Professional Ideas Beyond the Standard Model of Dark Matter

[abc33333333]

Berkeley writes :

" Note that the dynamics of the Universe are not determined entirely by the geometry (open, closed or flat) unless the Universe contains only matter. In our Universe, where most of Omega comes from dark energy, this relation between the mass density, spatial curvature and the future of the universe no longer holds. It is then no longer true in this case that "geometry (spatial curvature) is destiny." Instead, to find out what will happen one needs to calculate the evolution of the expansion factor of the universe for the specific case of matter density, spatial curvature and "funny energy" to find out what will happen.

Dark matter (DM) candidates are usually split into two broad categories, with the second category being further sub-divided:

Baryonic
Non-Baryonic
hot dark matter (HDM) and
cold dark matter (CDM),
depending on their respective masses and speeds. CDM candidates travel at slow speeds (hence "cold") or have little pressure, while HDM candidates move rapidly (hence "hot"). "

Are there really professional ideas beyond the standard model concerning this topic ?

Let me say : I think, " professional " must not be the same as " correct " , and " unprofessional " mustn't always be dangerous.
To work in a profession means to get paid by taxes.
This can be complicated, look at the example of Prof. Jearl Walker and a
high treason in the Nato Aerea by his fellow Pöppel :
As i wrote in a www.groups.msn.de blog as BBBengel, the German mathematican Cantor ( ~ 1850 ) didn't have been able to revide his theory of infinity just because of the German military interests
in war 1870/71.
Let me show another example : The numbers int(sin(sin(n))+1)
are random ( i.e. 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ...)
but is this blog random ?
If you see just 20 percent of the universe ( 80 % are dark ),
the universe cannot be stable, as I wrote in
www.scifi-forum.de as Einstein007.

Example 2 :
A ladder isnt't stable, but two ladders ( see the " DNA " - structure )
are stable INDEED, but just whe the two ladders ( of
amino-acids ) are infinite long !
So life cannot be stable !

 

[selfAdjoint]

Let me say : I think, " professional " must not be the same as " correct " , and " unprofessional " mustn't always be dangerous.
To work in a profession means to get paid by taxes.

This can be complicated, look at the example of Prof. Jearl Walker and a
high treason in the Nato Aerea by his fellow Pöppel :
As i wrote in a www.groups.msn.de blog as BBBengel, the German mathematican Cantor ( ~ 1850 ) didn't have been able to revide his theory of infinity just because of the German military interests
in war 1870/71.
Let me show another example : The numbers int(sin(sin(n))+1)
are random ( i.e. 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ...)
but is this blog random ?
If you see just 20 percent of the universe ( 80 % are dark ),
the universe cannot be stable, as I wrote in
www.scifi-forum.de as Einstein007.

As you wrote here and as you wrote there. Huh! DNA is in fact topologically one ladder (twisted by the angles of its chemical bonds). You grant it's stable so that little illustration falls to the ground.

And the numbers int(sin(sin(n))+1) aren't random, since they have that closed form analytic representation; you always know what the nth one will be. They are pseudo-random perhaps, uniformly distributed in some definite sense, but not random.


The idea that scientific professionalism means being in hock to the military-industrial complex is silly; you want to post that kind of post-whatever junk, we have a general discussion forum. In this forum "professional" means "within the broad limits acepted by the scientific community" and that's our rescript.

The stability of the universe is a part of professional research, but throwing pop bottles from the bleachers isn't contributing.

 

[abc33333333]

......yes, these were phantastic ideas of my own -
thank you for your reply.

 

[ZapperZ]

......yes, these were phantastic ideas of my own -
thank you for your reply.

And to close, please review the PF Guidelines that you have explictly agreed to, especially regarding speculative theories.