Michael_Groom

3blue1brown also has some nice visual explanations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_0yfvm0UoU

You might want to check out a very interesting non-linear spinor theory[1] which contains a chapter on dark matter and dark energy analytically explaining the formation and inner structure, as well as the ratio of dark matter and dark energy throughout the development phase of the universe. Page 29 lists all components of DM/DE and normal matter.

[1] http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018_02...

Full theory can be found here: http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-03...

Interesting assumption from skimming the pdf. Happy to hear your true thoughts once you actually read and fully understand it.

Side-Remark, page 17:

http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014-05...

Well than these are the criteria you choose not giving it a shot, fair enough.

Well “rupture” in this context simply describes the rupture of the massive short ranged repulsive boson G5 leading to the rupture of the neutrino leading to the reproduction cascade (see p153) leading to the proportions of normal matter/antimatter and dark matter as measured by the planck telescope right after the big bang.

No references. The fundamental idea is based on the Equation of Matter suggested in 1958 by Werner Heisenberg. Anything else is new. This theory solves the problems, Heisenberg introduced with his equation by eleminating the coupling constant l (dim psi = -1/2 hence not observable instead of -3/2) and adding the point split on the right side of the equation which is a consequence of the differential operator on the left side (dx is equivalent to the point split). The rest naturally follows from this fundamental equation.

The downvote means: "I cannot tell whats wrong with the theory b/c I didnt even read it. I don't know what a spinor is, nor am I familiar with the concept of point splitting. I dont even understand why the coupling constant is superfluous b/c I always thought the dimension of a spinor is -3/2 instead of -1/2."

But downvoting in the first place seems reasonable.

Not trying to attack the standard model here but rather showing interest in discussing a new approach.

The visuals are great indeed. Same is your reading speed. Now improve your level of understanding text as well while being distracted from beautiful visuals.

Would you mind showing me the "wrong definition of a prime" in this manila envelope?

I do, we are talking about a non-linear spinor dynamic here, omitting the gamma algebra inherited by Dirac spinors. This algebra is well known and omitted as it would render the text confusing indeed as spinor products are of relatively high order (psi-27 and psi-19).

No, the fundamental equation 1.1 and 1.2 is structurally similar to the Equation of Matter suggested in 1958 by Werner Heisenberg, except for two significant differences:

1) 1.1, 1.2 does not contain a dimensionful coupling constant

2) It contains the point-split which Heisenbergs equation is lacking of.

Read this theory, it contains everything the standard model is incapable of explaining, i.e. mass, distribution of normal matter/antimatter dark matter and dark energy after the big bang, decrease of dark matter, increase of dark energy, what DM and DE actually is, et cetera:

http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-03...

You might want to check out a very interesting non-linear spinor theory[1] which contains a chapter on dark matter and dark energy analytically explaining the formation and inner structure, as well as the ratio of dark matter and dark energy throughout the development phase of the universe.

[1] http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-03...