With the assumption of UNDETECTABLE things in a theory any theory could be developed since it could never be proven wrong!
If a theory contains undetectable things, you can leave those out. In fact, Occam's Razor pretty much demands it. Since they are undetectable, their removal (by definition) has no effect. And you are left with a theory without detectable things.
This way anyone can invent any theory!
Hypothesis, yes, but it won't (shouldn't) be accepted as a scientific theory, as it contains unfalsifiable things.
To sustain Relativity Theory the concept of UNDETECTABLE "dark matter" was developed but about hundred years have passed without experimental confirmation...
As has already been pointed out, there's plenty of evidence for dark matter, so this statement is simply wrong.
To sustain Quantum Physics the concept of UNDETECTABLE "virtual particles" was developed but there's no experimental confirmation on them...
Even if virtual particles are not detectable directly, their mathematics certainly are measurable. I think the huge success that is QED strongly suggests the idea of virtual particles is not without merit.
Don't you think is time for a totally new theory in Physics?
Yes, I actually do, but not based on anything you've said so far.
I have a very good start-point for one without any undetectable thing.
Sounds good, let's take a look!
For those that could be interested I cannot post the link here but it can be found in my profile ("A New Light In Physics").
Section 1.1A, sentence 4 contains a reference to an absolute frame of reference: "The mother-ship goes there, brakes and stops remaining there." Stops with respect to what?
The rest of section 1.1A is a modified version of the twin paradox, without a proper treatment of the acceleration that the twins experience when they turn around. This set-up is thus not compatible with the theory of relativity, as infinite acceleration is not allowed in it.
Missing are a lot of calculations; only a couple of results are mentioned.
In the end, it just boils down to the usual twin paradox, and its resolution is the same. I'm not going to produce it here; there are many good sources for this out there.
Section 1.1B just refers to an appendix, and then claims that $$E=mc^2$$ is "well verified experimentally", but also makes "no sense", which is quite contradictory. But without any derivation, nothing more can be said about it.
Section 1.1C argues that there must be an absolute reference frame, and a center to the universe with any evidence or argumentation.
Section 1.1D starts by stating that magnetism must be considered from an absolute reference frame, again with any evidence or argumentation.
So far, there's nothing here. No proper derivations, no in-depth calculations, just assertions and misinterpretations of mainstream physics.
Newton presented the inverse square law of gravitation by 1686 explaining the movement of the planets of our solar system. I guess he called it something like "Universal Law of Gravitation" while the actual vastness of the Universe was discovered much after that. The first proposition of the existence of our own galaxy and some other ones came by 1750. Newton knew nothing about galaxies when he formulated the law so, why not to consider that the gravity field could be more complex than Newton's Law.
We did, and the theory of relativity is the result of that.
Just for instance, stars velocities in spiral galaxies seem to obey a simple inverse law of gravitation (not squared) then, why not to consider that the gravity field could have one term similar to Newton's formula but vanishing at galactic scale and another term which inversely approximates to a simple inverse law while vanishing at planetary scale?
Because it actually doesn't resolve many of the other problems associated with dark matter, such as the Bullet cluster.
Actually, the complete law for the entire Universe could be yet more complex with other factors and/or terms. Why this possibility is not taken into account by current Physics Science?
It is. What do you think statements like "we know the theory of relativity is incomplete" mean? The fact that QFT and GR are incompatible, but yet both seem to work, is a strong hint that there's something more going on.
I can only think in that is because Relativity Theory can't become compatible with that.
In the same way Newtonian gravity cannot become compatible with measurements we currently have. For example: Mercury's precession.
Here is where "dark matter" come into place: why to modify the gravitational law if the odd things could be explained with a very mysterious kind of thing for which there's not even a good description of what it actually could be?
No alternative that can describe as much as GR has been proposed (so far), so GR is the best we've got. And there's ample of evidence for dark matter nowadays, as has already been pointed out.
"Dark matter" is the chance to not question Relativity Theory.
Actually, dark matter is a perfect time to question the theory of relativity. Come up with an alternative that can explain as much as GR can, but without the need for dark matter, and scientists will listen.
That's the point for me. I think things could only change when a really good alternative to Relativity Theory could appear
I fully and whole-heartedly agree.
and I think I have a very good start point for one. That's why I'm posting here.
The opening section to your text is missing so many derivations and proofs, I can hardly call that a good start.
