Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: atbsphotography on 02/11/2017 15:28:06

Title: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 02/11/2017 15:28:06
The Dark Planet Theory.

I've put a lot of considerable time and thought into this theory, in reality, I think the theory works, but I welcome your criticism and questions.

Key points;

Dark matter vs visible matter in the universal creation of things.

As we already know the universal creation of things is propagated by visible matter, this matter, in turn, creating the stars, the planets and nebulae. Along with energy, they are the dominant construction materials of the universe as we know it, in respect of this the universe is known to hold 98% visible objects, black holes account for the invisible 2% of objects.

My theory is to put forth the idea of an alternate construction of material things, therefore in my theory, the visible matter isn't the only building block of the universe, and thus I put forward the idea of dark planets.

What are dark planets?

Well, in reality, they are the exact same as visible planets, though invisible and governed by the forces of dark matter. They formed in the exact same way as other planets like earth, just they grow at an exponential rate, due mainly in part to the abundance of dark matter within the local planetary area. These planets are likely to be abundant throughout the universe.

What are the characteristics of dark planets?

The characteristics of dark planets are as follows;

How do dark planets affect other planets in orbit around a star?

Due to the nature of a dark planet and the amount of gravity they exert on the planets around them they disrupt the orbits of objects over a greater amount of distance than other planets. Therefore they can periodically exert a greater amount gravitational force over millions of years capable of disrupting the orbits of objects in the solar system they inhabit. This periodic disruption would subsequently affect the planets general ecosystem to an extent where the planets temperature and gravitational field would be disrupted for a short amount of time, in cosmic terms this could be for thousands of years.

For example, if Earth was being disrupted by the gravitational pull of a dark planet, over millions of years this would culminate in temperature shifts that would plunge the Earth into a cold spell, better known as an ice age. Therefore existing life would need to evolve other time to best be able to cope with the ice age. This disrupting force could last for anything from a thousand years to millions of years.

Could planet 9 be a dark planet?

After the announcement of a 9th planet possibly inhabiting a trans-Neptunian orbit, I was immediately drawn to the perturbed remoteness of the hypothetical planet. This leads me to wonder if the 9th planet in our solar system would be a dark planet. Further evidence of this may contribute to the lack of direct sightings of planet 9, for such a hypothetically large planet it would be rather obvious that we should have found it by now. The fact we haven't found it yet leads me to believe that my theory in a sense may be right.
Dark planets are characterised by the fact they are made of invisible matter and therefore they would be conducted by today's technology, and thus if planet 9 was a dark planet we would be quite far from detecting it now, other evidence for this may be;

This will be revised just as soon as I'm able, this version is a preliminary version.

If you have any questions please ask, also feel free to disprove my theory. We can all learn from that.

[/list]
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/11/2017 19:33:42
Could you fill us in a little more about this 9th planet? Links to discussions, circumstantial evidence, etc.?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/11/2017 23:36:24
Dark matter could form planets, stars, galaxies or even living things if the type you are positing is "mirror matter". Mirror matter behaves exactly the same way as normal matter, except that it would interact with normal matter only through the gravitational force.* This would make mirror matter invisible and intangible. However, if all dark matter was composed of mirror matter, we would expect it to be distributed in a similar way to normal matter throughout galaxies, which would cause the galaxy rotation curves to be different than we observe them to be. So although some dark matter might be mirror matter, much of it is likely of a form that is diffuse and does not condense readily into things like planets.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter)

*It could also theoretically interact via the electromagnetic force on a very weak scale by the process of photon-mirror photon mixing.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 01:34:42
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

Quote
As we already know the universal creation of things is propagated by visible matter,

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

Quote
What are dark planets?

 not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation


Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 04:27:55
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation

He's not talking about normal matter that is dark, he's talking about the cause of the galactic rotation curve anomaly. That form of dark matter does not absorb or reflect light. It is invisible. If you were to shine a beam of light on it, the light would pass right through (regardless of what wavelength of light you are using).
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 13:08:35
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation

He's not talking about normal matter that is dark, he's talking about the cause of the galactic rotation curve anomaly. That form of dark matter does not absorb or reflect light. It is invisible. If you were to shine a beam of light on it, the light would pass right through (regardless of what wavelength of light you are using).
Dark  energy is invisible, dark energy is the dark matter which of  course in reality is just electromagnetic radiation, i.e it is invisible.  Dark matter is objects without illumination, like normal the semantics stinks.
Yes again science have made mountains out of a mole hill and giving different meanings to the same thing.
The Universe is expanding because of EMR , not because of some dark matter or dark energy.


