A simple modification of the gravitational constant which is significant
only for large differences has explained the flat rotation velocity cuurves
in spiral galaxies and motion of groups of galaxies without requiring dark
matter.

It also explains the unusual motion of NASA probes Pioneer 10 and 11.

Integrating the additional attractive force shows that the wirk dome by
traveling causes a red shift that is a linear function of distance as shown
by Hubble and others. There is no proof that the red shift for large
distances is related to velocity. Even Hubble was hesitant in the assumption
that red sift is related to velocity.

This questions the expansion of the universe and the accelerating expansion.
There is no need for dark energy or negative gravity.

Many of the current assumptions will have to bereexamined and possibly
abandoned.

Details are available at my web site:

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-univers.htm

Contact me with comments or questions.

Sol Aisenberg

Paraphrasing from Baez - Week 196 and Wright's WMAP News:

First of all, we only "know" anything about the world on the basis of
various assumptions. If our assumptions turn out to be wrong, our
"knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too. Even worse, our favorite
concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or meaningful only under some
restrictions.

So, when we talk about what happened in the first microsecond after
the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute certainty. Instead, we're
using various widely accepted assumptions about physics to guess what
happened. Given these assumptions, the concept of "the first
microsecond after the Big Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these
assumptions are wrong, the whole question could dissolve into
meaninglessness. That's just a risk we have to run. What are these
assumptions, exactly? They include:

1. General Relativity
2. the Standard Model of particle physics supplemented by
3. a nonzero cosmological constant, or more generally some form of
"dark energy"
4. some form of "cold dark matter".

Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry about,
because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological
observations, and if they're true, they probably require some sort of
modification of the Standard Model. But if we don't make these
assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work... while if we
*do*, it seems to work quite well. In fact, the WMAP experiment gives
a lot of new evidence that it works surprisingly well.

1. The polarization of the microwave background anisotropy coming
from scattering by electrons 200 million years after the Big Bang
has been detected. This is evidence for an early generation of
stars existing 4 to 5 times earlier than any object yet observed.

2. The WMAP data agree with previous work showing the Universe is
flat and in an accelerating expansion.

3. The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of
ordinary [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4
yoctograms per cubic meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic
matter: 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter. These correspond to
omega_b = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009 and omega_m = 0.135 +/- 0.009.

4. The WMAP data give the most precise value for the age of the
Universe: 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. The Hubble constant is Ho = 71 +/- 4
km/sec/Mpc, and the vacuum energy density corresponds to lambda =
0.73 +/- 0.04.

"sol aisenberg" wrote in message
thlink.net...
A simple modification of the gravitational constant which is significant
only for large differences has explained the flat rotation velocity
cuurves
in spiral galaxies and motion of groups of galaxies without requiring dark
matter.

Hardly. It fails then to explain how some galaxies do *not*
have flattened rotation curves.

It is also contradicted by local measurements of G.


It also explains the unusual motion of NASA probes Pioneer 10 and 11.

No. If this were the case then integrations of planetary orbits
over time would be decidedly different.