Call for Peer Review: Exormetism

Call for Peer Review: Exormetism

Dear newsgroup readers,

The following paper has been submitted to the Open Access Scientific
Internet Journal: Scientia Araneae Totius Orbis (S.A.T.O.). I am in a
kind of dilemma because the S.A.T.O. editors have no experience with
Cosmology and I as Chief-Editor can only understand the general
reasoning and structure of the white paper. This I can peer review,
not the physics!

------------ABSTRACT------------

TITLE: Exormetism: A Steady-State Theory
SUB TITLE: Unlike antigravity, that just balances gravity, for the
universe to be Euclidean, the inferable dark force is clearly
fundamental, as the law of its action implies.

BY: Panagiotis C. Karagiorgis

The parameters entering into this theory have been estimated from the
redshifts of all galaxy clusters listed in the NASA Extragalactic
Database (NED). September 9, 2003.

A basic principle of the relativity theory states that all laws of
physics remain unaltered, at all possible times and places in the
universe. These precise laws, as we know them, hold neither inside
black holes, nor during the first moments of a primitive big bang,
which can only be thought of, as having occurred "elsewhere", not in
the real universe.
Virtually, the big-bang hypothesis suggests that, a tiny bubble of
space, which first appeared from nowhere, was rapidly concurred by a
sudden, ultra-condensed, tremendous flow, justifying an expansion so
fast, that we are still wondering, billions of years after that
violent incident, if the inflation of such a bubble will ever stop...
accelerating. Ordinarily, we should be wondering, instead, where the
principal laws came from. Since never changing, these laws were
present within the initial vacuum. Then, how could a tiny ball contain
the energy required for such a big bang? Yet, the so-called theory
will continue to be popular, until a purely scientific explanation of
the universal expansion is seriously attempted. Developed under a
relativistic scope, the mathematical "theory of exormetism", might
just be a first step in this attempt.
The idea, inhere, is that repulsive gravity dominates the
intergalactic space, which is forced thereby to be curved negatively,
while positive gravity prevails in the neighborhood of galaxies,
quasars, black holes, or any objects of considerable mass. Should we
consider the average density of mass in space (great-scale
homogeneity), the outcome would be a gravitational equilibrium,
asserting that the universe is Euclidean (and, therefore, infinite).
The respective proof is solidly based on a most general form of the
cosmological principle, and implements, in fact, the theory of
relativity. It follows that, besides negative gravity, which fills the
intergalactic space, there must be some other universal force,
effectively carrying the galaxies away, and away from each other. The
subsequent expansion, however, could eventually reduce the average
mass density, thus working in favor of a repulsive field, since
deforming hyperbolically the geometry of space. This undesired
evolution is, amazingly, being suspended by the balancing consequences
of another cosmological process:
As we already assumed, negative curvature characterizes extensive
regions of ultra-low mass density. In such regions, creation of new
particles may just occur, as a reaction of space to a certain level of
hyperbolic deformation. Wherever this occurs, the mass density
increases, on the expense of field-energy being released locally. This
eternal process is such to retain steady the gravitational equilibrium
in the universe.

------------END-OF-ABSTRACT-----

FULL PAPER AT URL: http://home.versatel.nl/galien8/SATOPreprintServer/
exormetism.html

My question to the readers is: Please judge and peer review the
article in a way that it can be improved. If there comes a revised and
S.A.T.O. published paper I will inform you through this channel.

Kind regards,

Johan van der Galien.
PS: S.A.T.O. is, as I said earlier, Open Access and there is no money
involved what so ever (totally Non-Profit), as a matter of fact
running and managing it is a hobby of mine (as Chief-Editor and
Webmaster.)

Huh? Dark force? First appeared from nowhere? Sounds like a
crackpot to me! Maybe you should ask frootloop (aka frootie, aka
nightbat) in alt.astronomy. He's a wacko nutjob and should be able to
spot same in a hurry!

Saul Levy


On 27 Jan 2007 17:04:17 -0800, wrote:

Call for Peer Review: Exormetism

Dear newsgroup readers,

The following paper has been submitted to the Open Access Scientific
Internet Journal: Scientia Araneae Totius Orbis (S.A.T.O.). I am in a
kind of dilemma because the S.A.T.O. editors have no experience with
Cosmology and I as Chief-Editor can only understand the general
reasoning and structure of the white paper. This I can peer review,
not the physics!

------------ABSTRACT------------

TITLE: Exormetism: A Steady-State Theory
SUB TITLE: Unlike antigravity, that just balances gravity, for the
universe to be Euclidean, the inferable dark force is clearly
fundamental, as the law of its action implies.

BY: Panagiotis C. Karagiorgis

The parameters entering into this theory have been estimated from the
redshifts of all galaxy clusters listed in the NASA Extragalactic
Database (NED). September 9, 2003.

A basic principle of the relativity theory states that all laws of
physics remain unaltered, at all possible times and places in the
universe. These precise laws, as we know them, hold neither inside
black holes, nor during the first moments of a primitive big bang,
which can only be thought of, as having occurred "elsewhere", not in
the real universe.
Virtually, the big-bang hypothesis suggests that, a tiny bubble of
space, which first appeared from nowhere, was rapidly concurred by a
sudden, ultra-condensed, tremendous flow, justifying an expansion so
fast, that we are still wondering, billions of years after that
violent incident, if the inflation of such a bubble will ever stop...
accelerating. Ordinarily, we should be wondering, instead, where the
principal laws came from. Since never changing, these laws were
present within the initial vacuum. Then, how could a tiny ball contain
the energy required for such a big bang? Yet, the so-called theory
will continue to be popular, until a purely scientific explanation of
the universal expansion is seriously attempted. Developed under a
relativistic scope, the mathematical "theory of exormetism", might
just be a first step in this attempt.
The idea, inhere, is that repulsive gravity dominates the
intergalactic space, which is forced thereby to be curved negatively,
while positive gravity prevails in the neighborhood of galaxies,
quasars, black holes, or any objects of considerable mass. Should we
consider the average density of mass in space (great-scale
homogeneity), the outcome would be a gravitational equilibrium,
asserting that the universe is Euclidean (and, therefore, infinite).
The respective proof is solidly based on a most general form of the
cosmological principle, and implements, in fact, the theory of
relativity. It follows that, besides negative gravity, which fills the
intergalactic space, there must be some other universal force,
effectively carrying the galaxies away, and away from each other. The
subsequent expansion, however, could eventually reduce the average
mass density, thus working in favor of a repulsive field, since
deforming hyperbolically the geometry of space. This undesired
evolution is, amazingly, being suspended by the balancing consequences
of another cosmological process:
As we already assumed, negative curvature characterizes extensive
regions of ultra-low mass density. In such regions, creation of new
particles may just occur, as a reaction of space to a certain level of
hyperbolic deformation. Wherever this occurs, the mass density
increases, on the expense of field-energy being released locally. This
eternal process is such to retain steady the gravitational equilibrium
in the universe.

------------END-OF-ABSTRACT-----

FULL PAPER AT URL: http://home.versatel.nl/galien8/SATOPreprintServer/
exormetism.html

My question to the readers is: Please judge and peer review the
article in a way that it can be improved. If there comes a revised and
S.A.T.O. published paper I will inform you through this channel.

Kind regards,

Johan van der Galien.
PS: S.A.T.O. is, as I said earlier, Open Access and there is no money
involved what so ever (totally Non-Profit), as a matter of fact
running and managing it is a hobby of mine (as Chief-Editor and
Webmaster.)