On 11/30/18 4:16 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 21:49:18 UTC+1, Richard D. Saam wrote:
On 11/27/18 1:03 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

Also, big-bang nucleosynthesis tells us what fraction of the universe is
in baryons; there is no way that stars, being baryonic, could make up a
significant fraction of dark matter.

The Big-bang nucleosynthesis hypothesis does not warrant
such an absolute telling baryon fraction statement
in terms of on going BBN mechanistic derivation efforts
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05976v2
RDS

This interesting (up to date) article mentions the word baryonic,
however nothing about darkmatter and baryon fraction.

[Moderator's note: Since we have a pretty good idea of the total
density, the difference between that and the baryonic density is the
dark-matter density, more or less by definition. -P.H.]

[Moderator's note: Quoted text snipped. -P.H.]

Ref 1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05976v2
Ref 2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04932
There was a very vigorous response[2] to [1]
defending the current BBN calculation
"The detailed and correct computation
of big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) dates
back 51 years to the seminal papers of Wagoner, Fowler and Hoyle"
(also referenced in 1)
but in their conclusions[2];
"We have not been able to identify
the source of the discrepancy with [1]"

Apparently it comes down to:
How do BBN classical Maxwell-Boltzmann plasma
baryon relativistic velocity distributions
affect nuclear reaction rates?
rds