82360994042bcfb6e3fb431b607ea5a9.gif=>4/3 πr

info: The universal warming not just global.

added- damn I got myself started now on the subject.

Rules of thermodynamics, a body gaining more energy will expand it's field, as the field expands it weakens in magnitude in accordance with the inverse square law. i.e the moon is expanding its field that makes it move away from the earth .

Q.F.E - quantum field expansion.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 14:26:35
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation

He's not talking about normal matter that is dark, he's talking about the cause of the galactic rotation curve anomaly. That form of dark matter does not absorb or reflect light. It is invisible. If you were to shine a beam of light on it, the light would pass right through (regardless of what wavelength of light you are using).
Dark  energy is invisible, dark energy is the dark matter which of  course in reality is just electromagnetic radiation, i.e it is invisible.  Dark matter is objects without illumination, like normal the semantics stinks.
Yes again science have made mountains out of a mole hill and giving different meanings to the same thing.
The Universe is expanding because of EMR , not because of some dark matter or dark energy.


82360994042bcfb6e3fb431b607ea5a9.gif=>4/3 πr

info: The universal warming not just global.

added- damn I got myself started now on the subject.

Rules of thermodynamics, a body gaining more energy will expand it's field, as the field expands it weakens in magnitude in accordance with the inverse square law. i.e the moon is expanding its field that makes it move away from the earth .

Q.F.E - quantum field expansion.
What is that equation suppose to mean?

Can you explain what each operator stands for and exactly what the equation expresses? Can you explain the exact reasoning for placing each operator where it is in the equation?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 14:32:11
Quote
But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.


Dark matter is completely different to visible matter, for example, visible matter is visible through all spectrums and wavelengths whereas dark matter is not.

Quote
dark energy is the dark matter which of  course in reality is just electromagnetic radiation

I would also like to point out that electromagnetic radiation is visible as part of the electromagnetic spectrum, therefore dark energy/matter is not visible and thus it is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 14:45:02
I would also like to point out that electromagnetic radiation is visible as part of the electromagnetic spectrum,
it's not visible between masses, it is a dark energy such as the earths magnetic field. You can't observe it but it is there. If the earths magnetic field was to expand it would weaken in accordance to the inverse square law.  If it expanded it would push the moon away.
Global warming is increasing the energy retained in the earth and the moon is moving away from the earth in a state of expansion.

The dark energy and dark matter you are referring to , is made up and does not exist. 
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 14:46:06
Could you fill us in a little more about this 9th planet? Links to discussions, circumstantial evidence, etc.?

I'd be happy to;

http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523 (http://)
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 14:47:19
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation

He's not talking about normal matter that is dark, he's talking about the cause of the galactic rotation curve anomaly. That form of dark matter does not absorb or reflect light. It is invisible. If you were to shine a beam of light on it, the light would pass right through (regardless of what wavelength of light you are using).
Dark  energy is invisible, dark energy is the dark matter which of  course in reality is just electromagnetic radiation, i.e it is invisible.  Dark matter is objects without illumination, like normal the semantics stinks.
Yes again science have made mountains out of a mole hill and giving different meanings to the same thing.
The Universe is expanding because of EMR , not because of some dark matter or dark energy.


82360994042bcfb6e3fb431b607ea5a9.gif=>4/3 πr

info: The universal warming not just global.

added- damn I got myself started now on the subject.

Rules of thermodynamics, a body gaining more energy will expand it's field, as the field expands it weakens in magnitude in accordance with the inverse square law. i.e the moon is expanding its field that makes it move away from the earth .

Q.F.E - quantum field expansion.
What is that equation suppose to mean?

Can you explain what each operator stands for and exactly what the equation expresses? Can you explain the exact reasoning for placing each operator where it is in the equation?
Do you not know maths at all?

+hf is high frequency gain  divided by entropy (S) which is equal to a spherical field radius increase.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 14:51:16
I would also like to point out that electromagnetic radiation is visible as part of the electromagnetic spectrum,
it's not visible between masses, it is a dark energy such as the earths magnetic field. You can't observe it but it is there. If the earths magnetic field was to expand it would weaken in accordance to the inverse square law.  If it expanded it would push the moon away.
Global warming is increasing the energy retained in the earth and the moon is moving away from the earth in a state of expansion.

