pantheory

Green Xenon, I feel certain that something like this will be developed in the future but with conceivable side effects and required oversight. Unless you are in this field and have the funding to do it yourself, it would be seemingly far better to go with one of procedures of present technology such as a lap-band or the gastric bypass procedure concerning weight loss. The lap-band is not difficult to reverse if too many problems result.

Below is a link concerning one website which proposes ten presently "unanswered questions" of the universe. Others may have different opinions concerning the top ten most important unanswered questions. This thread proposes that you ask whatever science questions that you think are still unanswered, but important. However questions such as, what is the cure for cancer? would probably not be more informative since I would probably give similar answers than what you might be able to read on-line -- where I would also get most of my mainstream answer. I am a theorist for more than 50 years now. My field of expertise is cosmology, an alternative model, but I have a broad knowledge of science in general. I will probably be able to give answers to most of the major problems/questions that you might ask, whether theoretical or hypothetical. Below are my answers to the top 10 proposed mysteries on this website. Some of my answers involve mainstream theory and others do not. I will not provide all the details so that if you wish me to explain an answer in further detail, just ask. All my answers accordingly will also be based upon logic. http://www.toptenz.n...he-universe.php 10. Extraterrestrial Intelligence I agree that the Drake Equation (with numerous possible variations) seems like a good way to predict the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life. Within our solar system outside the Earth, we may eventually find life with a kinship to life here on Earth. Depending on the details of any such life, we may conclude that life on Earth may have first evolved within comets, for instance. If so then either our proto-solar nebula had life within it or that such creation was more locally confined. If it was spread out within the whole proto-stellar nebula, it could have extended beyond the remaining pro-stellar clouds which could extend to stars in our local stellar neighborhood or far beyond. This same life extending beyond our galaxy would seem to be highly unlikely if the universe were only 13.7 billion years old. In my own cosmological model the universe is far older so this extension of life from one galaxy to another accordingly would seem more likely in my model. 9. The Tunguska Explosion I think this is easily explainable as a comet collision which also is the most prevalent mainstream idea. When a comet as a "dirty snowball" enters the atmosphere the rock and dust within it would heat up and it would rapidly vaporize. If the heat would become great enough and the size of it small enough it could explode before it it the ground sending steam and dust in all radial locations. A meteor of just the right size could also explode close to the ground sending small fragments in all radial direction without leaving an impact crater. 8. Rare Antimatter The question being: Why does it seem that there is more matter than anti-matter within the observable universe? Explanation: We know that this is a fact here on Earth. We see little indication or evidence for anti-matter in our stellar neighborhood. If my theoretical explanation for this is true, the answer is quite simple. Matter is more stable than anti-matter. We know that matter and anti-matter form via pairs, based upon observations here on earth. We see the creation of electrons and positrons in pairs, from focused and apposing directions of gaming radiation with an impact velocity of twice the speed of light. From this interaction we see both electrons and positrons forming. Once formed we can capture both. The number of positrons captured, however, is far less than the creations recorded. This according to the standard model is because many positrons are annihilated by free electrons. Instead it may be that in some pair creations the electron remains stable, but the positron was virtual and disappeared back into the ZPF. Once captured positrons are known to be stable particles, which is not a contradiction if they are just more difficult to form in the first place. Anti-protons on the other hand are proposed not to be stable at any time. Instead they would not have the same problem as positrons during creation, but would accordingly would have a relatively short half-life which protons do not seem to have. When we capture anti-protons we have found several successful ways to store them for at least a while. So far anti-protons have not been stored for longer than a few hours. Presently it is believed that this is because they interact with protons. Instead I propose that much of their disintegration is related to instability. The two successful primary storage methods have been accelerators and cold storage traps which greatly lower the surrounding temperature close to absolute zero. My own model proposes that via an accelerator two things are happening. One, that an anti-proton's velocity can be close to the speed of light which causes a time dilation, greatly reducing