Dark matter in the classroom

Marv Clague, Vallejo CA — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:16:37 GMT

This will be great not just for the classroom but also for adults with an interest in, but little understanding of, dark matter. It should become widely used.

Dark matter in the classroom

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:38:32 GMT

A simple "kit" for describing what we know about life, and what forms it can take: a set of puzzle pieces that can form four different loops. The pieces fit into only the loop associated with the other pieces in their set. When put together, they represent four different metabolism cycles, and the kids are tasked with figuring out which are cycles found on Earth and which are possible extraterrestrial life forms. The loops represent plant life, animal life and deep ocean "extremeophile" life, and one that describes a hypothetical life form from say Titan that differs significantly from the Earth forms. A hint to two of them is in the fact that the plant and animal loops connect at the points where each gives off its waste gas and the other takes in that gas.

The "activity" isn't very physically active, but it is mentally active. They get to see how a set of chemical reactions fit one step into the next, taking some things in, using them, and giving other things off.

Now, as to the "dark matter" claims:

When a certain effect was noticed, something was thought up that explained it. Then when things were found that showed the same effect, this was taken as support for the hypothesized mechanism. There is an error here, based on circular logic. The evidence taken from observations only supports the fact that the phenomena occur, not that a particular mechanism causes it. Just because one of those has been described in greater detail doesn't mean it's more likely, only that it's been thought about more. Other mechanisms can produce the same results, but haven't been thought about as much. If dark matter (and/or dark energy) can be found in testing in the laboratory, then we can say it exists, but we still can't say it is responsible for the observed phenomena unless we can determine that they cause certain effects which only they can produce, ruling out the other possible causes. This also would require teasting of those other mechanisms to determine they differ from dark matter/energy in those ways that are used in the experiments to differentiate them.

One concept that has gone halfway through this process is that of "ether". Michaelson and Morely sought this hypothesized medium for carrying electromagnetic waves but found no conclusive evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Einstein theorized a set of physical laws that made ether unnecessary. This was hypothesized only. There are Earth based and orbital experiments planned or in progress that are intended to support Einstein's theory. However, they take exactly the form of that Michaelson and Morley used, and results would support the fact that the phenomenon occurs, but not differentiate the cause. The logic that Einstein's theory is simpler because it doesn't require ether is that of "parsimony", taken from Occam's Razor: the simpler explanation is the one most likely true. That logic is known to fail. There are causes for some things that are more complex than other hypothesized causes for the same observation. For instance, it was once considered that the mechanism for animal metabolism was fully described. Then we found the Krebs cycle. It explained the same thing, but is more complex, and was found to be correct.

Science, as a social activity, sometimes contradicts its defined process and follows the path set out by scientists' interactions rather than the laws set down for conducting science. A phenomenon should be accepted to the extent it is shown to be right AND the extent to which competing explanations are shown to be wrong. For examples of scientists accepting an explanation with lack of support, or rejecting one with adequate support, see Collins and Pinch's "The Golem".

This fits into the metabolism puzzle loops in that the kids have to determine what steps in a given loop, if any, can only occur off Earth, say, at -100 degrees. Plant, animal and extremeophile forms cannot live in that. Although based in biology, it comes from physics in that the chemistries can only fit into one set of physical constraints which include a given form of energy input, at a certain level, and produce (temporarily) more energy when putting together the parts of the process into an organism are taken into account. Living things use the same chemical and energy processes that the rest of the universe does, but the result appears, while the organism lives, to contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Also, three of the life-loops are supported by observation whereas one is not. A listing of observations from experiments can be provided which explain those (ie. the Krebs cycle work), with evidence for the fourth being only descriptions of a possibility but not proven to be actually occuring in the hypothesized environment (ie. the Urey-Miller experiment showing hydrocarbon and amino acid production, but not being seen for certain on Titan).

Dark matter in the classroom

John Bass, Lincolnshire, UK — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:42:25 GMT

This is just the project for all students to become aware and interested in. It should enthuse a new generation to study the sciences, along with mathematical interest in pursuing calculus theory to determine the answers to the questions we today are asking. Todays students are tomorrows engineers, technologists, and scientists, whose discoveries will shed even more light on the workings of our world and the universe.

