J.C.MacSwell

Possibly with respect to the CMBR isotropy. I think that would be a reasonable frame or frame continuum if the Universe is finite.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/has-nasa-spotted-earths-twin-watch-live-announcement-here/54694/ Looks like we are getting closer and closer to finding exoplanets like Earth

Regular tap water can kill you if you ingest too much. Sweating or not. Under normal circumstances it is uncomfortable to do this but not particularly painful (ignorance and contests/competitiveness can be a problem) Pure water is actually a fairly aggressive chemical. Tank liners designed to contain medium strength acids at temperatures of 99 C/ 210 F can fail over time with pure water at 60 C/ 140F.

Read over the notable cases. Less water than you would expect causing fatalities in some cases.

You cannot maintain simultaneity (agreement) along the axis/direction of acceleration, while accelerating all points equally and for the same duration, (which can only be achieved from the viewpoint of one cross section of the spaceship/rods/spaces). If you mean to do this from the perspective of a constant inertial frame, you cannot do it without stretching or compressing the craft/rods along it's length.

I know that for composites, carbon fibre is preferred over glass fibre in the X-ray range. Quite the opposite of the visible range.

I'm not sure I wanted to, but I think I successfully experimented on corn.

Thanks This is something I don't picture well. Why would a halo encourage higher rotation speeds? I would have expected the extra mass being required inside the orbits of the stars that have the higher than expected orbital speeds. Is the dark matter at higher speed dragging everything around?

Strength of materials. Exceed that and they do indeed blow up.

Ok. Lets take Father Ted et al (al being the experts) word for it for now on point 2. On your reply to point 1, where is the dark matter distributed or required?

Briefly speaking, we believe we know: (feel free to comment, correct or add) 1. the mass distribution from the radiation signals we receive (could we be underestimating the mass?) 2. The distances involved from the overall redshift (could we be overestimating the distance, and thus the diameters?) 3. the rotational speeds involved from the frequency shifts of the above radiation at different orbit diameters Also, if space is not Euclidean at astronomical distances we could overestimate the diameters even if we get the distance correct. Not suggesting I think it is wrong, just wonder how confident we are in the estimates.

It's much more likely you are just a Boltzmann Brain, dreaming all this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS2xL1yTSQ

From Wikipedia on Hawking Radiation The black hole radiation temperature will balance the CMBR when the black hole is approximately the mass of the moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

The way I have heard it, a pair bond is especially beneficial for humans in that their offspring need a much longer protected upbringing than other animals, which allows longer for development. Presumably this, in part, allowed humans to evolve in the way we did. Then of course there obvious advantages to promiscuity, especially for males. I think we are a hybrid of both, and have instincts or tendencies for both.

…only when not being observed…otherwise he collapses, usually on the couch, into a very monogamous state …however, when she knows exactly where he is, she has no idea where he is going...

That, or you would swim even better as the water you push against would have no reason to give way. You would get all of the energy you expended…though who knows about what the drag situation would be, or for that matter how you could manage a stroke in the first place. We really would need some law/s to replace it to know what would happen. It really is not a stand alone law, independent of all others.

I have to be skeptical of the results or conclusions. Only a slight difference in speed (or time lapse on their "race track"), but if true, in one frame this would be a stationary photon.

Fair enough. You would need some conversion factors. But would that not mean that dynes, stone furlongs per fortnight, and jiffies were already more hell in a hand basket than a system?

It's not confusing (at least…it wasn't). P is translational momentum.

Careful. We don't have quite enough hockey players across the border yet to make any significant moves at this time.

e) I would question what's in my tea and biscuits.

In the reverse direction there would be just one velocity at some point during the approach that would result in the ball coming to absolute rest at the top. There would be many more where it would "seem" perfectly stationary for some duration before heading off in some direction, the duration and direction being fixed by the mathematics of the idealized case. So Newtonian Mechanics might not be perfectly time reversible after all…but you might have to wait around for an eternity to "prove it".

That's all frame dependant. Newton's Laws are not (inertial) frame dependant.

Not sure if this is being missed, but once in the dynamic friction range in any direction it is in that range in any other direction, until it comes to a stop. (there are transitional effects, but not significant here)

Could they not give the tiny pilots some kind of IQ test? If they do average, or worse, they are unlikely to be super intelligent.