The dark energy and dark matter you are referring to , is made up and does not exist.

I would like to point out that as much as we don't see magnetic fields ourselves they can be observed, the same way you can observe the magnetic field of a pair of magnets.

That is why it is called a theory, how would you explain the extra mass in the universe if it wasn't something we could see? Hence the thought of dark matter/energy.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 14:54:44
I would also like to point out that electromagnetic radiation is visible as part of the electromagnetic spectrum,
it's not visible between masses, it is a dark energy such as the earths magnetic field. You can't observe it but it is there. If the earths magnetic field was to expand it would weaken in accordance to the inverse square law.  If it expanded it would push the moon away.
Global warming is increasing the energy retained in the earth and the moon is moving away from the earth in a state of expansion.

The dark energy and dark matter you are referring to , is made up and does not exist.

I would like to point out that as much as we don't see magnetic fields ourselves they can be observed, the same way you can observe the magnetic field of a pair of magnets.

That is why it is called a theory, how would you explain the extra mass in the universe if it wasn't something we could see? Hence the thought of dark matter/energy.

What extra mass in the universe?  Dark matter and dark energy are ''god theories'',   the belief of existence not being any sort of proof of an existence.   You can observe the affects of magnetic fields, you can increase the magnitude of a magnetic field and make objects expand away from the source.

>M=>r where M is magnitude and r is radius.

P.S Q.D.F   (quantum dynamic fields)

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 14:58:14
I didn't really want to comment because of the effort put into the post.  But when there is no visible light all matter is dark matter.

I am sorry , it is not visible matter, it is visible light.   all matter is dark matter when there is not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation .

not enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation

He's not talking about normal matter that is dark, he's talking about the cause of the galactic rotation curve anomaly. That form of dark matter does not absorb or reflect light. It is invisible. If you were to shine a beam of light on it, the light would pass right through (regardless of what wavelength of light you are using).
Dark  energy is invisible, dark energy is the dark matter which of  course in reality is just electromagnetic radiation, i.e it is invisible.  Dark matter is objects without illumination, like normal the semantics stinks.
Yes again science have made mountains out of a mole hill and giving different meanings to the same thing.
The Universe is expanding because of EMR , not because of some dark matter or dark energy.


82360994042bcfb6e3fb431b607ea5a9.gif=>4/3 πr

info: The universal warming not just global.

added- damn I got myself started now on the subject.

Rules of thermodynamics, a body gaining more energy will expand it's field, as the field expands it weakens in magnitude in accordance with the inverse square law. i.e the moon is expanding its field that makes it move away from the earth .

Q.F.E - quantum field expansion.
What is that equation suppose to mean?

Can you explain what each operator stands for and exactly what the equation expresses? Can you explain the exact reasoning for placing each operator where it is in the equation?
Do you not know maths at all?

+hf is high frequency gain  divided by entropy (S) which is equal to a spherical field radius increase.
I do know some maths yes (I wouldnt claim to know all maths however). Writing an equation without showing what operators stand for and expecting people to guess exactly what you mean  is pointless. Howe are we to know that for example Hf is high frequency and S is entropy.

You have also failed to explain the workings of this equation and how exactly it relates to any concept or theory. For example why +hf? Why > on the right side of the equation? When you say Hf, high frequency what? High frequency is not in itself a thing it is a relative description. ? This is known as trying to blag it.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 15:00:14
I would also like to point out that electromagnetic radiation is visible as part of the electromagnetic spectrum,
it's not visible between masses, it is a dark energy such as the earths magnetic field. You can't observe it but it is there. If the earths magnetic field was to expand it would weaken in accordance to the inverse square law.  If it expanded it would push the moon away.
Global warming is increasing the energy retained in the earth and the moon is moving away from the earth in a state of expansion.

The dark energy and dark matter you are referring to , is made up and does not exist.

I would like to point out that as much as we don't see magnetic fields ourselves they can be observed, the same way you can observe the magnetic field of a pair of magnets.

That is why it is called a theory, how would you explain the extra mass in the universe if it wasn't something we could see? Hence the thought of dark matter/energy.

What extra mass in the universe?  Dark matter and dark energy are ''god theories'',   the belief of existence not being any sort of proof of an existence.   You can observe the affects of magnetic fields, you can increase the magnitude of a magnetic field and make objects expand away from the source.