Dark matter in the classroom

Mark Brown, Portland OR — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:05:48 GMT

Great idea, we desperately need to interest young people in science, especially tuned out American youth. How appropriate that the kit comes from Canada!

Dark matter in the classroom

Roy J. Meidinger 14893 American Eagle Ct., Fort Myers, Fl. 33912 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:23:13 GMT

Roy’s Law of Relativity and the Conservation of Total Energy

Physicists have long held to the concept of the conservation of energy; energy does not diminish but may change the form it is in. This is the premise of Roy’s Law of Relativity.

Albert Einstein put forth the law of relativity, but later rescinded it, E=MCC. Nicola Testla put forth a similar law of relativity, E=MVV, in which he said the velocity was not the speed of light by some lesser amount. Both laws of relativity are almost identical but with a slight nuance between them. Albert Einstein relied upon conceptual thinking while Nicola Tesla relied upon empirical work. The problem is that they both only dealt with two dimensions of the law of relativity, positive energy and positive mass or matter.

In the twentieth century Astrophysicists discovered two very important facts; the first is that the universe is expanding, but not only expanding the rate of expanding is accelerating, which implies there is a force acting upon it; the second is the existence of black matter. These two facts brings into a third dimension which must be included into the law of relativity. The fourth dimension which must be included is time.

The conservation of energy is based on two types of energy, the first is the energy from the law of the “Law of Relativity” and the second is the “Kinetic Energy” created over time between the reaction between positive matter and black matter. Let us look at the relationship over time of how these into react, starting with the big bang theory and zero time.
Time
Big Bang
E=MCC E=MVV Roy’s law = 1/2MCC + KE=1/2MCC
*_____________________________________________________________________

At the beginning there was just all energy and no time, so Einstein was correct, E=MCC. As time moved on there was a reaction between the positive mass or positive matter and the black matter which was converted into kinetic energy for the positive mass. This reaction lowered the relative energy which was left behind. So when Nicola Tesla measured the energy he was correct when he said the law of relativity was E=MVV. Nicola Testla did not know the exact velocity but did say it was less than the velocity of light.

The formulas we are dealing with are quite simple.
1) E = MCC; E is energy, M is mass, C is velocity of light;
2) KE = 1/2MVV; KE is kinetic energy, M is mass, V is velocity
3) V = ftM; V is velocity determined by force over time, M is the mass, f is the force, t is the time the force is exerted;
4) A = f; A is the force created between the positive mass and the black matter.

The following formulas represent the total conservation of energy and Roy’s Law of relativity.

The velocity of the universe is V = ftM or substituting the force between the positive matter and the black matter it becomes V = AtM.
The Kinetic Energy of the mass in the universe becomes KE = ½(At)(At)M
The Total Energy is equal to the sum of the Relative Energy and its Kinetic Energy.
Roy’s Law of relativity is E = M(CC – ½(At)(At)).
The Total Energy is written as TE = M(CC -1/2(At)(At)) + ½(At)(At)M

A is a universal constant which I believe the Astrophysicists can easily calculate. I also predict it is not going to be the total force created between the positive mass and the black matter. The other force being created is gravity. Gravity is not a particle as many people speculate but a negative void or negative vacuum created between the reaction of the positive mass and the black matter. These negative voids must be filled and that is why the positive matter moves towards them. If you eliminate the reaction of the positive mass and the black matter you will eliminate the gravity generated from the reaction.

Respectfully yours,

Roy J. Meidinger
14893 American Eagle Ct.
Fort Myers, Fl. 33912

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:19:17 GMT

Dennis: "but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I like the way you said that Dennis, did you come up with this on your own?

The big question here is what actually exists between the galaxies? I can't agree with any of the answers I have read for a number of reasons:("a vacuum", "nothing", and the topic we are talking about or dark matter)

Dark matter in the classroom

Cena Ellevgard, Richmond VA — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:46:32 GMT

What an excellent idea! Science is a wonderful study, and children should learn more about it.

