Here's my take on it, I don't have a doctorate in physics so its really just my understanding having read the linked paper. If you're a galaxy spinning around,

Here's my take on it, I don't have a doctorate in physics so its really just my understanding having read the linked paper. If you're a galaxy spinning around, as one does, and you use simple Newtownian physics to calculate the orbits, then there is a problem because at the velocity things are moving, they should be moving apart. And yet they are what appears to be otherwise stable orbits around the galactic center. So to solve that conundrum, one postulation has been that there is more mass in the galaxy than we can see. Since we can only see things that either emit light, or occlude things that are emitting light, that missing matter has been dubbed "dark." The paper, on the other hand, says "No, the force holding this thing together is the result of graviomagnetic forces generated by the masses moving around." (not something Newton ever considered, and really only comes into play at very large scales and very large velocities) If you accept the mathematics and the model in the paper, then it means you don't need dark matter to explain galaxy shape, which would mean that a number of physics Phds work is incorrect in describing what is going on.