J.C.MacSwell

Conservation of momentum

Only in the direction of the force.

Then you will accelerate the centre of mass according to F=ma If you do this to a billiard ball in "outer space" (no table) you will also impart rotational motion. Careful with the point of contact and direction of force as they will "want" to change if we are not careful.

F=ma It does not matter if it acts through the centre of mass. It will accelerate the centre of mass of that "body" in the direction of the force. It does not matter what shape, rigidity or "coherence" the body, gas cloud or "deformable object" is getting "accelerated". The centre of mass will accelerate according to F=ma, in the direction of the force except for relativistic effects If it does not act through the centre of mass it will also impart a torque or moment on the body.

They find them a lot more interesting...due to their magnetic personalities.

What does this refer to?

So is the subtended angle corrected for the presumed hubble expansion (which would exagerrate the subtended angle) that is at right angles to the hubble expansion that causes the redshift? And the difference in diameter required to explain the discrepancy on it's own would a factor of roughly 3 then? (square root of 10) Is the missing matter (percentage wise) constant with distance?

Not sure but a thought came to mind when I read the title: If the Hubble Constant was really constant then the Hubble "increase in volume rate" would be increasing with time. Seems obvious now that I've typed it.

How do we know that Galaxies aren't smaller and therefore require less "dark matter" to hold them together? What factors are taken into account? Distance (redshift) angle subtended (is that the correct term) How much stronger (percentage wise) would gravity have to be to not require dark matter?

I thought that was your position. I do not agree with it but I can see that it is logically consistent based on your assumptions (and lack of assumptions in certain areas)

Another victory for the Steady State Theory!

It is assumed to be in the direction of the velocity, and even then only marginally as it will change again as any acceleration takes place.

I think what you mean by this is correct.

You do not believe in any "fabric" of space? Is this correct? If it is correct then what do you perceive to prevent light from travelling (say) two light years in one years duration? Maybe a better way of putting it is: What is it that does not allow the light to arrive earlier? What is it that makes it a 2 light year distance instead of just one? You seem to be sure that it is nothing substantial. I cannot prove that it is. But I doubt that you can prove that it is not. Even in principle.

Agreed In principle it's quite easy. Location A (1,2,3) Location B (4,5,6) In practice see above, I agree with you, I'm sure you don't believe the speed of light is infinite.