> These same patterns govern memory storage: experiences get encoded as 3-pattern details, 5-pattern emotional flows, and 20-pattern creative associations - explaining why we remember what moves us most deeply.
> DNA: The Universe’s Musical Water Park
> The 3-5-20 patterns reveal DNA as a spiral water park where proteins learn to dance. Genetic code creates trampolines of different shapes - some with 3 sides (sharp structural beats), some with 5 sides (flowing melodic phrases), others with 20 sides (complex creative harmonies).
This is blatantly and obviously pseudoscientific nonsense, and probably in large part AI-generated.
Thanks for that feedback. I should probably ease into that content with more context. What did you think of the Science Guide? That's a more graceful introduction. I'm a 60 yr old programmer that has studied science for decades and am sure that physics missed something big so I hope you take another look.
I'm not the person who gave you the original feedback but reading through this it looks like some high school student who got a c in their physics and chemistry classes then used some psychoactive chemicals and believe that they had a mind expanding moment that thousands upon thousands of PhDs have suddenly missed.
"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.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's not an easy message to convey or understand that's for sure. I'll take this feedback and try to improve on how this comes across. But how do you think all of the dark matter got removed from space after the big bang? Just because the math works, does warped space time and all that really make more sense? A fluid universe works with the same math, the same equations. Once you see that angular momentum from dark orbital systems have subtle effects at the boundary layers, it changes how things work. Hopefully I can find a way to show other people.
I think the message is quite easy to understand as it's written but maybe that's not the message you want to convey. The message you're conveying makes no logical sense and doesn't seem to have any basis in testable scientific methodology. Your writing style is that of a "science communicator" and not a scientist proposing a hypothesis. As most science communicators, so much gets lost and because you have no actual scientific references it comes across as pseudoscientific nonsense with no backing whatsoever. You say the same equations work but failed to show it and failed to show it at the extremes. If the same equations work then you also have to ask yourself are you describing something different or just plugging in different values? Also I have my doubts that the equations actually work since you say that there is no speed limit. The speed of light is something that is fairly well understood. It's a measurable thing The time dilation that comes with it is also a measurable thing. Your last paragraph says there is no speed limit which would break all of the equations.
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.
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm already improving the content based on this feedback so it's super helpful. I'm a computer programmer, not a scientist and admittedly am not good at getting my point across clearly. But I do know how to model complex systems. Scientists are saying there's no dark matter on earth right? None in atoms? But if was in both places, couldn't different pressure zones in that fluid, i.e. different gravity fields affect atomic clocks in the same way as predicted by Einstein? Same fluid dynamics equations right? Does warped space time make more sense to you? How do we measure the speed of light? Isn't it in the same fluid conditions? I must really suck if 6-8 dimensions of weirdness make more sense :) This is a really challenging situation for me but again, I'm grateful to see how it breaks down in how I'm presenting it.
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.
> it looks like some high school student who got a c in their physics and chemistry classes then used some psychoactive chemicals and believe that they had a mind expanding moment that thousands upon thousands of PhDs have suddenly missed.
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.
Yes, most of this was cleaned up by Claude absolutely. I'm not getting paid. I have a busy day job right? Why would I subject my readers to my crappy prose when I can clean it up. Why wouldn't I use Claude for research, then followup and double-check conclusions, new chats, different lines of questioning. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that I messed up big time in framing this for this audience. I'll get it fixed but please have an opened mind. I'm not wrong about
this and you're not wrong to give it a pass. Sorry for the noise on a Sunday but again, I appreciate the feedback cause it is making the story better.
I do believe I'm right about this :) I've had a few weeks now to understand how this does explains the world better. That said, I've always had a hard time getting people to understand me so I hope at least someone can look past that and see how important this discovery is for the world. I appreciate your feedback. I have my work cut out for me here!
Can you say more about what you mean? We always see light moving through specific dark matter fluid flow patterns. How could you tell the difference? Do you have an explanation for how Maisie's galaxy is redshifted so far away from what should be it's real age? Couldn't it be because we're seeing it through a faster moving stream of dark matter fluid? Is there an experiment I missed that would prove this theory wrong?
