J.C.MacSwell

I have read this in some reports and "dominant in it's area" in others.

I should know this, but neutrons themselves aren't candidates as they radiate via their charged quark components, right?

Thanks Martin So if say the mass was estimated correctly but the distances overestimated by a factor of 2 (thus galaxy volume by 8 and gravitational force by 4) then "3 masses" worth of dark matter would be "found" (no longer needed) Or in your example of a 20% mass sun if the distances were reduced by 55% then everything would stay in balance. Is there any correlation between "dark matter required" and the distance away?

Let me think about that for about 12 hours.

How much stronger gravity would be required, in the average galaxy, to hold it together? Put another way, if we assume that the mass that we can observe is all there is in each galaxy, how much smaller would the average galaxy have to be to hold it together? Could our mass estimates be correct, but our distance measurements be off enough to allow for the difference? Could this be evidence of space curvature over a certain scale? (If I was on the North Pole, could see the equator along the curve etc. and correctly estimated the distance to the equator but thought the Earth was flat, I would overestimate the length of something lying along the Equator)

Aren't we all? I read most of Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" and found it quite interesting. The math's were over my head there also but I think I got an impression of where he was going.

On the first day God created...

No. If the outer perimeter of the Space station was moving slow enough to "orbit itself", just cancelling out it's weight, there would be no artificial gravity. It has to spin faster to do this.

Top 3 are old guys. Aren't your twenties your most creative years in physics?

I didn't check the links but your approach is interesting. I am always amazed when anyone "believes" a theory of the universe at or near 100%, often based on "no more plausible explanation". I remember Martin Rees claiming he had moved from 90% towards 99%+ certainty in the Big Bang Model. (I think it was in his book "Just Six Numbers" published in 2001). Regardless of the level of consistency with what we have observed in the past few hundred years it seems to huge an extrapolation to have that degree of "faith" in it, though I suspect it is mostly based on the weakness of the alternatives. The Cyclic Universe is an extended extrapolation of the Big Bang Model in some presumably Sinusoidal form (I think?) Personally I "prefer" a steady state model from a philosophical point of view, though it would require a different set of assumptions from those that presently disfavour it, including further rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics than that needed for the Cyclic Universe (as Insane Alien pointed out). Can't say I "believe" any theory in particular, but find it very interesting what "odds" others, scientists or armchair scientists such as myself, would give each theory. It would be interesting to see some well thought out polls on this.

Just be warned. We cannot risk sending a search party in those dimensions.

It almost seems like Bohm was anticipating a Kaluza-Klein type solution as an explanation to non-locality with the hidden variables (dimensions?) being "projected up" onto or into what we perceive as space time.

Cross sectional area X velocity squared X density of the fluid (air) divided by 2 X Cd (drag coefficient again probably 0.1 to 0.2) I think if you plug in the numbers in any units you want you get a force. I generally use f-p-s for aerodynamics and always have that equation in my head but I think it works out in metric with the same coefficient (though the coefficient can change with velocity, fluid and scale due to viscous effects on the flow

Lol, very good!

I was thinking spatial dimensions where we are unaware of the ones we cannot see. The point is that your model depends on the assumptions you make. If I defined them exactly then Sevarian may be able to rule out the extradimensional model based on a contradiction from experimental evidence. But I don't think we can rule out all extradimensional models. In fact our current Spacetime model (with causality and locality) suffers from contradicting experimental evidence.

You are assuming they (and you) are 3 dimensional and not more. You do not know this, only that you can see people in the 3 dimensions that you perceive.

Increased entropy is often associated with decreased order and often an order type of analogy is used to describe the second law. But it is just an analogy though a strong one. The second law is colourblind (notwithstanding the differing wavelengths associated with the colours in a real sense). Order in of itself is not the opposite of entropy.

And using the right set of assumptions that argument can be made.

The momentum of rotation.