their rate of decay. And secondly in cold storage, the kinetic actions (temperature) of its immediate surroundings are greatly reduced, mollifying the interaction of the ZPF with the anti-protons which accordingly decreases their decay rate. Estimates in my own model vary greatly concerning the normal half-life of anti-protons. On the low end I propose that their half-life in free space in the total absence of matter, would be about 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is also the half-life of a free neutron. At the upper limit my estimate is a half-life of about 12 million years. Even if the half-life were even longer than this, if anti-protons do have a half-life at all, this would simply explain why we see very little anti-protons in the universe. We do know that anti-protons do form in and above our atmosphere by the interactions of cosmic rays with our atmosphere. Evidence of this can be seen here on Earth as well as in the radiation belt(s) above it such as in this link. http://www.popsci.co...ns-around-earth 7. Consciousness I think this is an easy question and should not be on this list. According to the standard model of biology, consciousness is defined as: being aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. This one can be tricky because people can argue semantics here, so I will try my best to avoid this trap. Being aware of your surroundings is arguably the beginning of consciousness which can be related to an animal or plants senses. Many plants and microbes are phototrophic, meaning turning toward (or away) from light. Many are chemotrophic, meaning turning toward or away from a certain chemistry. Many are senso-trophic, meaning sensitive and responding to touch. The same thing applies to all of our senses and others which other animals or plants have. All of these senses are tied to a simple or complex nervous system of sorts. The purpose of the system is to motivate the organism to either take advantage of, or avoid, exterior influences. The word consciousness may be considered closely related to the nervous system as it relates to being self-aware. There are only a few animals that we can identify that have this ability. Few primates (a few baboon individuals) have this ability other than the great apes. Most great apes show evidence for their self recognition in a mirror. The only other animals that I am aware of that have this ability are in bird family including crows and Blue Jays. Some individual when place in front of a mirror will spend much time studying the image they see. When they are marked below where they can see, with an orange spot, they will do nothing at all. But when placed in a mirror angled where they can see the spot, some will begin to pick at the spot while looking in the mirror, until the spot is removed by this slow picking process. Crows have also be shown to be tool makers and inventors in a number of different circumstances. One particular parrot over a 20 year period, has learned to both speak and understand 300 different words in English. It can put together two word combinations as well, and understand the meaning. You could ask it, for instance, to go get the green triangle. It will find the green triangle amongst many other shaped and colored objects. So is self awareness consciousness? Some would argue based upon the definition above, that animals that are self-aware also have a conciousness awareness of their surroundings and therefore possess consciousness. Others would argue that consciousness is more akin to self analysis which would seem to be strictly human, but in my opinion not too far away from the abilities of other great apes. Bottom line is that I think an understanding of the meaning of consciousness is not difficult. 6. Dark Matter / Dark Energy The question is, what constitutes dark matter and dark energy? The simple answer, according to my model, is that neither are real. Both involve a misunderstanding of reality. As to dark matter, there are a number of known constituents such as atom particles, hydrogen, and intergalactic and interstellar matter in its different forms. There are other entities both known and theorized such as black holes both small and stellar sized, along with brown dwarf an white dwarf stars that are too distant to observe. Other hypothetical entities are mochos, so-called wimps, etc. If the model of General Relativity is wrong then we simply do not need so much dark matter to explain the rotation rates of spiral galaxies or galaxies in a cluster. A new mathematical model seemingly will not do it alone, however. The reason for this statement is that we have seen two seemingly identical appearing spiral galaxies, which based upon analysis seem to be the same size, mass, seemingly an equivalent central black hole, equivalent stellar ages, stellar make-up and distributions, etc. Upon close analysis over a period of time we can come to the conclusion that their relative stellar rotation rates are very different. To resolve this they conclude they must put a lot more dark matter into the simulation of one as apposed to the other. This is strong evidence that there is something there that formulations alone cannot resolve. Besides those entities mentioned there is evidence that much radiation such a gamma-radiation orbits galaxies. This can be an extra push concerning