[ncmncm]

That is not the reason the paper has been ignored. If it really were wrong, somebody would say where. But most astrophysicists are nowhere near as familiar with the maths involved as the paper's author is.

It is ignored because it is inconvenient. There is no practical consequence for continuing to be wrong, in cosmology or astrophysics. You can be wrong and publish papers, be wrong and get hired, be wrong and get tenure. Meanwhile, there is no upside in letting dark matter have no role in galactic rotation curves. Feeling smug knowing everybody else is still deluded is a solitary vice. If it's right, that will probably have to be acknowledged someday, but there is no personal benefit to getting ahead of the curve, only irritation.

Cosmology has found myriad uses for dark matter besides patching up galactic rotation. Accepting reality means you need to explain why all the dark matter you have been using for these other things doesn't clump up into galaxies; or find some other way to explain what you have been using dark matter for. Dark matter is just too convenient: like the Schmoo, it can be almost anything you like, as much as you need, wherever you need it. Your use doesn't even need to be consistent with (almost) anybody else's.

When it finally becomes necessary to accept reality, no one will be embarrassed, because everyone will have lots of company, and it will never be mentioned again, at least anywhere polite.

[knzhou]

This is why I left this site. Endless smug engineers explaining condescendingly to physicists why they’re stupid sheep, without knowing the first thing about anything. Intellectual curiosity, my ass. Do you have a reply to my concrete criticism or not?

[ncmncm]

You don't have a concrete criticism. You just have a complaint. Either the math in the paper is right, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, say where. If you can't find anything wrong, say that.