>M=>r where M is magnitude and r is radius.

P.S Q.D.F   (quantum dynamic fields)

Does this explain it clearly enough TheBox;

Quote
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one, making up about 27% of the universe. Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe! But what is dark matter? One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:03:35
This is known as trying to blag it.
Of course, I am trying to blag it and be a fake scientist, however I do understand in my own head what the maths stands for. Hf is the normal representation of high frequency and S is normally entropy , the surface/volume of a sphere is standard maths and the greater than and less than signs are standard.

I had already worked out before that :

Kmax =04d0b44d6409015e2fac61828d407233.gif  at the speed of light c.

So by blagging it, I am just hoping to impress somebody such as a scientist who might give me a hand with my notions and help correct my maths if they are at error to begin with.

Is that the answer you wanted?

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:06:42
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.
To be honest and objective mate , no. 

You have just said in reality :

Quote
Unlike normal matter, this none existent  matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 15:09:34
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.
To be honest and objective mate , no. 

You have just said in reality :

Quote
Unlike normal matter, this none existent  matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

I should point out that came from the CERN website so I should think they know a bit more than you don't you think?

https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter (https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter)
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:14:37
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.
To be honest and objective mate , no. 

You have just said in reality :

Quote
Unlike normal matter, this none existent  matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

I should point out that came from the CERN website so I should think they know a bit more than you don't you think?

https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter (https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter)
I should point out that they are saying the same thing,  their hypothesis at the best, ends at the first sentence.  They have no proof of dark energy or a dark matter existing.  They have some clever wording that makes the reader think they have proof, they talk about it as if they have proof when the reality is they do not .  So their idea ends at the first sentence.  The rest is subjective.
They are saying something imaginary is expanding the universe.

Dark energy and dark matter are of the imagination, electromagnetic fields or my n-field is not of the imagination.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 15:21:01
This is known as trying to blag it.
Of course, I am trying to blag it and be a fake scientist, however I do understand in my own head what the maths stands for. Hf is the normal representation of high frequency and S is normally entropy , the surface/volume of a sphere is standard maths and the greater than and less than signs are standard.

I had already worked out before that :

Kmax =04d0b44d6409015e2fac61828d407233.gif  at the speed of light c.

So by blagging it, I am just hoping to impress somebody such as a scientist who might give me a hand with my notions and help correct my maths if they are at error to begin with.

Is that the answer you wanted?


normal representation of high frequency means what? Can you explain the concept in simple terms? If not how is somebody going to help you otherwise? Why do you think you need maths to explain a theory? By trying to blag it you will not get anybody to take you seriously because it makes it patently obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:22:27
added-
Quote
Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

The n-fields makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:28:46
This is known as trying to blag it.
Of course, I am trying to blag it and be a fake scientist, however I do understand in my own head what the maths stands for. Hf is the normal representation of high frequency and S is normally entropy , the surface/volume of a sphere is standard maths and the greater than and less than signs are standard.

I had already worked out before that :

Kmax =04d0b44d6409015e2fac61828d407233.gif  at the speed of light c.

So by blagging it, I am just hoping to impress somebody such as a scientist who might give me a hand with my notions and help correct my maths if they are at error to begin with.

Is that the answer you wanted?


normal representation of high frequency means what? Can you explain the concept in simple terms? If not how is somebody going to help you otherwise? Why do you think you need maths to explain a theory? By trying to blag it you will not get anybody to take you seriously because it makes it patently obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.
Ok , I want to represent high frequency photon (pE)   spread out in a volume of two separate volumes of space.

Space 1: The N-field   (  the earth)

Space 2: The n-field   
The electromagnetic field
the charge field
the gravitational field
(unified polarities.)

So entropy 1 the earth

entropy 2 the earths fields

Something like that anyway....

 
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 15:31:55
added-
Quote
Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

The n-fields makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

Is this the same N-Field that has already been debunked on other threads by any chance?

Also please do enlighten me on how the N-Field has the approximate mass/energy of 68% of the universe? Being called an N-Field I struggle to place it anywhere close to 68%?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 15:33:21
Could you fill us in a little more about this 9th planet? Links to discussions, circumstantial evidence, etc.?

