Strange

Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

Yes.

 

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about a "start of time". It simply notes that the universe appears to be expanding (consistent with the predictions of General Relativity). You can "wind the clock back" and we see that early on the universe was denser and hotter than it is now. We see various sorts of evidence confirming that (CMB, proportion of hydrogen and helium, large-scale homogeneity/isotropy, etc).

You can, in principle, wind the clock back all the way to zero. But our current physics theories break down before that point so we don't know if it is realistic or not. There are dozens of theories, hypotheses and speculations about what might have happened at the earliest time (e.g. a "big bounce" as a previous universe collapsed, or "eternal inflation" where new universe are popping up all over the place, and so on).

Stephan Hawking introduced this idea in the sixties, and this was the start of his notoriety.

If you are thinking of the big bang, it pre-dates Hawking by a long way. The main developer of the idea was Lemaitre in the 1920s (I think).

Incidentally, Lemaitre was a great friend and drinking buddy of Hoyle who was opposed to the big bang and coined the name.

 

The theory predicts a decreasing rate of expansion leading to an inevitable collapse; yet instead of this result they are now observing an accelerated rate of expansion instead. And so the theory is likely fundamentally flawed and the useful predictability of it is not supported by observations.

Expansion, contraction, acceleration, decelaration are all compatible with the underlying theory. It just depends on things like the total energy density of the universe.

The theory is, currently, we supported by observation. And although alternatives have been proposed, none yet match all the evidence as well.

That about sums it up michel123456 yes. That motion isn't dependant upon time, it's just motion.

Isn't motion just change of position over time?

 

To state that more completely, I think the question is. Why didn't GPS work at all when they first established the system until relativity was appled?

Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that the relativistic corrections were built in from the start.

 

Why even with the calculations provided by relativity do they keep needing to fix a drift in the system?

All sorts of reasons. All of them well understood.

Several meters? That's not very accurate at all.

That is mainly a technical / cost limitation. Nothing to do with relativity; altough it does allow the receivers to use approximations which are easier to calculate.

Differential GPS can be accurate to a few cms. Future extensions to the satellite network will improve the standard accuracy to a similar level.

Again, the second is defined in terms of something that invovles no motion.

I derive from the principle of relativity for being in different fields of gravity:

The laws of physics must be exactly the same in his referenceframe, wherever the observer is.

You can't really derive this from relativity as it is one of the postulates that the theory is based on...

I think if this apparent illusionary state of affairs weren't the case, then we would be in a special place in the universe, which I understand has been shown to be incorrect.

That hasn't been shown to be incorrect. It is just a reasonable assumption: the cosmological principle.

Well, reasonable if you are not a geocentrist, I suupose.

 

That is an unreliable Source.

 

The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They appear to be based on different questions: a "personal god" (whatver that means) versus "a higher power". The latter concept is so warm and fuzzy that I am not surprised a larger proportion supported it. I have seen various figures between these extremes. I'm not sure why it is important, though. <shrug>

Atomic Clocks are not time dependant. They are dependant upon the radiation which is arguably a moving particle.

Did you miis the bit that the definition of the second: "refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K"?

If we assume cesium clocks to be inalterable.... Then put them in jets and find out that they've been altered by relativistic speeds.... Guess what, that wasn't time changing. It was the clocks

And if we find that every time-dependent thing changes in the same way, what does that mean?

The number .00083985428 divides the mass of both the proton and neutron evenly to 7 significant digits implying a "building block" for both of them.

Except it doesn't. Dividing the neutron and proton masses by this gives 1200.999897256 and 1199.3466947701 respectively.

 

Also, it pure coincidence that the arithmetic of an electron orbiting a nucleus can show the speed of galaxies.

As you have a fake model and arbitrary numbers, no, not really. You can "prove" anything with numerology.

 

I wrote a couple of programs to show the mathematics involved

just for you.

Well, if you can't present the math ... I am not going to try and reverse engineer your code.

So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation

For example the byte with binary digits 10101010, would a higher amplitude signal be sent for the 1s and a lower amplitude for the 0s?

There are many ways of encoding data onto an analog signal. Something like the way you suggest has been used in the past. Normally it would be presence of a voltage (for 1) or absence (for 0).

Then there is the problem you mention, of knowing how long each bit is. Some old protocols used to also send a clock, so you knew when a new bit was on the line. However, that requires extra wires. So you want to somehow encode the data so it provides its own clocking/synchronization information. This can be done by using something like "Manchester code" so that each data bit has a change from hi to low voltage or vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code

Another possibility is to encode the 1s and 0s as a change in frequency.

However, the bandwidth of the line means is a limit to the data rate that can be sent that way so more complicated schemes g=have been developed employed, where more bits are encoded per transmitted "symbol".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-shift_keying

I don't know what modern ADSL modems use though ...

That is not really an explanation unless you can provide some quantitative (mathematical) predictions that can be compared with observation.

It appears that you can't even tell us to what extent time depends on mass. This is a fairly useless theory.

1.It makes many predictions

Please show us one. This should be quantitative (i.e. have specific values that can be tested against evidence).

 

explaining inflation

How exactly does it explain inflation?

 

explaining behaviours of quantum propability mechanics

How exactly does it behave probabilities in quantum mechanics.

Is this useful: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/remove-system-check

Or you might want to try MalwareBytes (there is a free version) which is pretty good at removing malware.

Good point, but does a thought itself have physical properties? What about consciousness?

That sounds more like philosophy than science.

Note that your time only appears to slow down from the point of view of an external obsever. You would notice nothing special as you fell towards and through the event horizon.

to explain quantum world here u got easy connection diversity of mass and time flow slowup ......

But you haven't explained anything until you can provide a quantitative (i.e. mathematical) relationship between mass and time, and then show how this explains the quantum world. A few vague phrases and ... dots explains nothing.

 

From what I know Cs-133 is decaying "over time".

In fact, caesium 133 is the only stable isotope.

But the point is a good one; when nuclei or even single particles decay "over time", how does that happen if time doesn't exist...

That sounds like the metrological equivalent of the etymological fallacy. Just because the second used to be defined that way, doesn't mean that is how it is defined now.

The second is now the primary unit. Other units are defined in terms of it, and the larger units (days, years) are adjusted to suit.

I haven't seen any indication that this can model effects such as entanglement, though. It would be pretty exciting if it could.

Magnetic force.

What do you actually want to know?

Feynman Physics Lectures: Magnets and Why Questions

As this is in the Physics forum, would anyone like to add some science to this (rather than just philosophical speculation and opinion). For example, has anyone reformulated GR without time (or using speed instead of time). Or even classical dynamics?

Please, no fights, phasers on stun, I come in peace. What do you mean by time? Speed, or a poetic dimension?

I'm not arguing. I'm just curious as to why you accept the reality of space as dimensions but not time? (For what its worth they are all equally "real"; however you want to interpret that.)

 

The only dimension we have it's space

Why do you think space is more real than time?

I am not certain at all, I am just taking my chances, and see reactions in this thread. If I am wrong I am very happy to be shown why, at least I am learning something new.

I'm not sure why you would expect to be shown why, when you appear to be talking about something unknowable (the nature of "reality" - whatever that means). I'm not sure why your opinion/guess is any more valid than someone else's.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if the "ultimate nature of reality" is unknowable, then we deal with the reality we can know, which includes width, length, height and time. That is how science works. Your view is more like philosophy and, while potentially interesting, is of little practical value.