

If we zoom in more, right here inside our own galaxy, we have problems with gravity on the scale of star clusters, and the crazy rotation of the ring of stars known as Gould’s s belt.

Then we have this
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf
That suggests G is directionally dependent with respect to fixed stars.

I’ll suggest this: since gravity appears to break down on the scale of interstellar filaments (remember that “typical” filament width of tenths of a light year? , or merely observe the width of the individual filaments in the “double helix nebula”), and it appears to be directionally dependent, perhaps gravity is only the pressure inside of interstellar gas clouds. But I really don’t want to derail your thread with a discussion of what gravity actually is, so.....

I’ll just argue that there is no case where gravity works on the galactic scale, to explain ALL the dynamics. Not just rotation, but the winding problem, etc. Yes, you are right, Don Scott’s model can explain all this, but I would take away even more of the mainstream’s apparent successes on the galactic scale. Although again, reiterating the mainstream’s spectacular successes in using gravity on the solar system scale. Gravity appears to be a finite range force. We’ve seen those on another scale, right?