I'd be happy to;

http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523 (http://)

That link didnt work on my iPad, but I found it here:
https://mediaassets.caltech.edu/evidence_of_ninth_planet (https://mediaassets.caltech.edu/evidence_of_ninth_planet)
Thank you.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 15:39:14
added-
Quote
Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

The n-fields makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

Is this the same N-Field that has already been debunked on other threads by any chance?

Also please do enlighten me on how the N-Field has the approximate mass/energy of 68% of the universe? Being called an N-Field I struggle to place it anywhere close to 68%?
Well actually my N-field and n-field has not been challenged. 

When talking about a N-field, we are discussing atoms, when talking about a n-field, we are talking about all the fields of atoms that permeate from the N-field. 

My physics involves the gravitational field, the charge field, electromagnetic fields  that are unified into a n-field , the n standing for neutral.

Fields have mass, Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) which can be shown using two magnets.

I only use science that exists see.... I don't make things up or use things that are made up. I use science factual data.

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 15:50:02
Quote
only use science that exists see.... I don't make things up or use things that are made up. I use science factual data.

Isn't the N-Field/n-field made up though? I don't see any sort of mention of it elsewhere on Google or Bing. So it has to be, meaning you made the words up to describe something that you don't have a clue about. As is already reflected in other threads.

This thread which describes The Dark Planet Theory is based in part on speculations which are in turn based on actual observations, not based around made up words to describe something that is frankly wrong, just the same as eviscosity.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:03:10
Dark matter could form planets, stars, galaxies or even living things if the type you are positing is "mirror matter". Mirror matter behaves exactly the same way as normal matter, except that it would interact with normal matter only through the gravitational force.* This would make mirror matter invisible and intangible. However, if all dark matter was composed of mirror matter, we would expect it to be distributed in a similar way to normal matter throughout galaxies, which would cause the galaxy rotation curves to be different than we observe them to be. So although some dark matter might be mirror matter, much of it is likely of a form that is diffuse and does not condense readily into things like planets.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter)

*It could also theoretically interact via the electromagnetic force on a very weak scale by the process of photon-mirror photon mixing.

If I was to include mirror matter in my theory, I should think that the approximate percentage would be around 16% Dark Mirror Matter and the other 11% being dark matter, which in theory would lead me to believe that the 16% Mirrored dark matter being responsible for the creation of Dark Planets would mean they would be how I thought they would be in the part of the thread titled "What are the characteristics of dark planets?" Please do correct me if i'm wrong on this though.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:15:51
Isn't the N-Field/n-field made up though? I don't see any sort of mention of it elsewhere on Google or Bing.
That would be because it is new and not yet been put on google search or Wiki etc.  The difference is the n-field is not made up. It is a physical thing that has and is observed every day .
I have not made anything up in my theory I only used hard factual science that exists and is easily provable.

So unless the  factual science is incorrect my theory must be correct.


Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:20:15
Isn't the N-Field/n-field made up though? I don't see any sort of mention of it elsewhere on Google or Bing.
That would be because it is new and not yet been put on google search or Wiki etc.  The difference is the n-field is not made up. It is a physical thing that has and is observed every day .
I have not made anything up in my theory I only used hard factual science that exists and is easily provable.

So unless the  factual science is incorrect my theory must be correct.

This topic says otherwise https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71491.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71491.0)
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 17:07:58
Dark energy and dark matter are of the imagination

What is your proposed explanation for the galactic rotation curve anomaly?

The n-fields makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe,

What experiment did you use to determine that your n-field makes up 68% of the Universe? What test did you use to distinguish your n-field from other possible energy sources?

82360994042bcfb6e3fb431b607ea5a9.gif=>4/3 πr

Can you give us an example calculation with your formula? You know, so we can know that it works?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 17:48:33
What is your proposed explanation for the galactic rotation curve anomaly?
Faraday's electromotive force.
What experiment did you use to determine that your n-field makes up 68% of the Universe? What test did you use to distinguish your n-field from other possible energy sources?
The experiment I did was to replace the semantics of dark matter theory and to post it to see how it went down with the readers.
Can you give us an example calculation with your formula? You know, so we can know that it works?
I am not Maxwell, I am more of a Faraday so of course not.   I am giving you ''hints'' towards the maths. (formula)


Plus a can of gas to a balloons interior equals the size the balloon. Use a bigger can of gas and get a bigger balloon.

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 18:00:07
Mass doesn't exist, the dark matter is a bullshit.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 18:52:06
Mass doesn't exist, the dark matter is a bullshit.

