> As to the usage of Janus model for particle physics I must admit I have no clue, but I though that his model bring a new way of seeing matter so it maybe of some usage.

It really depends on the goal pursued. Here, in terms of particle physics, the intersection is just empty, so that the model cannot bring any insight (except maybe if you push for a no-dark-matter option, which is not only specific to this model by the way). 

We must in fact keep it mind that matter at the elementary particle level is not governed by the same laws as at the macroscopic level. We are dealing with different energy (or scale) regimes.

> As to the reception of Petit model, he mainly have a bad reputation, because of his unconventional views on ufo phenomenon. But from what I understand, the math behind are solid, and his model evolved since 1970.

I have indeed noticed this, which is a part of the information I found I completely skipped (for me, UFOs are a "<i>no thanks</i>").

> ou can watch his video from 2020 where he sum's up his model. (at 1h30 he start describing how the model fits to observation so far and make one prediction about lab dark matter that will fall down)

Sorry but that is way too long  for the time I have (people on chain tried to have me watching 20 minutes videos without success ;) ). I am very happy to read anything (or to add it to my to-read list), but not to watch. 

What I meant is that other models of cosmology can explain <i>many</i> observations made in the universe (structure formation, cosmic microwave background, <i>etc</i>., to quote a few). In contrast, from what I see the model of Petit is not as good. This is maybe (I am not sure as this is quite far from what I work on) the reason why most cosmologists just dismissed it. If someone proposes a new model, the new model must do at least as good as what anything else on the market does.