Dark matter in the classroom

Greg, Atlantic City — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:17:49 GMT

I am glad they have found a way to make dark matter understandable to the general public and to high school students, but I hope this doesnt lead to it being taught as anything more than a theory. There is no evidence for dark matter other than what we observe makes sense in our understanding of physics only if it exists. I think it needs a disclaimer almost. That we should note, dark matter and dark energy are the remainders to the equation that we know to be physics at the moment, and no other strong proof of their existence is really available other than that they fit this equation.

Dark matter in the classroom

Brad — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:20 GMT

I guess we've come full circle. God used to be taught in the classroom. The Bible was used to teach reading and history. Then we had seperation of church and state - science can and will explain everything. There is no God. In the 30's scientists began discovering Galaxies behave in a way that isn't explained by our theories - that an "invisible force" actually affects how stars and planets move. The only difference between going back to the Bible as teaching aid is we prefer to call the force "Dark Matter" rather than the Biblical "hand of God".

Dark matter in the classroom

Alan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:14:19 GMT

A phenomena that I think would be interesting to read about is the possible connection of black holes and white holes. I've heard that it is theorized that matter that falls into a black hole may leave through a white hole. Also, any thought as to whether "grey holes" may exist? Some sort of space-time gateway where matter may be transferred without being destroyed by the enormous gravity of the black hole?

Dark matter in the classroom

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:32:18 GMT

Roy...it really does take all kinds, What axiom is that?

Dark matter in the classroom

Josh, Saint Paul, MN — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:12:07 GMT

Oh, great. Now we're back to ether. Why don't we just question whether the earth orbits the sun or the other way around? After all, that's just a hypothesis that seems to fit the evidence we've observed so far.

Dark matter in the classroom

Jaycubed — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:40:26 GMT

Brad,

There is no relationship between "dark matter" and the "hand of god".

Dark matter is a theoretical explanation of observed universal phenomena. These phenomena include the anomalously high rotational speeds of stars in the outer regions of all galaxies, the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

By universal, it means everywhere you look in the universe the same effects are observed, following the same rules. These rules can be described mathematically and can be used to predict the behavior of previously unobserved examples.

Dark matter does behave according to theoretical predictions. We just don't know what is the source (or more likely sources) of the dark matter effect.

Your "hand of god" has neither descriptive nor predictive value. It is the sign of willing ignorance about reality to claim the "hand of god" for anything not yet understood. The predictive quality of the bible in matters of physical reality is demonstrably lacking in quality or predictability. After all, the world is a quadrilateral instead of a sphere according to the bible...whales are fish...the Earth is fixed in space...the Sun revolves around the Earth and can be stopped in the sky by magic...the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is 3/1...etc.

We have not come "full circle" in any way. Despite the occasional "epicycle" in understanding our universe, we are & have been pointed in one direction since Galileo & Newton.

Dark matter in the classroom

Jaycubed — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:51:38 GMT

"The big question here is what actually exists between the galaxies?"
Ron Janec

The same thing that exists within galaxies: space, time, matter & energy. It is just the distribution of quantities that are different.

Primarily in regards to matter, secondarily in regards to energy and in relatively small measure in regards to space/time. Despite the amount of matter in a galaxy, most of it is not occupied by matter sufficient to severely distort space/time.

Dark matter in the classroom

Jaycubed — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:04:10 GMT

"One concept that has gone halfway through this process is that of "ether". Michaelson and Morely sought this hypothesized medium for carrying electromagnetic waves but found no conclusive evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Dennis McClain-Furmanski

In fact the Michaelson/Morely experiments provided evidence of the absence of the medium of "ether" in regards to electromagnetic radiation. If "ether" existed as theorized it should have produced predictable effects. Those potential effects were disproved by the experiment's finding that the speed of light is the same regardless of the "speed" of the measurer.

The Michaelson/Morely experiments found conclusive evidence that the proposed medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the "ether", does not exist.

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:46:44 GMT

Josh: I am sure something must be existing between the galaxies. The something should be physical, and this would also solve the problem of the missing matter.

This would be a something that the Morley-Michaelson experiment could not detect.The something would not be made of any particles so it wouldn't absorb any light. No particle movement would also account for the near absolute zero temperature of space.

The same something would have to get out of the way when other things move through it. Maybe a giant elementary particle in the shape of a sphere?

This would also mean that we are not going back to the ether, but instead are moving forward to something different. But it's just a theory.