And how did you come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 19:59:26
The mass is an illusion, each matter emmits an electromagnetic and electrostatic fields, the electrostatic field allows the matter to be in phase with another far away, the electromagnetic field creates the gravitation, and we feel: the mass. But the electromagnetic field is an attraction followed by an electromagnetic repulsion. The mean could be 0, attraction or repulsion, it depends of the phase angle. The matter is an electrostatic rotor with a lot of electrostatic poles, all matter try to be in phase with other matters around, at low distance it is possible but at far distance it could be a repulsion.

Law of attraction : 1/d
Law of synchronisation : 1/d
With d the distance between the matters

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 20:11:58
Faraday's electromotive force.

Please demonstrate that Faraday's electromotive force can replicate the galactic rotation curve data of the galaxy NGC 6503:  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/230779703_fig2_Figure-2-The-rotation-curve-of-galaxy-NGC-6503-data-from-47-The-dark-matter-halo (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/230779703_fig2_Figure-2-The-rotation-curve-of-galaxy-NGC-6503-data-from-47-The-dark-matter-halo)

Quote
The experiment I did was to replace the semantics of dark matter theory and to post it to see how it went down with the readers.

So then your experiment didn't have anything to do with checking your hypothesis against the data. That makes your claim nothing more than speculation.

Quote
I am not Maxwell, I am more of a Faraday so of course not.   I am giving you ''hints'' towards the maths. (formula)

So you admit that you don't even know if your equations work or not.

Quote
Plus a can of gas to a balloons interior equals the size the balloon. Use a bigger can of gas and get a bigger balloon.

What does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 20:18:13
The experiment I did was to replace the semantics of dark matter theory and to post it to see how it went down with the readers.
So not an experiment at all. You basically imagined something and claimed it is an experiment.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 20:27:22
"Please demonstrate that Faraday's electromotive force can replicate the galactic rotation curve data of the galaxy NGC 6503: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/230779703_fig2_Figure-2-The-rotation-curve-of-galaxy-NGC-6503-data-from-47-The-dark-matter-halo" easy if mass doesn't exist, the sign of the attraction is the cosinus of the phase angle, can be positive or negative
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 20:32:34
easy if mass doesn't exist, the sign of the attraction is the cosinus of the phase angle, can be positive or negative

So you can show us with math what Faraday's electromotive force predicts the velocity of the galaxy's rotation will be at 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Please do.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 20:56:48
The experiment I did was to replace the semantics of dark matter theory and to post it to see how it went down with the readers.
So not an experiment at all. Just something you thought up. Something you imagined.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 20:58:38
Please demonstrate that Faraday's electromotive force can replicate the galactic rotation curve data of the galaxy
That would be the job for a real scientist not me.  I am only mortal .
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 21:01:36
That would be the job for a real scientist not me.  I am only mortal .

So then your claim is just speculation.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 21:07:59
The experiment I did was to replace the semantics of dark matter theory and to post it to see how it went down with the readers.
So not an experiment at all. Just something you thought up. Something you imagined.
[/quo
Please demonstrate that Faraday's electromotive force can replicate the galactic rotation curve data of the galaxy

18 mins in, proof enough for me.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 21:15:01
"So you can show us with math what Faraday's electromotive force predicts the velocity of the galaxy's rotation will be at 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Please do."

The force of attraction is a function of cos(a) with a the phase angle. The phase angle depend of the distance and the possibility to the electrostatic force to synchronize the matter at distance.

F=-k*cos(a)

You think like the mass exist, but there is no mass, just an attraction/repulsion. Change the distance, you change the phase angle, so the cosine and the force of attraction.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 21:19:34
"So you can show us with math what Faraday's electromotive force predicts the velocity of the galaxy's rotation will be at 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Please do."

The force of attraction is a function of cos(a) with a the phase angle. The phase angle depend of the distance and the possibility to the electrostatic force to synchronize the matter at distance.

F=k*cos(a)

You think like the mass exist, but there is no mass, just an attraction/repulsion. Change the distance, you change the phase angle, so the cosine and the force of attraction.
but there is no mass, just an attraction/repulsion.
I have been trying to tell them that , I call it the n-field and the repulsion and attraction you are on about is simply polarities of the combined fields.
I do not know the angles you are discussing but you are sounding good to me .
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 21:28:30
The angle I spoke is the time between two waves from two matters: measure the electrostatic peak from one matter, idem for the second, the difference of time give an angle.

