J.C.MacSwell

I think (have read) the upper limit for black hole mass is much less than the required dark matter, but related to the age of the universe, so on that basis it would be feasible. But it would have to be much much older and therefore would not fit the data without very significantly changing some of the underlying assumptions. (rate/s of expansion, distance estimates etc.)

Still a sensible thing you can do about some radiation.

Sunscreen?

I think that's a fairly safe conclusion. From my limited perspective 99%+ of even regular church going "Christians" would agree with that; That a creationist model based on taking the Old Testament literally is flawed inspite of there being some evidence of historical correlation. I think the number would get smaller, less would agree that it is falsified, the closer the creationist model approached the evolution theory.

If you were God, your avatar would be a little more intimidating. I know it's not a law, but it's just common sense!

Wouldn't most scientists (or people using scientific method) agree that in the case you just described that it is in fact falsifiable, to a "reasonable" degree and is therefore unsupportable? The "God did it" weaseling out should not hold up in an honest scientific sense. If it did you could base all of science on it, not just creation.

What is an e-fold? I assume 60 e-folds is the time of the "release" of the CMBR?

Flamingoflie, if the thread was clearly intended to be about non-relativistic Newtonian gravity and I continually brought up relativity with the fervour of a religious zealot would you agree that I was being annoying? There are threads for creationism in which you can post.

Very different circumstances. Not my area, but I think sharp may be advantageous. I know that sharper is advantageous at the leading edge of a hyrofoil or rudder near the surface to a depth dependant on the velocity. The pressure at the stagnation point of a rounded/blunter section is not "recovered" by a corresponding drop/suction aft of the leading edge so it just amounts to increased drag.

Even for a symmetrical foil and 0 degrees angle of attack a razor sharp leading edge is not ideal simply due to the extra wetted surface required although is is not bad otherwise. So it is higher drag than the optimal shapes. At any angle of attack it is poor both in terms of lift and drag and will stall much earlier.

I always pictured light staying at "c" but having further to travel (around molecules) in different mediums, but also have been puzzled by this "absorbtion/readmission". Do photons have a much greater likelyhood of being readmitted in the same direction they were going (prior to absorbtion) in transparent materials?

But don't you have to choose an axis about which to test the polarisation? Are you not "forcing" a 100% left or 100% right choice on the photon?

I think this interpretation has been consistently on the losing end of the argument for the last 70 years, at least in the eyes of most physicists.

Force equals Cd times Area times density/2 times velocity squared. Water is 1000 kg per cubic meter so you know everything except the Cd, the coefficient of drag. IIRC it should be about 1.2 if the plate is square and placed deep enough so that there is no significant surface effect. If the plate is rectangular it should be somewhat higher but less than 2.0

Remember this is different from an SR (twin "paradox") case, as the time dilation discrepancy or "disagreement" at any one time is almost non existant as it depends on their relative speeds at any given time and distance apart at that given time only and not the duration. So the slower clock agrees that it's running slower and bringing them back together will just confirm that.

LOL, as much as I agree with Sevarian, I agree with this more! My problem is with "other people's" crazy theories.

All the redshifts we observe cannot be due to the Earth's / solar system's current speed unless we are imploding pretty fast. p.s. I'm sure you are aware that time is not measured in light years.

In that case it's permanently a law... But if we are "fast" enough we can break it!

I think that in the strictest scientific sense it is not, although 400 years from now it will still be taught as Newton's Law of Gravity. Law or not, you still have to obey it here on Earth!

OK, I think what I have set up across each "face" is an example of a system in "steady state" and not an example of thermal equilibrium at all.