exterior stellar velocities. If the universe is greatly older than the standard model, then a plentiful amount of brown dwarfs, white and black dwarf stars, stars cooling off, and galactic matter, etc. that could not been seen surrounding the galaxy. These collectively concerning an older universe might explain the missing dark matter. Along with many of the other possibilities I also ascribe to a pushing gravity aether model of gravity. In this model dark matter is not really matter, it is much smaller. Something like photons which are accordingly mass-less at rest. In such a model gravity is explained by currents of this aether. The model works like this: the matter of the galaxy radiates away field material (the ZPF/ aether) in the form of EM radiation and de Broglie waves. The result is that surrounding matter there is a lower pressure of the field than when you go outside the galaxy. It would be like an eggbeater in a mixing bowl. Although the level of liquid around the mixing blades is at a lower lever than the outside of the bowl there is a continuous backflow toward the blades. This backflow accordingly explains gravity via a pushing force. The most well know of these models can be seen in the link below, to get a general idea of the many models that have been proposed. http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation In my model the vortex motions of pushing gravity explains the dark matter question as being particulates of the aether that are generally mass-less some of which go down to quantum size at the Planck scale of 10^-35 m. At the solar system level there is little vortex motion (non-linear gravitational motion) excepting close to the sun and the largest bodies of the solar system, which accordingly is the same thing in GR, which there is called the dragging of space-time. OK this is my explanation of dark matter. The prediction is that we will never discover enough massive particles to explain it. But this model of gravity easily explains it. I have also reformulated the model of gravity which you can see on page 2 of Speculations here, called Pushing Gravity. As to Dark Energy, my model simply says that they are simply using the wrong formulation to measure the distance to type 1a supernova as well as galaxies. They accordingly are not off by a long shot no more than ~11% . My reformulation of distance to replace the Hubble formula can be seen here. This accordingly explains the interpretation of dark energy, as simply a miscalculation. 5. Time The meaning of time and space are both extremely simple according to my own model. Both can be explained by the simplest of definitions alone. Time is an interval of change that involves motion. And Space is the volume occupied by matter and field (the ZPF). Space can be a volume, area, or distance between matter or field. It is an extension of matter that does not extent beyond the field (the ZPF). That is all that there is to it. Quantum Theory includes many ideas and theoretical proposals that accordingly must go beyond a simple explanation and understandings. Some theoretical physicists think that time is such a complicated concept that a whole book was written to explain our short-fall of understanding just to explain what is needed so that someday in the future, a valid theory of time can be proposed. The name of maybe the most renown of these books is called "From Eternity to Here," maybe a catchy title -- which I think explains some of the problems which today's physics face concerning a theory of time. Link below: http://www.sciencene...by_Sean_Carroll But accordingly these are just theoretically created problems which do not exist in the much simpler reality of the universe. 4. The Beginning of the universe Ultimately we will never know the true answer to this question according to science but there are almost countless hypothesis to choose from. The original version of the Big Bang model, proposes first a singularity of some kind and then a Big Bang to answer this question. Other versions propose cycles of Big Bang Big Crunch cycles. Still other versions propose that the universe began as a large fluctuation in the ZPF. Still other versions of the standard model propose that our universe is one of many or an infinite amount that formed from Bubble-like fluctuations in another universe in an infinite cycle. There are a great number of other infinite-universe models concerning alternative non-mainstream models also. The most well-known are the Steady-State models proposed by Hoyle and company, a number of Plasma Cosmology models, Halton Arp's model of black hole evolution, and numerous infinite-universe aether models. Infinite models do not have to explain a beginning of the universe because there would be no beginning or origin to explain. Religious explanations are simple: god(s) accordingly created the universe. My own model/ theory is of a much older universe which is vastly older than the standard model, but still finite concerning past time, the quantity of matter, and the extension of space. The link to it is here. 3. End of the Universe This, like the proposed beginning of the universe, is entirely theoretical. In the standard model the universe will die a heat death because accordingly the universe is expanding. The proposed expansion is based upon an assumption, not just observations. The