Dear Sándor,

The problem is that it just is a fairy tale with a weak scientific substantiation.

Disc galaxies are in fact created by the gravitomagnetic north-south compression that is generated by fast spinning stars, which create gravitational dipoles in the bulge of disc galaxies.

In fact, disc galaxies are formed out of spherical or elliptical galaxies, which get collapsed stars in the center, and then form dipoles. These dipoles will make swivel all the orbits in the same, prograde direction, the same as when electromagnets would align.

The basic reason for this effect is that parallel moving masses attract slightly more than non-moving masses.

The sum of all the gravitational dipoles gives an average gravitational angular momentum that is transmitted to the surroundings.

The disc galaxy will compress in north-south direction, and the formation of spirals occur afterwards, due to the higher density, like drops on a metal plate clutter.

The average angular momentum is transmitted to the whole disc.

Bar galaxies are created by the sudden collapse of a number of fast spinning stars in the core (bulge). Their gravitational angular momentum increases dramatically, and the orientation of the average gravitational angular momentum changes.

This new direction is transmitted to the disc, from the center to the outer parts. So, the whole disc will bit by bit get reoriented into a newly oriented disc galaxy.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/58/Thierry,%20De%20Mees

Sándor:

I would suggest limiting the scope of the paper. You are proposing a mechanism for gamma-ray bursts to alter the structure of a galaxy. Whether or not you can prove that theory, by extending it to dismiss the effects of dark matter you are introducing a completely unrelated topic that is bound to make it seem like you are over-reaching. Theories of galaxy formation and shape are generally treated as being due only to their mass and interactions with other nearby galaxies (when there are such galaxies); and the question of whether that mass includes "dark matter" does not enter into "standard" theory at all.

Of course, you may be conflating the two different types of dark matter -- dark matter in galaxies, which certainly exists but has unknown nature, and dark matter between galaxies, which is believed to exist but may or may not, depending on who you talk to (most cosmologists believe it exists, but there is a sizable minority who suspect that something else may be involved). So if you feel that you absolutely must include the topic of dark matter, you should clarify which kind you are trying to do away with.

I should admit that I have not read your entire paper -- just the abstract and enough of the start to see where you are going -- but I doubt that reading any more of it would change my comments. I must also state that although I help this hopes, I am too busy with other things to actually help "edit" your paper.

Finally, I would recommend that you ignore the comments by Mr. De Mees. Though I am sure he can make statements that seem to confirm his theories, they are as far from generally accepted physics as anything I have ever read. I do not mean to insult Mr. De Mees, who is entitled to his opinions; but since you are trying to get your paper accepted, you need to realize that you should move your proposals in a direction that is closer to what the general scientific community considers acceptable, if you want that community to take notice of your work.

Dear Prof Courtney Seligman,

You wrote: "dark matter in galaxies, which certainly exists but has unknown nature".

Well, maybe I have read this a million times, but that doesn't make it true of course.... It is your right to follow the herd....

However, dark matter is a chimera, because mainstream scientists do not understand that momentum is carried by gravity. This makes dark matter useless.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/58/Thierry,%20De%20Mees

Thank you both for taking the time to read the manuscript and provide feedback. Courtney, I'm really grateful for your valuable insight, I'm changing the focus of the manuscript as you suggested.

Dear Sandor,

You start by saying "Our hypothesis is an alternative to dark matter theory." so I would recommend that you review all the different indications for its existence. For example, does your hypothesis explain the abundance of deuterium, the peaks of the CMB angular power spectrum, the flatness of the universe, the early formation of structure and so on. In particular this paper is highly topical and certainly relevant:

Article GW170817 Falsifies Dark Matter Emulators

Thank you very much.