h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nice article, but it needs a degree in physics to understand it. Explaining and expanding each section would help a lot. I like the sandal thread, as it ties the topics together.
You obviously understand a lot about physics, but think from the point of view of the average reader, and you will see that it is very concentrated and relies on knowledge which the reader won't necessarily have. You could split this into sections or separate pages, perhaps with a 'front page' giving an overview and some historical context - like when did these phases happen, where humour would help to ease the reader into the technical stuff.
It has great potential as a series of pages on a common theme, and let's face it, there is a huge amount of physics to explain.
Give it a try, and if you want to, invite contributions, as the basis is there, it just needs opening out.

I agree, many people won't have a clue what is going on, but it is a great start!

Well I haven't studied physics beyond half an A level, and that was 15 years ago.

But all the same I was able to follow the article. Just how much further can you simplify things? Carl Sagan had a lot to say about dumbing down and recommended that people be encouraged to think more.

There will always be people who don't understand something and if you make it simpler for them then everybody else gets bored. Then along comes somebody else who doesn't understand. You'll end up with a stepwise refinement of all physics ever written, with threads leading "up" or "down" to basic arithmetic at one end and theoretical particle stuff at the other. (If you can spare a couple of decades to write it!).

How about leave it pretty much as is, but with links to either more simplistic or more complex explanations of specific stuff as it gets written. A link to Maxwell as it becomes available, a link to Feynman would be fascinating, a link to relativity, a link from Feynman to Maxwell (and vice versa), a link to string theory etc. Eventually one of you will be the de-facto physics editor trying to tie all the entries together and I wish you luck.

Hmmm...I can imagine that there are many people out there who wouldn't understand a great deal of this article because they had never heard of many of the ideas expressed. But, there is also a large group of people who have an interest in this sort of thing, and are reasonably well informed (like yourself it would seem). It's a difficult balance to strike...do you write for the completely uninformed, who may take one look at the title of your article and avoid it like the plague on the basis that "[physics] is too hard/boring/...", in the hope that they just might have a look and become interested, or do you assume some level of interest and understanding to start with?

I agree that people need to be encouraged to think more, but you are not able to do this by presenting them with a pile of information they do not understand...they will go away in disgust. Thinking has more to do with being able to relate different pieces of information, understanding the bias with which information may be being presented to you and weighing it accordingly, etc., etc., etc. The ability to do so stands apart from the number of facts you have in your head, although the later will generally determine how good any conclusions you draw will be (and with interest can always be expanded upon).

Your ideas of linking to other articles/entries is a good one, and I agree it could turn into a very big job.