"Understanding the Universe There is no universal speed limit. The universe itself has a lot of similaries to a cell: a central projector/receptor, networks of safety tubes, patterns driven by mixes of figure 8 pitchers and catchers, bumpers, routers, pattern recognizers, and pattern restorers.
Dark material fluid has the potential to transmit memories across space, time, and even universe lifetimes"
That's a quote from your post. Honestly it looks a lot like AI consumed the new age bullshit generator and spit out something. https://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
There's nothing scientific about your writings. Nothing in your writings attempt to evaluate anything using any scientific methodologies. You use anecdotes and analogies, to things that are not analogous, to underpin your points. If someone did not know that the things you are relating are not analogous it may seem smart, but there's a reason this stuff gets dismissed as pseudoscientific. It looks like something that would be great to establish a sci-fi universe around and writes stories about. If anything is actually related to true science it only happens by mere chance.
If you understand what scientists are saying, no one is saying that dark matter got removed from the universe. The inability to detect something does not indicate that it is not there it only indicates that we have not found a way to detect it, but it's effects are clearly measured so a term is given because it is unknown what it is I mean.
These terms of dark matter and dark energy have been seized upon by "science communicators" which oftentimes poorly explain complex topics. Then their poor explanation is seized upon by others and the understanding gets further diluted down.
There was a time when black holes were this spooky thing as well that were poorly understood. Astrophysicist could clearly understand that something was there that they could not understand or comprehend but they could measure the effects of it. Given time they were able to clarify it and come up with theories to explain it. This is the state we are in with dark matter and dark energy. These are terms given to something that they know is there because all of the evidence points to something being there but they have no ability to detect it other than to see it's effects on other things.
Without you putting together some hypothesis that can then be tested and verified independently what you have is sci-fi technobabble. It can be the basis for interesting storytelling like in the movie Black hole or Interstellar, but it's nothing more than fictional dreaming.
Honestly, string theory is more plausible than anything you've proposed.
As I tried to explain before, dark matter and dark energies are simply things that scientists can see the effects of but cannot adequately point to the cause. There can be a vast number of reasons for this. Oftentimes scientists can understand and explain the effects of something and can work with it in a practical situation without understanding the causal mechanisms of it. That's what dark energy and dark matter are. It is an unaccounted for cause but the effects are there. So they're substituting in an unknown. There is efforts to solve for the unknown but I don't believe what you're doing makes any real attempt to solve for that unknown because it's not offering a true explanation of what that is with any testable hypothesis.
Scientists say there's no dark matter on Earth because The gravitational forces and interactions on the Earth and in our solar system we are able to explain by observable things. The universe is so large and so vast it contains many non-observable things and as time proceeds forward more things move beyond the observable horizon that we have. That does not mean we cannot observe the effects but we cannot observe the cause once it is moved beyond the horizon. Again I'm going to point back to black holes. For a long time they were simply hypothetical objects used to explain observations that had no better explanation at the time. After enough research They were able to confirm that these are real things where there is a gravitational singularity so strong the light can't escape.
I'm not sure why you keep going back to a fluid dynamics equations which would all be based upon Newtonian physics which are known to break down. So yes Einstein's equations make more sense. I suggest you look up the history of the planet Vulcan which was needed to fill in the gaps to explain the orbits in our solar system using Newtonian physics. Einstein's equations eliminated the need for it. Yes warped space-time makes infinitely more sense than trying to think of it as fluid dynamics.
I'm really not sure where you're getting a six to eight dimensions from as that sounds more like string theory. Of course if you examine string theory it's also out there without any real testable repeatable hypothesis to back it up.
Spending 2 weeks to understand something that people have spent a lifetime on is going to present you with lots of challenges. Mostly in the fact that having a skill set that allows you to model things is probably not enough to actually understand enough about the universe to model it.
It kind of seems like you're saying that physics works different in different places for the reasons of pressure zones. I don't see any explanation for what the pressure zones are or what causes them or anything else. Einstein's theory of gravitation warping the fabric of space-time does provide an explanation.
I think if you can understand that dark matter and dark energy are simply terms that are used for tracking an unknown. The way those are arrived at is by observing the interactions of all of the things then accounting for all of the observable things that can influence the interactions and calculating the remainder. to make an analogy, that you're very fond of doing, think of it as putting together a puzzle. You know what the puzzle should look like but someone has scattered the pieces all throughout your house. You've only been able to assemble 20% of the puzzle because you haven't found the rest of the pieces yet. Those pieces are not observable to you until you find them. Just because those pieces are lost to you at the moment doesn't mean that the picture of the puzzle is incorrect.
It sounds to me like you are saying I couldn't possibly have found a simple solution for all of these unknown problems? How could it be that easy? It is actually that easy, but when you're used to unknowns and complexity, it's terrifying to imagine how amazing it will feel after such a revelation.
How about you give it time, give me time to make the picture clearer? I just took out all of the spirit stuff and uploaded new slides I spent all day working on for the science intro to try and make it clearer. Once that's done I'll redo the video, maybe after work some day this week.
So far no one one here has actually refuted any of my arguments in a way that tells me anything over than I tried to say too much too soon. It smells bad, disrespects science, or whatever. I never claimed to be a scientist, only to have made a discovery.
I did learn I need to make more diagrams and honestly it's really helped me so I am glad I did post today. And again, I apologize for interrupting your weekend but hope this eventually pays off for all of us.
I mean, I was going to just say that it reads as blatantly LLM-generated, and that I'm also suspicious of OP's responses ITT. But that's not unreasonable as a description either.