J.C.MacSwell

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.

The moon is tidally locked to the Earth. Mercury to the sun. I suspect there are examples of mutually locked.

I agree 100% but have to ask. Is this your opinion of any Big Bang Models as well? (since it is essentially not testable) Sorry if that is off topic.

Yes but the addition from the a x t approaches (read is) zero at the margin and will only start to factor in as starts to accumulate non perpendicularly to the instantaneous velocity. Sorry if that is unclear, I'm not wording it very well. For , say, circular motion at constant speed there is never any acceleration other than perpendicular to the velocity so the acceleration doesn't change the speed, only the direction.

Would a one in 65 millionth of a chance per year be a bad guess?

Many Worlds? I went with other.

I think we looked at this before and it should be presently very close to what the earth receives from the sun as you are implying. This would drop as it cools though.

This is for those that didn't think the Sun disappearing question was moot to begin with.