> 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.
jeffvroom · 6h ago
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.
elmerfud · 5h ago
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.
zahlman · 42m ago
> 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.
jeffvroom · 5h ago
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.
elmerfud · 2h ago
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.
jeffvroom · 2h ago
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.
beardyw · 6h ago
For sure you don't suffer from self doubt.
jeffvroom · 5h ago
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!
FrankWilhoit · 5h ago
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.
jeffvroom · 5h ago
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?
> 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.
"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.
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.
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.
If the speed of light were what it is for his reasons, it would be fuzzy. It isn't. Maxwell would like a word.