assumption is that galaxies are moving away from us via the expansion of space (or by some other similar interpretation). This "moving away" accordingly explains the observed redshifts of galaxies. Instead in my own model the redshift of galaxies is explained by the diminution of matter which just gives the appearance that space is expanding. The are both the same relative condition. Space is expanding relative to the size of matter. So my model is a steady state model concerning the observable universe and the universe will continue on as it presently is, with local evolution, but steady state concerning the general appearance of it -- therefore there would be no heat-death of the universe. An explanation of why matter is becoming smaller involves an unwinding process explained at the above link (pantheory.com) via a hypothesis explained from pages 9 through 25. 2. Multiple Universes The simple answer is that there aren't any (according to my model ). According to this model and also I think O'camm's Razor, the existence of multi-verses is not the simplest explanation for the origin of our own universe. One of the first to propose multiple universes was Stephen Hawking. From his book, it seemed to me that he had a problem with the cause of the Big Bang (BB). He did not like the idea of a singularity where physics and the related mathematics "broke down." Other than mathematical, there were big theoretical advantages to this original version. The beginning entity accordingly had the internal potential energy to change and be the cause of Inflation and to lead to the universe the way we now observe it. It also had the theoretical advantage to explain time and space as advancing along with Inflation, without requiring a time before that since according to Einstein's model and his quote, both space and time must be tied to the existence of matter. His quote was: This, I think, is a big hypothetical advantage of the original version of the BB model which the multi-verse models seemingly do not have -- an explanation concerning an original cause. The only disadvantage to this version, that I know of, was the mathematical break down. My own model involves a beginning particle that was very simple (totally unlike a BB singularity), and which evolved very slowly over hundreds of billions of years into the ZPF, and from there a finite universe is simply explained via the math formulations of gravity and other supporting theoretical physics, again pages 9 through 25 at pantheory.com. and in the Pan Gravity and other sections; see table of contents pages 1F and 1G. 1. Grand Unification Theory The question is, what is the mathematical model that can unify all the forces of nature into one? There is also a simple answer to this question if one considers that there are no forces of nature to unify in the first place. An example is that Einstein proposed that the force of gravity is not really a fundamental force at all but can be explained by the "warpage of space." My own model explains gravity via aether mechanics of a pushing gravity, as described above. I also explain magnetism by a different form of the same aether mechanics which is also a pushing force based upon a difference in field pressure concerning the surrounding aether. Aether: Modern aether models very greatly so definitions also vary greatly. For a particulate aether model defined: any model that proposes particulates of some type being a major constituent of the ZPF. For this definition proposals such as dark matter particles, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings all fit this definition. A luminiferous aether is an aether model that also proposes that the aether is the "carrier" of EM radiation. Other aether models propose that the aether is composed of energy. Such an energy aether model also proposes to explain dark energy as a aether force. Most of the models of aether mentioned, are mainstream models. Of course many of such models do not choose to call their model an aether model, which they do not have to since aether can be defined in different ways. As to the atomic, forces such as the Weak Force and the Strong Interaction, they both involve mechanical connections within the nucleus, according to this model. It was observed in the 1970's that the Strong force closely resembles Hook's equations concerning a stretched spring. From this I concluded at that time theoretically, that the fundamental string structure of matter involves a configuration that resembles a spring-like string of particles that can engage each other when in very close proximity. This accordingly explains the nuclear forces as not being fundamental or "a priori" forces, but simply mechanical engagements resisting separation. The explanation of the resistance of the Strong Force resisting the separation of a proton, accordingly involves a resistance of the spring structure of a proton to stretching, and its eventual breaking. This breaking would accordingly be the breaking of the umbilicals that hold the string of particles together which accordingly occurs in accelerator collisions. This is a simple 3 physical dimensional string theory model, quarks and gluons accordingly do not exist. That's about it. Remember you can ask any questions of science that you would like to ask, and I will do my best to answer your questions

