AuT-solutions to the dark matter-space equation

As I pointed out in my prior post, all the pre AuT 'brainiacs' who have cushy jobs with nasa or some university while I, perhaps the most gifted quantum physicist of our time-well most gifted probably is a slight exaggeration, let's say the most clever amateur physics thief (since I'm stealing my stuff from Parminides and some Greek turned me on to him) am essentially starving in the streets looking for loose band width so I can lift up another post; because for some damn reason no one is offering me a job or at least the opportunity to present my theory for a fee.  What's wrong with the world? (answer-defective algorithm).
Anyway, you will miss me when I'm gone and wonder why you didn't reach out.

Let's take a quick look at why 25% dark matter doesn't compute to 25% space to go along with the rest of the space that NASA actually saw (amazing they saw any of it, right?).

First evidence is the amount of overlap.  It's 55% for whatever earthly creation for god's sake.  With that kind of tension, you should get a lot of compression.

But we need an equation, where can we find an equation....?  Oh yes, that's right there already is one gosh darn it.

So the 25% dark matter breaketh down this way:

x%x3^2 (for photonic to space)

y%x6^4*3^2 (for energy breaking down to space)

z%x10^8^*6^4*3^2 (for matter breaking down to space)

and a whopping

a%x(8,5,3) 16^16*(etc) (black hole material breaking down to space).  That means if most of this space were trapped in black holes you'd have that huge number I referred to in the earlier post for how much more space there is then we give the universe credit for because we happen to have figured out a long, long time ago that space is pretty compressed at these higher states, exponential on exponential.

It's important to point out that the existence of fusion and fission in our universe is entirely consistent with the model of multiple smaller universe of data generated by the algorithm which are still, no matter how small, mostly space (except maybe the first one) which means that there is a constant recycling of information from higher states to lower states, but this part of the equation is perhaps the most poorly defined and is more based on the assumption that the universe we live in cannot be the largest because of the way that intersecting spirals continue to grow forever and that we must be a function of smaller universes (perhaps the 10^100 such universe suggested by the exponential compression function above) interacting with ours.  Whether the infinite number of larger universes have any effect remains to be seen.
The drawing below shows the intersection of three spiral universes.  The number picked is at random.
The circle marked "c" represents a point where the solution is common for a common x.   In essesence the circle represents the algorithm being solved for as many spirals as ar coming into that circle based on a certain value of x.
The drawing on the left shows a larger "universe" A intersecting with a smaller universe B.
The six pictures on the right show how the common solution at the point represented by C changes states as the solution shifts around the still smaller universe D. In this way while A and B are still space, D may shift states several times and, indeed, while A is still space, B will shift several times.

The primary point we are looking at here is that compression, stable compression, is made up of a very very small amount of outliers.  Most space has stayed as space, at least in terms of stability.  The compression during capacitance related to the intersection of spirals is perhaps 99% unstable (perhaps very close to 100%) so that the time for the universe to compress according to the algorithm would be very great indeed for our universe, although the first universe would be shorter.