O Universo Inteiro é Feito de Matéria Escura, Invisivel. Veja as Diferentes Teorias do Modelo Academico e do Modelo da Matrix/DNA

O artigo com link abaixo expõe como ainda estamos engatinhando na busca do conhecimento do que é essa misteriosa substancia preenchendo todo o fundo do Universo, do qual temos evidencias e até observamos alguns de seus efeitos, mas não conseguimos vê-la, nem toca-la, nem mesmo com nossos modernos equipamentos cientificos.

Há 30 anos atrás, quando na selva montei o modelo astronomico baseado no que aprendi no estudo dos sistemas na biosfera amazônica ( apostando na idéia de que esta biosfera é mera continuidade da evolução desta galaxia, a qual foi a real criadora da Vida e dentro da qual a Vida existe), meu modelo apontava a necessidade de haver uma substancia do espaço, tal como vários pensadores já tinham calculado antes e deram vários nomes, tais como universal éter, etc. Matéria escura, ou Dark Matter é o nome dado pelos modernos pensadores, mas no fundo teria o mesmo significado.

Mas se meu modelo estiver mais próximo da realidade que o modelo acadêmico, vai ser difícil e vamos demorar muito para resolver este mistério, pois o método sendo usado pelos cientistas não nos trará a real compreensão dessa substancia. Meu modelo sugere outro método de abordagem e pesquisa.

O problema todo, como explico no post abaixo, é que a dark matter está sendo abordada pelos experts em Física e Matemática, os quais tem seus limites, pois apenas alcançam os níveis de organização da matéria relacionados aos esqueletos das estruturas, e portanto, ao esqueleto composto de átomos e galaxias deste Universo. Se lidassem com o corpo humano, estes experts seriam capazes de descrever completamente o esqueleto ósseo, mas começariam a falhar quando adentrasse o reino de complexidade que reveste o esqueleto, o reino das substancias, órgãos, fluidos, que compõem a parte mole, suave, do corpo. E não alcançariam o nível de organização neurológica do cérebro em tal corpo.

Por outro lado, quando o meu método foi justamente o reverso – partindo da parte suave e mole para tentar entender o esqueleto e daí as origens do todo – a necessária substancia universal do espeço ganhou conotações de funções biológicas e fui obrigado a considerar que a dark matter está para o Universo assim como o amnion, a placenta, estão para um ovo fecundado. A partir daí entendi que para calcular como essa substancia espacial foi se transformando em matéria ordinária e formando os sistemas naturais era necessário considerar a atuação das ondas de luz, as quais, como explico em outros capítulos aqui, contem o código para organizar essa substancia inerte em sistemas como átomos e galaxias e depois em sistemas biológicos, ou seja, a Vida. Mas essa briga entre teorias vai continuar, por enquanto você pode ficar assistindo-a de camarote… enquanto eu me arrebento todo tentando como o pequeno Davi enfrentar o gigante Golias…

SIMPle Dark Matter

https://plus.google.com/+BrianKoberlein/posts

Dark Matter?

Dark matter remains an enigma of modern cosmology. We have indirect evidence of its existence, and even some evidence of its characteristics, but we have yet to detect dark matter directly. This puts us in a kind of middle ground where there’s enough evidence to support dark matter, but not enough to define it, which is the perfect playground for theorists to try new ideas. This week in Physical Review Letters, just such a new idea has been presented.

The most popular model for dark matter is the WIMP model, or Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. They are so-named because they would have a much larger mass than protons, but would only interact through the weak nuclear force. This means they wouldn’t interact with light much (hence they would be “dark”), and they wouldn’t interact with each other so strongly that they can’t create a halo of dark matter around galaxies. But even weakly interacting particles would occasionally interact with regular matter. Given current observations, there should be about 5 times more dark matter than regular matter in the universe, so we should be able to detect some interactions directly. However despite several ongoing searches, there’s been no clear evidence of it.

So this new paper proposes a new model, known as Strongly Interacting Massive Particles, or SIMPs. In this model, dark matter particles have about a tenth the mass of a proton, but they strongly interact with both regular matter and themselves. That might seem contradictory to the nature of dark matter, but so long as they interact in the right way, it could all work out. Basically, SIMPs would tend to clump to mimic more massive WIMPs, and they would interact weakly with light, as dark matter should. But because of their smaller mass, they would interact with electrons more strongly than nuclei. Since dark matter searches have focused on nuclei interactions, this would explain why we haven’t detected them.

In the paper the authors show that the SIMP model agrees with current observations of dark matter, and it shows where future experiments could support or invalidate the idea. But based upon current evidence it is no more compelling than the popular WIMP models. Still, at this point we need new ideas like this one. Dark matter has been frustratingly difficult to pin down.

Image: The Marenostrum Numerical Cosmology Project

Reference: Hochberg Y., Kuflik E., Volansky T. & Wacker J.G. (2014). Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113 (17) DOI: .org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.171301

Meus comentarios no artigo:

Louis Charles Morelli – November, 03, 2014
Maybe this mystery remains only due we had tried wrong approaches due wrong standard model. The Matrix/DNA model points out towards the necessary existence of something like dark matter, universal aether, or other names. It is merely the substance that fits space, everywhere, the space substance. And this model suggests the following idea: substance space has the same function in relation tho the Universe that the substance called amnion have in relation to eggs – despite the different levels of complexity.
How a hypothetical microbe living inside a recently fecundated egg could see and understanding amnion? Should it beginning the search for understanding it by analysing its smallest structures or observing its “universal” function inside their ovular universe? The answer must be: all ways are valious. So, the Standard Model based on Physics and Math deals only with the level of structures, not the level of systems as a whole. Like when studying a human body, Physics and Math applies well for describing the bone skeleton but begins to fail when reaching the coverture of soft meat and beyond it, the complexity of neurology. Something for this Universe? Physics is seeing the universe’s skeleton, but could be there lots of complexity covering and acting over this skeleton?
Matrix/DNA model is the reverse approach, starting from biological systems, the soft level and going back to the skeleton ( galaxies, atoms) till the Big Bang. Then we noticed that any light wave has the code for life since its sequence of vibrations/frequencies are the same of a living body sequence of shapes under a vital cycle. And calculating how lights waves could imprint this code and its dynamics upon inertial substance space for creating ordinary material systems,  we are investing how the DNA of father and mother chromosomes acts among the amnion for formation of a new system.
My two cents here is: we never will understand dark matter while only Physics and Math is dealing with the issue: we need the collaboration of Biology, Neurology, Chemistry and something else.
Luis Alberto  and Nick Alcock have the posts more next to the jackpot here, I think.
xxxxx

Interessante posts no artigo:

Is it possible that we are trying to explain through dark matter or energy , a phenomenon that happens in our universe, due to physical laws that our current model fails to address or acknowledge?. That is, is it possible that there is no dark matter or energy, and that the phenomena attributed to this is caused by something else entirely not accounted for in our standard model of the universe?.
I apologize for the ignorance in relation to the subject in advance.
xxxxxx
+Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff, yes, of course. This is always a possibility. Our model of the universe is a model: there is always the possibility of something it doesn’t explain which contradicts it coming up, and requiring refinements or even a whole new model.Science is not about discovering absolute truth, merely better models of reality. (Some bad science teachers overinterpret this and say that the only job of science is to produce correct predictions, but this is very much not true: the point of those predictions is not the predictions themselves, though they are useful, but the model of the way the world works from which they come: the predictions are just the way those models are tested against reality. A neural net which spat out correct predictions when nobody knew what it was doing or why would not be generally considered an acceptable replacement for a scientific theory.)
xxxx

 

Tags: , , , , , ,