ScottTheSculptor, (strike added) In this statement I generally agree with you (with strike added). I think Einstein also would have agreed with this statement. I do not think I fully understand the rest of it, however, after reading it several times -- other than it would seem that you generally disapprove of Quantum Theory related to its dimensional application somehow? //

No, a photon has no magnetic charge so it can't be "thrown down" the LHC. If it were really possible for something to go around the LHC faster than light they seemingly could have detected it by now. They can detect rpm's of a single proton around an accelerator over a given time interval with a known distance, to calculate "accurately" the velocity. If I understand you correctly, it's not the distance around the track that is in question, it is the distance that the neutrinos had to travel to the detector, about 450 miles away, that is in question. //

I mentioned this in an earlier posting. If muon neutrinos have mass then the interpretation of this experiment would violate Special Relativity if the interpretation holds true. Special Relativity dictates that no mass can equal the speed of light unless an infinity of energy is expended for it to do so.

No, this is not a direct measurement. They are using the Global positioning satellites to determine the surface distance and then they are calculating the appropriate arc and other distance adjustments to come to their conclusion concerning distance. My opinion is that the error occurs within the global positioning programming and is related to new physics. md65536, I agree that distance is the lowest hanging fruit and "why didn't they check it using at least 3 different methods." I think the reason is that it is extremely hard for scientists to consider things that seem to be well accepted. So instead of checking the distance three different ways, they will check it the same way 20 different times Hey, I love your analogies and concede that they are really cool -- but until I see a survey of the distance absent of any GPS measurements, I will continue to think the the lower hanging fruit (the distance) is the culprit. However it works out I like your thinking best regards, Forrest Noble

I also think this possibility is not unlikely. Maybe the discrepancy will unmask a greater implication/changes concerning new physics than neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. It may take a little while to figure out the "error" but it may not take that long to know that there was one. In light of this report, Japan is gearing up to repeat a similar test that was interrupted by their Earthquake. The U.S. also said they would get right on it. I expect that neither results will show this kind of discrepancy. Also I would think that one of the first things they would recheck is the distance by using another means like surveying, to measure the surface distance without relying on the GPS system. It is my opinion that this is where the fault lies. If this is the first major verification that they do, then I would expect if distance measurement and calculations are the cause then we would be aware of the error in less than a years time. md65536, I think few are assuming anything. Measurement error does not have to include calculations. It can be an error in the programming of the GPS system itself related to differences in altitude as they relate to the speed of light moving straight up and straight down. The light going up travels 8,300 feet farther than when it goes down, the difference in elevation between the sending and receiving points. // Presently I am of the same opinion. There may be new physics involved. //

I think the problem lies within the programming of the GPS system concerning the differences of altitudes involved. I also think there are some new physics involved unrelated to the velocity of the neutrinos, but related to a discrepancy of distance and timing. //

All of these "measurements" involved the GPS system. Claimed accuracy is no better than any claim The only fact would be if they have a couple of laser shoots of the distance by surveyors. Two separate teams and measurements would be preferable. It would take awhile and would not be without expense for a 450 mile span, but I believe that would be the only way to be certain of the distance. From this data the direct-line distance could be accurately calculated. To solely rely on the GPS system now after the results are suspect, would be simple folly. //

Just because they don't find a flaw in the experiment does not necessarily mean that the conclusion that there was no error will soon become an accepted consensus. I strongly suspect that the conclusions would be those that were expected, for example, if a change in altitude were not involved, in which case other experiments would come out differently. We should certainly know the results concerning other experiments concerning the speed of muon neutrinos within 3 years or less. Conceivable implication might be that the formulations and algorithms which are used as part of the GPS system may have to be changed which certainly would involve many practical future applications. If particles could somehow go faster than light then maybe countless possible inventions might be realized, some could greatly effect our future. If light itself varies in speed in a vacuum over great distances or by changing altitudes, then there would be many theoretical implications which could impact our future. //

