I still think you're completely misunderstanding the scientific principles and that's why you've come up with this alternate explanation. That's what's largely illogical in my mind. Because you're making statements like scientists are saying there's no dark matter on Earth. It kind of gives the impression you're not really understanding what scientists are saying when they're using the term dark matter or even dark energy.

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.