Strange

The singularity is part of GR. So the space for a new model is in replacing the singularity with something else by extending/replacing GR (which may or may not allow for "before" questions, and may or may not answer them!).

Because the effect is very small. Although there is a lot of dark matter around, its density is very low.

Markus Hanke has a good analogy for why it doesn't make sense to ask what happens "before"; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It depends how the Hubble constant (rate of expansion) has changed over time.

Well, inflation might not have happened, for example. Or the universe may be infinitely old (so there is no "time 0"). That is certainly what the inflationary model says.

There is not, and cannot be, any such observer. There are parts of the universe which are, therefore, not causally connected so claiming it is a single entity is dubious (without a very clear definition what you mean by "single entity"). http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html This research produced some of the worst-ever science reporting. I think we should arrange for all the writers of totally misleading articles about this to be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

We don't know anything about such a time. And there may not even have been such a time.

I wouldn't say it was timeless. It was expanding and cooling (very rapidly, if the inflationary hypothesis is correct). And there is at least one attempt to add quantum effects to the early universe that ends up with an infinitely old universe.

The evidence suggests that in the early, hot dense state everything was causally connected (hence the uniformity of the CMB, for example). That, and the resulting homogeneity, to my mind, implies that everything was in the same frame of reference - there were no gravitational gradients, for example.

No one here has mocked your God. We may be laughing at you, but that is because you have made yourself a laughing stock with your ignorant assertions.

One day, you might learn the basics of biology. How did you get through school knowing so little. I am sure he is big enough to take it. having a closed mind is a great impediment to learning about the world. I suspect your God would be rather horrified by your reluctance to learn about His (Her?) creation. I would pray for you. You are ignorant and missing out on amazing knowledge about the world. However, I won't because there seems little point when you prefer ignorance to knowledge. And I doubt there is anything that either I or your God can do about that. May He have mercy on your narrow minded little soul.

Call what a draw? Digital radio is even better!

It doesn't make any difference to the amount of data you can squeeze into a given bandwidth. (PSK is basically a form of frequency modulation). The big advantage of frequency modulation is that you can have an absolute reference to measure the modulation against. In other words, you know what the carrier frequency is and so you can measure exactly how far the modulation has shifted the frequency. For AM, you don't have any such absolute reference - amplitude is relative and depends on the signal strength, how far away you are, atmospheric conditions, quality of the receiver, etc. So then you have to work out an average amplitude and get a rough ide by how much the modulation makes it vary. But it might be varying for any number of other reasons. That is why FM radio is so much better than AM.

Your analysis doesn't make much sense. And what sense it does make seems to contradict your point. Your PSK example encodes 3x8 = 24 bits per cycle. And even at a more realistic 16 bit DAC for the audio signal, PSK is still getting 50% more data in every sample.

Not sure why. We can digitally encode much more data to be transmitted in the same bandwidth than we can send as analog data. We can send multiple video calls down a telephone line that was designed for a single, limited quality audio signal. We get hundreds of digital TV channels from the same transmitters that used to transmit just 5 analog channels. When they turned off the analog TV signals, they were able to massively increase the number of digital TV channels.

Yes. (Although it might be more accurate to say that the modulation is analog but the data transmitted is digital.)

Yes. (I think.) Wireless internet (and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, and GPS) all use radio transmitters and receivers. They just differ in frequency, type of modulation, and the protocols used.

Without going back and re-reading the thread, I think you can safely ignore anything posted by "GeneralDadmission". He posted a lot of nonsense from what I remember.

You don't have to transmit as digital bits. You could use amplitude (or frequency) modulation where there are 10 different levels representing the values 0 to 10, for example. The problem is it becomes increasingly difficult to detect exactly what value is bign transmitted. It is much easier to detect "high" vs "low", which is why digital signals are so commonly used. But you can encode multiple bits per clock cycle (as QAM does). Compression may help. But you have to take into account the time taken to compress and decompress data, if you want to transmit stuff in real time. Algorithms like ZIP require the entire data to be present and then compressed; you can't do it "on the fly" (there are other algorithms that are better suited to that - MPEG, MP3, etc).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

This is very well understood, already. You really ought to learn the basics of biology. It is rather embarrassing to see these public displays of ignorance. Evolution says nothing of the sort. This makes me wonder is this is dishonesty rather than mere ignorance.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the plane is flying through the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is moving with the planet.

I'm not sure that latency makes any sense in the case of GPS. There is no signal being sent and returned. So how do you define latency?

Completely different. Satellite internet uses communication satellites to provide two-way communication so that the user's computer can send a requests to the web, for example, and then receive the web page back. When you access a web page there are multiple backwards and forwards communications as the browser requests each bit of information required to display the page. GPS satellites just broadcast their orbits continuously. They never interact with GPS receivers. Receivers are just receivers, they never transmit.