Pincho, I know a little bit about your model, but charge is seemingly unrelated to the existence of something, otherwise a neutron or neutrino with zero charge would be nothing, seemingly they could not exist. It is true that positrons and electrons can annihilate when contact occurs and they cease to exist as particles, but in your model they are still there in some form, right? just in a different form? It seems to me that the origin of life is generally unrelated to physics and is more related to chemistry and organic chemistry. How could life be related to an aether? Most particulate aether models envision very simple geometric particulates and life is maybe the most complicated thing that we know of. Your quote: You seem to be stating that life had to somehow evolve sooner of later but this does not seem to answer the question: the question was (parenthesis added) your answer: It seems that you have no chemical or down to earth explanation of this question, and I don't understand anything in your explanation above that explains the origin of life; am I missing something? Would you prefer the question: "where did we come from?" as in your original posting? // //

I think this thread is a fun idea Pincho Lots of cool questions can be asked. I wish I would have thought it first by stating that I could answer every question including all the "why" questions I will give you a few questions as a starter. I consider the answers given to them to be very speculative. The first one that I've taken from your list is: (Where did we come from?) But specifically what I am asking is where did life come from? or if you prefer, how did the first life originate from non-living chemistry? The next question from your list is: How do you get something from nothing? I will be very critical of any possible answer that you might give here, as I was of the answer given by Stephen Hawking to the same question. Well Pincho, what sayeth you?

After looking up "Lisa Randall" on Google I understand that she is a theoretical physicist and a big proponent of string theory. I too am a theoretical physicist and have my own string theory in only 3 physical dimensions, no joke. My own model may also explain what they are observing at Cern (so I am excited too) but since such an explanation would not be mainstream it must be discussed in the Speculation forum. If you or anyone is interested, ask any questions about it that you like in the "alternative to the Big Bang theory" or the "pushing gravity" threads and I will explain theoretically what might be the problem(s) involved. //

These neutrino "shots" were a chord but the GPS system is based upon the surface distances which is an arc, and the difference of altitude still must be compensated for. Since the distance would have to have been overestimated, it would seem that the GPS and/ or the related calcs are the most likely culprit, in my opinion. What you are saying sounds valid but the GPS did the measurement and it is supposed to account for all factors. As I said before, I think there may be a lot of problems with the GPS system if this kind of accuracy is expected from it. I think as far as most applications would be concerned, a 20 meter error in a 450 mile span would be adequate

This is true. There is a change is altitude of about 8,300 ft. on the rise, but their calculations were based upon the GPS system which is supposed to take into account all factors including the rotation rate of the Earth. And I would presume that they are smart enough to do the trig compensation for altitude, even though they are shooting through the Earth to get there. There might be unknown problems with the GPS system in some locations whereby it might be less accurate than in other locations based upon the relative positions of the satellites. Their claim was 20 cm accuracy concerning distance. I would bet a six pack that the accuracy is not that good. What I said was that the GPS system in general claims a 3 meter accuracy in any one location concerning the designated coordinates. I also said that for the error to be 60 nanoseconds off, it would require a 20 meter error in distance over-estimation, according to my calculations, to account for a 60 nanosecond error. Your other point is a good one. Accordingly most are claiming that these muon neutrinos have mass. If so then their speed according to Special Relativity must be less than the speed of light (accordingly it would take infinite energy for massive particles to reach the speed of light). General Relativity might also come to play to some minuscule extent because "massive" neutrinos are moving upward 8,300 ft. against gravity. Any such calculated effect seemingly would be a lessening of the calculated speed.

I also respect Hawking, but realize his theories are based upon theoretical physics. His ideas about multiverses and types of spontaneous creations of universes from the ZPF I think are pure science fiction. They however are probably loads of fun for him concerning the theoretical physics of the proposal Most of what you propose or are asking, I believe, can only be answered by personal opinion.

