In the bullet cluster the stars passed right through each other as well it is only the dust clouds in the galaxies that really exchanged momentum. So extra brown dwarfs as dark matter probably isn't in conflict with the bullet cluster.

As you point out BBN and CMB measurements do suggest that dark matter in non-baryonic. Another one to add to that list is structure formation, the large structures of the universe would be very different if the dark matter was baryonic.

Well theres neutrino oscillations, g-2 of the muon, baryogenisis, dark matter, dark energy and inflation to name a few.

Then there is the hierarchy problem and flavour problems which aren't experimental observations so you might not want to count them and thats not even touching the problem of trying to get a consistent theory for the standard model and gravity together.

Yes it would mean there is half as much dark matter in the milky way as we previously would have thought but then there's half as much normal matter as well so you get the same ratio. Of course this has no impact on the total dark matter budget of the universe so it doesn't really have any bearing on our understanding of dark matter.

You should never take the logarithm of a dimensionful quantity like seconds. Clearly some choice of units is implied and really we should have log(t/1s) or log(t/1ms) or something which would then make the score unitless.

and you need to go take some remedial math lessons if you think log(0) = 1.

Were you going for ironic with that post? They do a study into how people ignore scientific evidence in favour of reinforcing their own beliefs. You then ignore the result and choose to continue with your own predefined belief that the fault lies with religion.

A version of the Legend of Mir server was leaked/stolen. It was the complete server program (I'm not sure if the source code was stolen too) and that allowed completely private servers to work with the existing client. These servers could then change the stats on items, change what mobs spawned where and create new mobs. I'm not sure how difficult it would have been or if it was possible to create new maps and graphics etc without other tools.

I would argue that while it is debatable when exactly science started it was before the 1920's. Newton was certainly important but I agree that he wasn't really a modern scientist. There was however plenty of science done before the 1920's much of classical mechanics and wave dynamics, rudimentary atomic theory and thermodynamics was all good science and done well before the 1920's.

The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics were never occult philosophies describing them as such really ignores the history of how they were discovered and formalised. They were both very much science from the start, falsifiable hypothesis created to explain gaps in current theories to explain experimental evidence. That were then confirmed by experiment before being widely accepted.

I don't know where you get the idea that nothing has been done in the last 60 years. For a start the formalism of QFT and into making predictions and its amazing agreement with experiment are within that time frame. The standard model including precision measurements of CP violation, most of QCD and neutrino physics (the discovery of their mass very recent) are all new. Cosmology and astrophysics have also made huge progress recently as has condensed matter and nano technology physics. These are all just examples from physics since I can name these off the top of my head but the other sciences have also been busy.

I felt worse remembering

IDSPISPOPD

Despite not knowing what it stood for until checking it just now.

It goes like this:
You use epctral analysis to determine what its made of by looking for known patterns in the spectrum of the light

You measure the redshift, to estimate the distance you either guess the absolute magnitude (which can often be done with gallaxies to at least give an upper limit) or you use hubbles law and assuming you have a good value of hubbles parameter you can convert red shift to distance. This is a bit circular and relies on you allready having found the distance of lots of objects without having to resort to this.

The redshift gives the relative motion and can be measured very acuratly and very easily.

You can tell the composition beofer you know the shift in fact you use the composition you get the shift.

While your not making up the numbers of the previous two it is worth pointing out that the distance measurement is not independent in some cases so you have to be very carefull the measurement of distance may be relying on your cosmological assumptions. Not all distance measurements are like this but the further back you go the harder it is to get a an independent measurement.

If you read a couple of books on cosmology most will cover these very basic principles any explaining left out will be in the larger more advanced books on cosmology.

Remember telescopes look back in time, these gallaxies are the ones that formed earliest.