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:21:20 GMT

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE???
What bona-fide scientist or logician would ever claim the absence of evidence is evidence of anything. How can no evidence be evidence? Sounds like the non-believer or atheist claim that there is nothing absolute, a declaration claiming to be that which it says does not exist. The self-contradiction becomes even clearer when the declarer insists "It's an absolute fact that nothing absolute exists.". :-)

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:53:04 GMT

MICHELSON/MORLEY EXPERIMENTS
It's MICHELSON, not Michaelson and MORLEY, not Morely. Further, the famous experiment was NOT evidence for the absence of the "ether" (did NOT show "ether" did not exist), but evidence that, if the "ether" existed, it had no effect on the propagation of light; hence, it became a useless or unnecessary thing for explaining the propagation of light. For example, light did not need a medium for propagation like, say, sound.

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:11:03 GMT

Jaycubed: I was asking a question about the space that exists between the galaxies or what is it? What is it made of? Later on, I posted a personal theory I have about this, or my version of "dark matter".

Of course my theory will be laughed at by many people like many new theories, but I personally believe it could be true.

Dark matter in the classroom

Jaycubed — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:17:17 GMT

"I am sure something must be existing between the galaxies. The something should be physical...What is it made of?"
Ron Janec,

My point is that it is exactly the same type of "space" that exists within galaxies or within you. It obeys the same laws of physics, therefore it is "physical". Why do you think it is any different?

---------

Carlton Lane,

Sorry, I got lazy & cut & pasted the original comments spelling of Michelson/Morly.

As for evidence of absence: if the predicted effects of a theory, such as "ether" being the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves, are shown not to occur (as was done by the Michelson/Morley experiment which demonstrated that however electromagnetic radiation was propagated it was not done through the medium of either a static or moving "ether"), then that concept is false and the described medium of "ether" does not exist.

The "ether" theory was created to explain how "waves" of electromagnetic radiation could propagate. "Ether" was a good theory because it made predictions & was testable: however the theory failed the test. And continues to fail newer & more precise testing.

It is not difficult to disprove a good theory. All you have to do is demonstrate that the predictions of the theory are not true. Aristotle's theory about the attraction of bodies was a good theory that was conclusively disproved by Galileo.

It is harder to disprove a bad or crackpot theory than a good theory. That doesn't mean that the bad/crackpot theory is likely to be correct.

It is impossible to "prove" any physical theory, one can only demonstrate significant correspondence between theory & reality/experimentation. A experimentally correct theory can be refined or incorporated into a better overarching theory.

If one wants to create a new "ether" theory, with different predicted qualities for "ether" having nothing to do with electromagnetic propagation, that is just a semantics game on your part. (Particularly if you provide a theory with no testable predictions.)

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:05:38 GMT

Carlton: While it was true that the ether had no observable effects on the results of this particular experiment, this still does not prove that the ether does not exist. Or absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It still makes sense to me Carlton, and I still wish I had said this.

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:11:59 GMT

ETHER THEORY
I am NOT saying dark matter is the new ether theory, but some have the right to say that "dark matter is the new ether theory" if they wish in a free country. All in the know understand that experiental evidence KILLED the old ether theory in the way it was being attempted to be used as a physical explanation for the propagation of light, but there is not enough reliable experimetal evidence, presently, to "kill"
the dark matter theory (analogous to a new ether for some, but it would be less confusing for all if a new "ether" theory DROPPED the word "ether" and stayed with the currently used "dark matter"). However, evidence is currently growing in support of dark matter NOT ever being "killable" in the same way that the old ether theory was. Remember, Newton's gravitation was and is not "killed" by Einstein's gravitation because Einstein's gravitation INCLUDES Newton's in cases where GM/(Rc²) is sufficiently small compared to 1. "G" is NEWTON'S gravitational constant (also in Einstein's theories); "M" is the mass involved; "R" is the distance to mass "M"; c² is the square of the maximum speed of light. ALL our space probes can have their trips handled by NEWTON because GM/(Rc²) is extremely small compared to 1. By the time we try to visit "sufficiently" close to our Sun [large M and small R making GM/(Rc²) move slightly away from 1] our probes will have fried. Mercury at relatively small R, while having been visited by us, does not need Einstein corrections because the times involved are too short for the Einstein effects to be a problem for Newtonian gravitation; besides, there are other orbiting effects that would mask them anyway.

