[guest39538]

added-

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,

[guest39538]

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 :

K_max =  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....

 

[atbsphotography (OP)]

added-

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%?

[Bogie_smiles]

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

That link didn’t work on my iPad, but I found it here:
https://mediaassets.caltech.edu/evidence_of_ninth_planet
Thank you.

[guest39538]

added-

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.

[atbsphotography (OP)]

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.

[atbsphotography (OP)]

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

*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.

[guest39538]

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.

[atbsphotography (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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?

=>4/3 πr³

Can you give us an example calculation with your formula? You know, so we can know that it works?

[guest39538]

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.

[LB7]

Mass doesn't exist, the dark matter is a bullshit.

[atbsphotography (OP)]

Mass doesn't exist, the dark matter is a bullshit.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[LB7]

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/d²
Law of synchronisation : 1/d³
With d the distance between the matters

[Kryptid]

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

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.

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.

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?

[The Spoon]

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.

[LB7]

"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

[Kryptid]

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.

[The Spoon]

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.

[guest39538]

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 .