Sunday, June 29, 2008

Is Dark Matter and Dark Energy the Result of Incorrect Gravitational Theory?

Is Dark Matter and Dark Energy the Result of Incorrect Gravitational Theory?
Immersed in preposterous theories, PHD's could never admit to the simplicity of the Universe's Grand Design and Unified Field Theory encompassing the radius of curvature of all natural law

StarSteps: Excerpt from the chapter on Gravity

"Through the concept of the curvature of physical law, however, we see that the addition of mass to an existing body does not, necessarily, increase the force of attraction between its parts, but may, under certain conditions, cause the field to become negative, and the attraction to become a repulsion. We can explain the observed actions of the present universe by postulating that an attraction exists between the individual bodies within a galaxy, because their total mass and distance is such that they are within the positive portion of the
gravitation curve with respect to each other. In the vast spaces between the galaxies however, the curve dips below the zero line with the result that a repulsion exists between the galaxies themselves. This also explains why matter, although rather evenly distributed
throughout the known universe, is not distributed uniformly, but found in quite similar concentrations at comparatively regular distances."

Is Dark Matter And Dark Energy The Result Of Incorrect Gravitational Theory?

Is Dark Matter and Dark Energy the Result of Incorrect Gravitational Theory?
Posted Sep 12, 2006 at 07:14AM by Mabie A. Listed in: Astrophysics Tags: Dark Matter

Dark matter is believed to be matter which does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. Its composition being unknown, it is speculated to include new elementary particles such as WIMPS and axions, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas.Dark energy, on the other hand, is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure. The effect of the said negative pressure is invoked as the most popular method for explaining recent observations on the expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate.These scientific concepts are but two of the most controversial and mysterious of them all. Said to make up as much as 95% of all the energy and matter in the universe, it is no wonder why scientists struggle to find out more about these concepts. And yet, here comes three Italian physicists who are attempting to break the glass ceiling with the challenge that scientists were merely forced to propose the existence of dark energy and dark matter because they were, and still are, working with incorrect gravitational theory. Do they mean to say that because scientists didn't have the proper answer to all those queries before, they had to come up with an alternative explanation that would, for the meantime, put a halt to the assault?Perhaps it's something like that. What is clear is that they are suggesting an alternative theory of gravity in which dark energy and dark matter are effects - illusions in a sense - that are created by the curvature of space time. This theory disposes of the need for the actual existence of dark energy and matter.Says lead author Salvatore Capozziello, "Our proposal implies that the 'correct' theory of gravity may be based solely on directly observed astronomical data." Interesting. But what's more interesting is how this theory abolishes the foundation of the said concepts. Let's just hope that it's not another ploy to divert the attention of the people just because they can't determine the composition of dark matter and energy, because otherwise, it will only become a repeat of the mistakes involving gravitational theory... that is, if we are to believe that the original theory was actually wrong.The paper is published online in the August 3 edition of the Institute of Physics' peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.

1 comment:

bernard n. shull said...

hi mate, this is the canadin pharmacy you asked me about: the link