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:27:55 GMT

Carlton: Ok it's MICHELSON/MORLEY. As further proof of what I was saying before, Michelson himself later on denied his famous experiment "proved" there was no ether, but almost no one would listen to him!

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:02:38 GMT

Jaycubed: It's real easy to call someone else's theory a "crackpot" theory(also rude)and never have a original thought of your own. Many of the people you learned from and respect today were also called "crackpots" originally.

By the way, one of the strengths of my "crackpot" theory is the way it would also exist here on Earth between the nucleus of every atom and it's electron(s), because of it's no particle composition.

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:19:07 GMT

PROVING A NEGATIVE
If there is something somebody does not understand about the impossibility of proving a negative, then studying a logic text is highly recommended.
Another thing, let's just alter the claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to see how needless this claim is. Absence of evidence means NO EVIDENCE; so, let us replace "absence of evidence" by "no evidence" and we get "No evidence is not evidence ..." which bears the needlessness of all tautologies (you can put anything you like in the ....
For examples, "No evidence is not evidence of Mickey Mouse"; "No evidence is not evidence of gravity"; "No evidence is not evidence of pornography".). None of these examples tells us anything about Mickey Mouse, gravity, or pornography any more than "No evidence is not evidence of absence" tells us about absence. They all just amount to telling us no evidence is no evidence. What would one think of a dictionary that "defined" every word by just repeating that word, for examples, a house is a house; a mongrel is mongrel?
HOWEVER, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has a certain ring (charm?) about it that may make one feel good and THERE IS NO HARM IN THAT as long as one does not mistake it for a profundity. WHAT FOLLOWS has an easily seen connection, but it is about POLITICS, hence, opinion; so, some may be happier not reading it, especially because it has a gloomy outlook. For me, while Obama's (and other's) rhetoric surely makes many feel good, me too, I don't see the profundity our country needs in the coming critical election (How did hyprocrite Spitzer "charm", "fool" the crowd?). I may be blind because I don't see enough (if any) politicians who do more than try to woo the crowd with nice sounding (catchy) phrases to get elected, reelected and reelected rather than give us honest, non-hyprocritical, intellectual information about themselves and their ideas. Easter time reminds many that the crowd chose Barabus and most, today, are quick to say they would never have made that choice. Well, I wonder. The crowd (majority) chose to reelect the current Bush and the crowd rejected J.C., Jimmy Carter, an Anapolis graduate, for a movie actor. It surely could make one wonder if the crowd chose Barack whether they finally got it right or are doing the Barabus thing again.
Guess the nice sounding (catchy) "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing." might be seen as appropriate here, (note, again, the inherent self-contradiction, as mentioned in an earlier COMMENT about other such common self-contradictions. like "there is nothing absolute", in claiming it teaches and does not teach) but it is only of little (if any) more help than "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.". Enjoy :-).

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:07:08 GMT

"Almost no one would listen to him" (Michelson)
EXCEPT all bona-fide scientists (as Michelson was pointing out) and all those who know that science only handles INDUCTIVE proof. Einstein's theory does NOT "prove" that the maximum speed of light is the physical "speed limit" of our universe, but it does show that our physical universe would not be consistent if the "speed limit" were exceeded and it is a matter of FAITH that our universe is consistent. However, just like what has been said about the consistency of arithmetic being unprovable, hence, a matter of FAITH, consistency of our physical universe is a matter of FAITH (belief), NOT something science can deductively prove. One can say that the consistency of our physical universe has INDUCTIVE proof, but not deductive (ultimate?) proof.
One does have to take care a bit here. Just because we can't prove something that "something" may still be VERY helpful and enlightening to us. Things must have at least the two attributes just mentioned to be considered in the realm of science. A proof BY INDUCTION means many experiments have shown agreement (many experiments attest to the consistency of our physical universe), but this kind of proof (evidence) is not a proof by deduction nor an ultimate proof. Deductive proof can show that there will never be an exception (makes a 100% guarantee) which inductive proof just can't honestly do. Remember the earlier comment on the fact that the deductive (ultimate?) proof that one can not trisect a plane angle with only the use of an UNMARKED ruler (umarked straight edge) and a compass (not the kind that points to magnetic North but the one used to draw approximate circles). Just because many (all in your experience?) stones, released from rest sufficiently near the surface of the Earth, gravitate toward the Earth when no bodies more massive than Earth are sufficiently close by, is only an INDUCTIVE proof that the next such experiment will produce the same result. Science CAN'T provide a 100% guarantee (mathematical proof?) even though many think so, but science by coming sufficienty close to 100% in its proper cases is what gives science its credibility and great usefulness.
Politicians seem able to make 100% guarantees and get away with it even when wrong (or lying?). :-)

