Strange

Also, the density of dark matter is greater at the centre of the galaxy.

The three stooges? Peter, Paul and Mary? The three bears? Crosby, Stills & Nash?

I would hyphenate it: space-time. But it's not a big deal: space time, space-time, spacetime ... all the same thing.

It is not entirely clear what you mean, but it is worth noting that the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers does result in time and space being observer dependent, which might be what you are saying.

It is the velocities of galaxies in clusters, the velocities of stars in the disk, the velocity of gas in the halo, microlensing, the velocities of stars in elliptical galaxies, the CMB, the large scale structure of the universe, the proportion of deuterium to hydrogen and probably other things I can't think of right now. Not only do all these things require dark matter, but they all require the the same amount of dark matter with the same properties.

Yes, it might.

I was thinking more of the myths perpetuated by popular science writing and journalism. There are models of completely empty universes (no matter, no energy) which, although they don't describe our universe (obviously!) are still useful for understanding how GR works.

Still no explanation of "31" ...

I have asked, and rather than an explanation, I get insults. So, where does the number 31 come from and what is its relationship to space?

So you are not prepared to explain it?

Missing mass throughout the whole galaxy (and beyond the visible part). For that to be the case, the black hole would need to have about the same mass as all the stars in the disk. In that case it would be rather obvious.

Because I want you to provide some peer-reviewed research that supports your claims.

Instead of using so many words to throw insults around, you could have simply explained what the "31" means. As you can't be bothered to explain it, I can't be bothered to take it seriously either.

I assume he started with the idea that the gravitational force is proportional to mass (a heavier object requires more force to lift) and then deduced that it was proportional to both masses. I have no idea. Maybe. He verified it himself by deriving Kepler's laws. Probably Eratosthenes. No, apparently it was Hipparchus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29

So, for example, the mass, distribution, velocity, age, size, type, etc. of all the stars; the mass, temperature and distribution of gas; the smaller satellite galaxies around; the history of collisions and mergers; etc? Yes, they do look at all these things and more, and try to come up with models that explain all of them. And, of course, there are other types of galaxies, such as elliptical galaxies, which also require dark matter to explain the velocity distribution of stars.

I suspect you will be told not to bring up your own speculations here and take the thread off topic. However, I will just point out that the other thing scientists do is try and come up with a single hypothesis or theory that explains multiple things. So, for example, dark matter explains: - Galaxy rotation curves - The orbits of galaxy c;usters - The variations in temperature of the CMB - Gravitational lensing - and several other things And these all require dark matter as some form of matter, not the other possibilities such as modifying the laws of gravity.

Putting something you made up inside quotation marks does not make it true.

I don't know enough to comment. From the little I have heard (just scraps on the news) it does sound like there were some bad practices. I assume there is some sort of official/independent inquiry?

It looks like sequencing the entire genome would cost less than $10K. And that would be far more than is necessary to determine if a sample was human or not. You can get DNA tests done online for tens of dollars. If this geneticist doesn't think the claims are credible, then I don't see why we should.

http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm-down-the-paracas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258 http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/

I'm sure it is very interesting ... but I would suggest checking the original source or some other more reliable source (which shouldn't be hard; there are few source less reliable than RT, which manages to make even the Daily Mail look like a newspaper). For example: http://www.nature.com/news/earth-has-water-older-than-the-sun-1.16011 (I haven't read either in detail to know if the RT article is accurate or not. But my working assumption would be that it isn't. )

Citation needed.

Apart from the fact it is fiction (see also: The Time Traveller's Wife) what on Earth does DNA have to do with angular momentum? In what context? The space-time of DNA?

Yes, the words are English. The words have meaning. The collection of words doesn't: "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation" So you are saying "A proten divided by a soul equals three quarks which also equals an expression of surprise or delight (oo oo oo) which also equals three stable rotations of a circle." Sorry, that makes zero sense. In what way can you equate a "soul" with a subatomic particle? What evidence do you have that a soul exists? What does "oo oo oo" mmean? Why the random use of colour? Where does 2160 degrees come from? What does "stable variation" mean? (I know the two words mean something but the combination doesn't. You might as well say "implicit fruitbat" or "colourless blue") And how about just explaining the whole thing in proper English instead of some cryptic code. I assume the reason for posting this is to communicate your ideas, in which case you should be pleased that people are asking for clarification. Why get angry when people ask you to explain yourself? Is it because you can't explain it because you know it doesn't make sense? Or maybe you think you must be very intelligent because no one else can understand what you write. Where do the numbers in brackets come from? And what is their significance? Time(17) flies(3) like(986) an(32) arrow(12). Fruit(16) flies(17) like(21) a(27) banana(64).

If the only person it makes sense to is you, then maybe it isn't worth writing. This, for example: Or this: Are just meaningless gibberish. If you think it makes sense then you have a very long way to go in making that clear to anybody else.