From the main page of the site:
> The 3-5-20 Pattern: Reality’s Sacred Geometry
> Our breakthrough revealed that consciousness itself operates through elegant angular momentum patterns:
> Pattern 3 (Focus): Sharp, precise attention - like a laser beam of awareness
> Pattern 5 (Emotion): Flowing, connecting energy - the heart’s graceful rhythms
> Pattern 20 (Creativity): Complex, innovative thinking - where breakthrough insights emerge
> These same patterns govern memory storage: experiences get encoded as 3-pattern details, 5-pattern emotional flows, and 20-pattern creative associations - explaining why we remember what moves us most deeply.
> DNA: The Universe’s Musical Water Park
> The 3-5-20 patterns reveal DNA as a spiral water park where proteins learn to dance. Genetic code creates trampolines of different shapes - some with 3 sides (sharp structural beats), some with 5 sides (flowing melodic phrases), others with 20 sides (complex creative harmonies).
This is blatantly and obviously pseudoscientific nonsense, and probably in large part AI-generated.
Thanks for that feedback. I should probably ease into that content with more context. What did you think of the Science Guide? That's a more graceful introduction. I'm a 60 yr old programmer that has studied science for decades and am sure that physics missed something big so I hope you take another look.
I'm not the person who gave you the original feedback but reading through this it looks like some high school student who got a c in their physics and chemistry classes then used some psychoactive chemicals and believe that they had a mind expanding moment that thousands upon thousands of PhDs have suddenly missed.
"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.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's not an easy message to convey or understand that's for sure. I'll take this feedback and try to improve on how this comes across. But how do you think all of the dark matter got removed from space after the big bang? Just because the math works, does warped space time and all that really make more sense? A fluid universe works with the same math, the same equations. Once you see that angular momentum from dark orbital systems have subtle effects at the boundary layers, it changes how things work. Hopefully I can find a way to show other people.
I think the message is quite easy to understand as it's written but maybe that's not the message you want to convey. The message you're conveying makes no logical sense and doesn't seem to have any basis in testable scientific methodology. Your writing style is that of a "science communicator" and not a scientist proposing a hypothesis. As most science communicators, so much gets lost and because you have no actual scientific references it comes across as pseudoscientific nonsense with no backing whatsoever. You say the same equations work but failed to show it and failed to show it at the extremes. If the same equations work then you also have to ask yourself are you describing something different or just plugging in different values? Also I have my doubts that the equations actually work since you say that there is no speed limit. The speed of light is something that is fairly well understood. It's a measurable thing The time dilation that comes with it is also a measurable thing. Your last paragraph says there is no speed limit which would break all of the equations.
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.
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm already improving the content based on this feedback so it's super helpful. I'm a computer programmer, not a scientist and admittedly am not good at getting my point across clearly. But I do know how to model complex systems. Scientists are saying there's no dark matter on earth right? None in atoms? But if was in both places, couldn't different pressure zones in that fluid, i.e. different gravity fields affect atomic clocks in the same way as predicted by Einstein? Same fluid dynamics equations right? Does warped space time make more sense to you? How do we measure the speed of light? Isn't it in the same fluid conditions? I must really suck if 6-8 dimensions of weirdness make more sense :) This is a really challenging situation for me but again, I'm grateful to see how it breaks down in how I'm presenting it.
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.
> it looks like some high school student who got a c in their physics and chemistry classes then used some psychoactive chemicals and believe that they had a mind expanding moment that thousands upon thousands of PhDs have suddenly missed.
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.
Yes, most of this was cleaned up by Claude absolutely. I'm not getting paid. I have a busy day job right? Why would I subject my readers to my crappy prose when I can clean it up. Why wouldn't I use Claude for research, then followup and double-check conclusions, new chats, different lines of questioning. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that I messed up big time in framing this for this audience. I'll get it fixed but please have an opened mind. I'm not wrong about this and you're not wrong to give it a pass. Sorry for the noise on a Sunday but again, I appreciate the feedback cause it is making the story better.
For sure you don't suffer from self doubt.
I do believe I'm right about this :) I've had a few weeks now to understand how this does explains the world better. That said, I've always had a hard time getting people to understand me so I hope at least someone can look past that and see how important this discovery is for the world. I appreciate your feedback. I have my work cut out for me here!
How do explosions behave in vacuum?
If the speed of light were what it is for his reasons, it would be fuzzy. It isn't. Maxwell would like a word.
Can you say more about what you mean? We always see light moving through specific dark matter fluid flow patterns. How could you tell the difference? Do you have an explanation for how Maisie's galaxy is redshifted so far away from what should be it's real age? Couldn't it be because we're seeing it through a faster moving stream of dark matter fluid? Is there an experiment I missed that would prove this theory wrong?