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:28:53 GMT

Carlton: You never made any comments about my theory about the heaven (As in: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV)

I usually try to avoid mixing religion and science but sometimes you have to.(Many other scientists do this without even realizing they are doing this if anyone complains) What do you think?

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:18:53 GMT

Ron Janec and OTHERS
Do not see anything about "heaven" in your comments here. Maybe you are refering to your question about what is in space between matter. Answer from science: RADIATION. Answer from some religions: GOD. There might be such a situation where there is nothing between something and somethingelse, but I don't think science has found such or sees any need for such in science. For some scientists the universe arose from a fluctuation in the QUANTUM VACUUM, but this "vacuum" seems to require virtual particles etc..
Some scientists define their science so as to avoid the need for consideration of religion and in a free country they can do so. However, any scientist who says that science is the only thing in our universe CLEARLY runs into trouble. Science excludes (or claims an error has been made when it runs into) the infinite. Mathematics (don't need to go to religion's obvious objections) provides ample evidence of the infinite and its usefulness (help scientists find their errors?). Mathematics has shown us that humans have the ability to recognize, explore, and become knowledgeable about the infinite. In exploring the infinite we see things that are in great contrast to (even contradict) the finite. Some (most) have ONLY experience with the finite and, therefore, have a bias that often brings strong resistance, if not complete denial, of infinite things. It is just such a bias that is the source of many atheists' (including Christopher Hitchens) errors caused by failing to consider an infinite god. Finite bias (which we ALL develop from birth like 3-dimensional bias) says that everything has a beginning and an end; hence, there is NOTHING infinite (because they never saw "one", like the "black" man who never has seen a "white" man or vice versa). INFINITE things do exist and INFINITE COMMON SENSE (bias?), not finite common sense (bias?) is required for understanding and proper usage. I'll just give one example (going further could yield a long book). Our counting numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....., are infinite as indicated by the ....... They go on FOREVER (something finite things do not do); there is NO largest counting number; any such claim can be exceeded by addition or even more and faster by multiplication or exponentiation. Also, recognizing that the even counting numbers are INFINITE (go on forever), the odd counting numbers are INFINITE AND this INFINITUDE is neither larger nor smalller than the infintude of all the counting numbers (even and odd combined) allows one to properly write INFINITY + INFINITY = INFINITY eliciting our finite common sense to cry (but wrongly for some infinie things) 1 + 1 = 2, not 1 + 1 = 1 (one infinity plus one infinity yields just one infinity). We have to leave this here for the reason already indicated; but, if you have understood this brief story, then you can see that saying forever and forever, and forever, and forever is no better than saying forever. Mathematics can show that even if you say "forever" an infinite number of times (forever) it is nothing more than a single "forever". Now that's a "lot" (infinite amount) of time savings to make up for any you may feel that you wasted reading this stuff.

Dark matter in the classroom

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:07:15 GMT

Carlton Lane: I was actually talking about my theory on the giant static finite elementary particle from a few days ago (or the heaven). I believe that this was the first physical thing that God created, and was created in it's entirety billions of light years in diameter.

I said finite because God created it finite, but I can also prove that the physical universe must be infinite if my belief in the real existence of God was always a illusion(So I also agree with you that the a infinite state could exist): Which would also mean that the big bang theory is wrong.

With all due respect Carlton, and I do have a lot of respect for you from reading your other posts: Your last post was very hard to read because you did not use any paragraphs! Could I suggest you break them up in the future?