Positive peak from one matter at the same time of the negative peak from the second matter : the angle is 180 cos(angle)=-1 the matters attract each others

Positive peak from one matter at the same time of the positive peak from the second matter : the angle is 0 cos(angle)=1 the matters push each others

Positive peak from one matter at the same time of the 0 peak from the second matter : the angle is 90 cos(angle)=0 the matters don't attrack or push each others
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 21:53:53

18 mins in, proof enough for me.

So at what point in the video was it stated that Faraday's electromotive force was the explanation for the given velocities of different parts of a galaxy? Where was it explained how such a force could keep the velocity of galactic matter constant from about 3 kiloparsecs out despite the fact that the matter is increasingly distant from the galactic core and thus should be slowing down instead of remaining at a constant speed?

"So you can show us with math what Faraday's electromotive force predicts the velocity of the galaxy's rotation will be at 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Please do."

The force of attraction is a function of cos(a) with a the phase angle. The phase angle depend of the distance and the possibility to the electrostatic force to synchronize the matter at distance.

F=-k*cos(a)

You think like the mass exist, but there is no mass, just an attraction/repulsion. Change the distance, you change the phase angle, so the cosine and the force of attraction.

So what is the predicted velocity of galactic rotation 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Show your work.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 22:13:43
"So what is the predicted velocity of galactic rotation 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Show your work."

The synchronization depends of the straight velocity. Note, for me there is a global reference of velocity, the velocity deforms the inner "particle" so measure the deformation you will have the true velocity, from 0 to c. And the true velocity will deform the capacity to be in phase, it is like you give only one part of the wave (attaction), the other part (the repulsion) diseappear more and more. You want maths, but the physicians invented dark matter and create an artificial calculation to be true with the reality. I don't know where to start to verified my model but I share here, maybe one physician could be interesting.

And I can explain time. How the mechanics of time works.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 22:28:50
The synchronization depends of the straight velocity. Note, for me there is a global reference of velocity, the velocity deforms the inner "particle" so measure the deformation you will have the true velocity, from 0 to c. And the true velocity will deform the capacity to be in phase, it is like you give only one part of the wave (attaction), the other part (the repulsion) diseappear more and more.

I don't know where to start to verified my model but I share here, maybe one physician could be interesting.

I don't see any calculations here, so you don't know if your model is correct. It's just speculation.

Quote
You want maths, but the physicians invented dark matter...


Physicians came up with dark matter? I figured it would have been physicists...

Quote
...and create an artificial calculation to be true with the reality.

The calculations would have at least been plausible, even if their predicted particles haven't been found with certainty yet. If no plausible model of dark matter matched the data, it would have been falsified and discarded. That's not to say that dark matter certainly exists, it's just a good contender (another contending theory being MOND). In order for your theory to be on par with those two, it has to at least be able to match the data.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 22:43:57
"So what is the predicted velocity of galactic rotation 15 kiloparsecs from its center? Show your work."

The synchronization depends of the straight velocity. Note, for me there is a global reference of velocity, the velocity deforms the inner "particle" so measure the deformation you will have the true velocity, from 0 to c. And the true velocity will deform the capacity to be in phase, it is like you give only one part of the wave (attaction), the other part (the repulsion) diseappear more and more. You want maths, but the physicians invented dark matter and create an artificial calculation to be true with the reality. I don't know where to start to verified my model but I share here, maybe one physician could be interesting.

And I can explain time. How the mechanics of time works.
How the mechanics of time works
They charge 40 per hour for an oil change.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 22:52:35
Yes, I don't know if my model is correct. But it is so simple and logical compared to the curvature of spacetime, dark matter, inertia, etc.

I destroy:

Mass
Dark energy
Dark matter
Dark flow
Flyby anomaly
Curvature of spacetime
Inertia
Supermassive blackhole anomaly
Horizon problem
etc.

I have:

An absolute reference of velocity
An absolute reference of time

I don't know a lot about quantic physics but I think a lot of problem can be destroy with my theory.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 03/11/2017 22:54:31
"They charge 40 per hour for an oil change. " TheSpoon: no, it is like an helice of helicopter, so simple...
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/11/2017 23:25:42
Yes, I don't know if my model is correct. But it is so simple and logical compared to the curvature of spacetime, dark matter, inertia, etc.

