Strange

Er, yes. I know what dB means - a measure of relative power. So 0dB means, almost literally, nothing. What did Dr Dre do that is so worthy of note?

Citation needed. I don't even know that is supposed to mean (I have spent a lot of time in recording studios).

More importantly, it has never been part of mainstream science.

I don't want to diss the Dre, but how is recording a song a "discovery"? And what does it have to do with science? Similarly, a number of other people were working on the same ideas as Einstein before he published the theory of special relativity. It would have been published in a few years without him. And, of course, Wallace and Grommit Darwin both came up with evolution by natural selection at the same time.

I would guess this is because you are getting your information from popular science sites, Wikipedia and other secondary sources. I am fairly certain that if you go to the original research you will find ample detail on the error bounds and sources.

I have no idea what this means. Why not give a straight answer? I can only assume you have no answer and are just spouting nonsense. The Mayan's meant no such thing. So, still no meaningful answers. How is this information recorded? Can you provide references to where geologists have uncovered such information in the "hard drive" of the Earth? What evidence do you have that there are many Earths? Myths are barely evidence. Certainly not proof. I see no reason why you are any more likely to be right than any other. You give no reason other than the usual superstitious mumbo-jumbo. So, no, you are not The One. Ah, so you are in the "the world ends but you can't tell any difference" group. It is useful to know what type of crazy we are dealing with. How is the world ending-but-carrying-on-with-no-change any different from not-ending?

Given the margin of error (see pavelcherepan's #30) what do you think?

Thy do not seem right, for the reasons given on that page.

This is true. (Although, "the entire universe" probably renders it impossible. The observable universe, perhaps.) This is impossible. But photons travel at the speed of light and the universe still seems to exist, so I'm not sure your conclusion is justified.

Ah, so more of a woosh, than a wash. I had completely forgotten that bit. I'm glad something useful has come out of this thread...

Not really. They are both relative. Your wording suggests that one of them must be absolute; neither are. What is invariant is the space-time separation between events (and the speed of light). I assume by "makes no sense" you mean counter-intuitive (it makes sense as a scientific theory). But that is generally due to things like non-locality and entanglement. Are these related to Minkowski space-time? The whole point of relativity is that space and time are equally physical: space-time.

I have heard "the world did end, but we just haven't noticed yet" - this was serious but worthy of Douglas Adams. The other popular one is "we didn't actually say the world was actually going to end; but the process that will result in the end of the world has started (undetectably)". Riiiiight. Is that a song from The Rocky Horror Show?

The CMB has a black body spectrum and therefore an associated temperature. (Or, to put it another way, it is thermal radiation and therefore has a black body spectrum.)

Why what? Let's try a (not unrealistic) analogy. Imagine someone finds a dead body. They check the temperature and determine from how much it has cooled that the murder took place 2 hours ago. They call the pathologist / medical examiner who arrives 2 hours later and checks the (now lower) temperature and determines that the murder too place 4 hours ago. Is that unreasonable? If so, why?

What independent organization? Please provide a specific reference. What evidence? Please provide some details and a reference for the source of your information. Who is "he" that won? The independent organization or the manufacturer? Please provide a reference to the court case. What websites? Please provide some specific references.

Either it makes predictions that differ from GR (in which case it must have different math) or it uses the same math (and can't make predictions that differ from GR).

This is speculations. So come on. So there is no way of distinguishing your theory from current theory? So it isn't a new theory at all. It seems that all you have is a story that you think "explains" the current theory. What a waste of time.

Please show your calculations and how they compare with the results from GR (i.e. reality).

Pre-recorded where? And how do you know this? There is hardly a year goes by without some nutty crowd announcing the end of the world. Oddly, none of them have been right so far. (Unless I have missed something big.) What are you going to say in 2019? That you got the calculation wrong and it is actually 2028? Or ...

At the event horizon, space becomes sufficiently curved that the time dimension changes places with the radial spatial dimension. So the singularity is no longer ahead of you but in your future. There is no escape! However, I don't think that asking questions like this, with no larger context, is a very good way to learn. If you are asking these questions, it probably means there are some deeper gaps in your knowledge that need to be filled. [edit for spelling]

That doesn't require any '"quantumlike" functional analogue within the mind'. It just requires a good grasp of mathematics. Of course. Too many people think along the lines of "I don't understand consciousness and I don't understand quantum theory, so they must be connected". This is the starting point for all sorts of quantum woo such as hoola's posts. It is based on ignorance and mysticism. I mean this sort of pseudoscientific drivel:

The big bang model parallels that remarkable closely.

Look at the error bars. Even if you waited 20 million years you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

If someone in a billion years makes observations, they will get different results and conclude that (at that time) the universe is 14.8 billion years old. Someone 1 billion years ago would have got different results and calculated that the universe is 12.8 billion years old. At different places (at the same time) the differences would probably be too small to measure, but they would lead people to conclude the same age for the universe.

Nothing "happens with the atoms". Otherwise you need to explain how multiple different things can happen with them at the same time. (Requesting this be moved to Speculations as you are plugging your own "theory".)