Dark matter in the classroom

Carlton Lne, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:46:21 GMT

Ron Janec and Others

Becaue simultaneity in our physical universe is relative (just like velocity is relative in our physical universe) due to the finite speed of light, it is not physially possible to have created our physical universe
extended in space-time (this fact is why current physics seems to require beginning at a singular point and then expanding). Again, simultaneous creation at widely separated points in space-time contradicts the observed nature of our physical universe where light has a finite speed. Such a creation may be possible in some other type universe, like one where the speed of light is infinite, but not in ours where the speed of light is finite.

If the speed of light were infinite, then simultaneity would not be relative and our ability to uncover the wonders, truths, and beauty of our physical universe, as we have done, would not be possible.

OPINION: Rather feel that making the speed of light infinite would have been the work of a malicious thing (a devil?). The finite speed of light, however, may be seen as a caring thing. At this Easter season, it would be good to see the Jesus message as "God cares!" ("the force cares!" for those who get upset with the word "God") and not let this caring be lost because of many other controversial things. THANKS BE FOR THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Dark matter in the classroom

Tim Rommes, Washington UT — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:31:19 GMT

Jaycubed, ref 3/20 1317, the M&M experiment. If I proposed that invading the European continent could only happen if I transported my troops via hot air balloon and then D-day happened using boats this would only disprove my theory. It would not offer any information about hot air balloons. M&M only showed that ether wasn't needed for the propogation of light. It told us nothing about ehter. Not whether it exists and not whether it doesn't. Only that we don't need it to see.

Carlton, how nice to see you again, great logician that you are. Just ask you. Once again it seems to me that you've taken that brilliance and tried to push it too far and just for the sake of trying to prove your point by being the one who screams the loudest. Absense of evidence is often evidence of absense. This really only works once we have predictable evidence of presence. Heat damage is evidence of extreme (relative term) heat and lack of that evidence is itself evidence that extreme heat was not present. Again, we have predictable evidence of presence as a basis. Not the case here, so your argument is valid. Your arguing on the other hand ... Defining "absense of evidence" as nothing works in many situations but in this one it is tied to the "evidence of absence." You can't just replace the one without the other. Ask a better logician. Taking your task to it's right completion we get the statement "nothing is nothing." Seems to work on so many levels. Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse. Porn is Porn.

More fully, absense of evidence is evidence of absense only to the reliability and applicability of our measurements. Reliability being easy enough, is our measurement precise enough and do we keep getting the same value. Applicability, well, I can get very precise, very accurate sound level readings. Sound level measurements may not apply well if I'm trying to measure mpg, which is all the rage now. Since we can't even define what dark matter is, much less what are it's effects in the universe, we have no measurements that we can call reliable and applicable. For this reason we can't use a lack of evidence to aquit. Sidetrack. For this reason we can't use absence of evidence, pronounced "our ignorance of what to look for and/or how to measure it" as evidence of absence. Assuming that dark matter, or ether (CBR?), exists we may not be able to prove it until we stumble across a means to measure it. In turn, if it doesn't exist we can't discount it just because we haven't stumbled across that means, because for all we know it does exist and we just haven't stumbled ... Carlton knocked this idea out pretty well above. He is brilliant, after all.

Hey, I moved.

Dark matter in the classroom

Tim Rommes, Washington UT — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:15:54 GMT

Having reviewed the material I find that it is so oversimplified as to be essentially useless. If these parlor tricks are what it takes to gain the interest of high school students, as opposed to the fifth graders I would have assumed, then we're screwed. The physics are too introductory for such a cutting edge, controversial unknown as this. It is akin to explaining politics with the statement, "It's how we all make a common decision." Truish, but not nearly complete even on a theoretical basis, much less even addressing the game of lies politics has become. Perhaps the intent is that many issues will have been covered prior to viewing and that this is only a tool in the arsenal and the teacher will make up for the vast deficiencies and errors in the classroom.

Dark matter in the classroom

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:52:32 GMT

Multiple Circular (Bubble) Universes:
because we find our Universe to have circular components, Galaxies are circular, solar systems are circular, atoms are circular, atomic components are circular, dark matter is probably only circular orientated particles that each get smaller to their host infinitesimally, hence they have weight, but can't be seen by our limited scope.