Concerning the dark matter, spin and other

Independently and beyond the scope of my paper, I succumb to the temptation to express a presumptuous personal opinion about the so-called dark matter (given, of course, that the estimates arguing that it exists are correct) and those who will not bear into mind my opinion shall act properly. Yet, it is the only opinion that exists, as long as I am aware of.
As I have already proven in my research, all elementary particles without any exception (from protons to neutrinos even all ephemeral ones) are rings with a diameter of d=h/2mc meaning their mass is inversely proportional to their diameter. This means that they hide plenty in the small and little in the big.
This is a particularity of nature, which basically is contained in Planck’s equation E=hv that initially referred to photons. This property was bequeathed to the particles from photons, from which they derive (when they derive) or/and vice versa, through the connection of the aforementioned equation with Einstein’s equation E=mc2 that concerns the particles, in order to equate the energy of the particles and the photons generated. See the creation of equation d=h/2mc in the main body of my paper.
Now, when a neutrino has the minimum mass (with zero mass it cannot be considered a particle) then it has huge diameter so instead of it coming through us we go through it.
We the people, our cars even our houses!
Such neutrinos exists and are non perceivable by our scientific instruments even in incalculable numbers.
If the boundless interstellar space is full, better say crammed with these, in numbers that we cannot even imagine, even if all visible matter swims in this “foam” still they would not be perceivable because they are uniformly distributed in the interstellar space with standard density and they do not cause the stars to diffract. Could this be the dark matter?
I am asking you not to take the aforementioned for granted, as the theoreticians do with their theories. Whoever distinguishes some reliability in the aforementioned shall do this on his own responsibility.
I take this occasion to note that in the “Nestor” experiment that takes place at the sea of Pylos they search for neutrinos of significant mass or energy and it makes me wonder what they are going to do with them. This is a very expensive and very widely advertised experiment that for the moment is not moving. In this case the same I have said before applies. When the basic knowledge is lacking, meaning the knowledge of nature and the structure of elementary particles, all comes through fruitless and deceiving. A characteristic example of fallaciousness is the General Theory of Relativity.

To sum up the aforementioned and focusing on the difference that neutrinos show against all other elementary particles in nature, which defines their overall behavior, we note the following:

Neutrinos are never immobilized therefore they have no rest mass. They acquire mass at the moment of their creation, during which their motion starts, and the size of the mass depends on their velocity (energy), which in its turn depends on the conditions under which each neutrino has been born.

Therefore, we have a huge range of neutrinos, that have different velocities, energy, mass and as a consequence diameter, because, as we have already said, they obey the equation d=h/2mc.

Thereafter, travelling in space, and with all the differences that each one bears, each one has a different chance.

But, with the minimum of mass and huge size they overcome every obstacle without coming across any resistance and without being perceived and other neutrinos that have larger mass and smaller size hit for example on the sensors of the device in Pylos (Greece) of the Nestor experiment and become perceived while being destroyed.

Other neutrinos, on the other hand, during their course, might lose a part of the velocity/ energy and mass and fall in another category and transform for example, from muon to t-neutrino (according to how you call them), like those that were observed recently in Gran Sasso of Central Italy, coming from CERN (update of the site June 6, 2010).

In general, there is no instrument with which we can see the large neutrinos with the small mass. The only “instrument” is the aforementioned equation.

And there is also something more.
As far as the theory of the original light is concerned, by which this light, meaning its photons used to behave and interact in a lush way with the elementary particles and next they came back to their normal behavior of the utter isolation, for the unbreakable and eternal reasons I have analyzed, is totally deprived of any seriousness.
Of course, this radiation that comes from every corner of the universe is explained in a way and there may come a time that we will find it but in the meantime there is no reason to exaggerate (or is there a reason to splash, etc etc?)
And I would also like to share a personal view. I am under the impression that the theory of the original light has a mystical dimension totally alike the one of “unbuilt” light of certain religions. Could it be that these religions constituted a source of inspiration?

Something more (about the spin)
I have noticed the easiness, carelessness and naturalness with which we use today the terms ‘bosons’ and ‘fermions‘ with all that this use entails for the corresponding particles, referring to different theories and forgetting that these terms are based on a totally shaky, unconfirmed and still pending to be proven theory, the theory of spin.
I characteristically mention that Dirar was utterly baffled with this theory since according to his opinion “the electron’s spin is essentially a relativist property (and nothing out of this property named spin is related to the spinning objects of the world around us)”.
After the knowledge we came across in this paper, that the relativities do not exist even this blurry view for the blurry theory has evolved from blurry to null.
It is also reported that no one felt ever happier than Pauli when Bohr managed to prove in 1932 that the electron’s spin cannot be counted by any classic experiment like diffraction of an electron beam from the magnetic field. This is a property that appears only in quantum processes etc. Is it possible to have the view that nature has some laws for the microworld and others for larger dimensions, just because there are (were) certain gentlemen at a dead end?
Therefore, the spin issue is not a problem that arose after my own research but it lies over very well hidden “under the carpet” for many years ever since the first doubts arose whether the electron is a particle or wave. How could we clarify the existence of spin if we do not know what an electron and a proton are?
My paper gave all the right answers for the electrons and all the particles in the frames of which (answers) further research should initiate over spin.
The correctness of my multi-leg equation was proven after the experiment of Mr. Markatos (despite the fact that further experimental confirmation was not necessary since the equation itself was a combination of previous experiments), meaning that the electrons are at first large field rings that surround the core creating in this way a large dimensioned magnetic bipole for themselves (see hydrogen model at the first pages herein).
This means that they are not small particles that spin around the larger core but there is a large ring that surrounds a small core.
Secondly, this particle (just like the protons) is at the same time a kind of strange wave because it comprises of the components of photons that are waves from one period (electromagnetic radiation). The photon consists of a magnetic wave and an electric wave in the form of rings that in some cases are restructured and form the electrons (and protons).
So far we know.
What is a wave that forms a ring? At first, it is something moving. How does it move? Does it spin with a certain tendency or does it oscillate towards both directions and in what pace? Is it a static wave?
Are the spin phenomena owed to totally different causes and we are racking our brains?
Find it. For heaven’s sake, leave the quantum algebra and all the strange mathematics aside. These are toys for mathematicians and not physicists. And do not forget what I write at the beginning, “the nature is diabolically deceitful in its unimaginable simplicity!” It could be playing with us and we are fooling around giving out Nobel prices!!