I destroy:

Mass
Dark energy
Dark matter
Dark flow
Flyby anomaly
Curvature of spacetime
Inertia
Supermassive blackhole anomaly
Horizon problem
etc.

I have:

An absolute reference of velocity
An absolute reference of time

I don't know a lot about quantic physics but I think a lot of problem can be destroy with my theory.

What the f** is quantic physics?
I doubt if your model is correct. It sounds like the speculation of a drunk pub scientist.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 04/11/2017 09:15:53
Yes, I don't know if my model is correct. But it is so simple and logical compared to the curvature of spacetime, dark matter, inertia, etc.

I destroy:

Mass
Dark energy
Dark matter
Dark flow
Flyby anomaly
Curvature of spacetime
Inertia
Supermassive blackhole anomaly
Horizon problem
etc.

I have:

An absolute reference of velocity
An absolute reference of time

I don't know a lot about quantic physics but I think a lot of problem can be destroy with my theory.

What the f** is quantic physics?
I doubt if your model is correct. It sounds like the speculation of a drunk pub scientist.
You doubt and it sounds for you... great science )

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: atbsphotography on 04/11/2017 13:15:53
How did this thread turn into a debate about the existence of matter?
Anyone who thinks matter doesn't exist must be on drugs or in need of some psychological help, SIMPLE!
Matter exists or are we made of nothing? Please LB7 explain how we are here if the matter is a figment of imagination and improper science. Explain how we who are made of matter exist if it isn't real?

If mass doesn't exist, nor does matter, and that matter is what everything in the visible universe is made out of and gives it form, and my theory explains how dark matter could do the same and therefore make Dark Planets a possibility.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 13:54:27
How did this thread turn into a debate about the existence of matter?
Anyone who thinks matter doesn't exist must be on drugs or in need of some psychological help, SIMPLE!
Matter exists or are we made of nothing? Please LB7 explain how we are here if the matter is a figment of imagination and improper science. Explain how we who are made of matter exist if it isn't real?

If mass doesn't exist, nor does matter, and that matter is what everything in the visible universe is made out of and gives it form, and my theory explains how dark matter could do the same and therefore make Dark Planets a possibility.

Where does anyone say that matter does not exist? 

Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 13:58:46
I destroy:

Mass
Dark energy
Dark matter
Dark flow
Flyby anomaly
Curvature of spacetime
Inertia
Supermassive blackhole anomaly
Horizon problem
etc.
At this time your idea is not developed or explained enough to destroy anything.  You must try  much harder with your writing and explanations.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: The Spoon on 04/11/2017 19:42:58
Yes, I don't know if my model is correct. But it is so simple and logical compared to the curvature of spacetime, dark matter, inertia, etc.

I destroy:

Mass
Dark energy
Dark matter
Dark flow
Flyby anomaly
Curvature of spacetime
Inertia
Supermassive blackhole anomaly
Horizon problem
etc.

I have:

An absolute reference of velocity
An absolute reference of time

I don't know a lot about quantic physics but I think a lot of problem can be destroy with my theory.

What the f** is quantic physics?
I doubt if your model is correct. It sounds like the speculation of a drunk pub scientist.
You doubt and it sounds for you... great science )


Sorry? I do not understand what you have written. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: The dark planet theory?
Post by: LB7 on 04/11/2017 20:24:18
How did this thread turn into a debate about the existence of matter?
Anyone who thinks matter doesn't exist must be on drugs or in need of some psychological help, SIMPLE!
Matter exists or are we made of nothing? Please LB7 explain how we are here if the matter is a figment of imagination and improper science. Explain how we who are made of matter exist if it isn't real?

If mass doesn't exist, nor does matter, and that matter is what everything in the visible universe is made out of and gives it form, and my theory explains how dark matter could do the same and therefore make Dark Planets a possibility.


I didn't say the matter doen't exist, just the mass. You feel a weight, so you think there is a mass but not, it is an electromagnetic attraction followed by an elecmagnetic repulsion and the sum is not zero, the frequency of attraction/repulsion is very high so you fell the mean. The law is well in 1/d. And I think it is the electrostatic origin that can synchronized all the matter (or not if the distance is very high), the law is 1/d. The matter exists for me, and each part of matter is an electrostatic rotor, and these rotors synchronized themselves at distance. The electrostatic rotor create an electromagnetic push/pull so we feel gravity, we see the effect of gravity but it is an attraction/repulsion at a high frequency.