I looked on archive and didn't see much. I hope there is an expanded version of it. I did find what I was looking for concerning the design of the experiment which was pretty helpful. This info is unrelated to this particular "finding." Based upon the design of experiment it is apparent that two major things might be wrong with the set-up. The first is the timing devices concerning the production of muon neutrinos, and the other concerns the distance which was not measured by lasar shot, which I think could have been done, but instead distance was calculated based upon the GPS system and the difference in altitude, which was about 8,300 ft. We are only talking about a distance error of 20 meters in more than 450 miles. If the distance was determined to be ~20 meters shorter, then the calcs. seemingly would have come out right. My best bet presently is that at their location and the way the satellites interact there for the GPS system, that such calcs could be off by this amount. The accuracy of the GPS system is supposed to be within 3 meters. There are other possible theoretical problems that I think the GPS system might have that I will not mention here since they are more speculative.

This archive article was just put on today the 22nd. If I were them I'd publish their findings giving all the details of the experiment so that they won't be inundated by inquiries concerning as much of the details of the experiment as possible.

Yeah, great story. there's an open thread on it in the science news section.

This is the most interesting science proposal that I've seen in quite a while. Here's another link to the same story. http://www.wired.com...ster-than-light Hypothetical particles called tachyons go faster than light. According to the hypothesis tachyons can do so because they are created at light speed and do not have to accelerate past the speed of light -- not that I believe in such things. I have an idea how GR fans might get out of this one if the observations and interpretations are valid. Einstein's equations don't say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, what they say is that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light, although some say that if neutrinos are mass-less, that according to Einstein's equations, they must go exactly at the speed of light. All matter in Einstein's time was known to have mass. Neutrinos were theorized in the 30's but were not observed until 1955, the year of Einstein's death. It was then proposed that neutrinos had no mass. More recently the consensus is the neutrinos might have a little mass. If neutrinos are mass-less particles then seemingly they might be able to go faster than light while remaining consistent with GR, or NOT

Cygnus47, Of course this is all theory. Although gravity is its own theory, how it relates to a Big Bang beginning or the beginnings of matter is hardly better than a hypothesis since I can't think of how such a model might be supported by observation. But I agree, there seems to be no sensible answer relating to your question. If I were you I wouldn't give much credence to any such proposals other than considering the possibilities as you have. My own model proposes that gravity comes first, then next black holes, being a compression of field material (such as dark matter), then matter particles are created from the torque forces upon field material surrounding black holes, which eventually results in a galaxy -- next stop the observed universe. //

Daedalus, I think that most of the preposterous proposals stemming from Quantum Theory involve the fact that QM does not recognize the existence of background field particles that make up the ZPF. If there were such particles which influence quantum behavior, I believe that by their discovery or recognition, many if not most of the preposterous aspects of Quantum Theory would slowly disappear. On the other hand such hypothetical proposals of background field particles are common and many, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum sand, field strings, etc. etc. I believe there are Planck size dark matter particles that are so small that they rightfully could not be called matter (like photons), which I think will lead back to rational models of time which will relate to change/ motion, like a relatively simple definition

Pardon me. I should have said both Special and General Relativity, concerning my last question -- considering all the LT's involved in the math The General Relativity comment related to GR being the mathematical basis for the Big Bang model Quantum Theory, I believe, is where all the complicated theories concerning time, stem from regards

Daedalus, Again, your graphics are exceptional. Outside the framework of the Big Bang model and General Relativity, do you see how Temporal Uniformity might fit in?

By your explanation one can follow why some have considered the possibility that the universe popped into existence from the Zero Point Field. To me the idea is even more illogical than god(s) creating the universe, for instance, or any other explanations that I have heard excepting for mythology. Hawking being a theoretical physicist, can throw together some math to try to show justification for this proposal. Hawking seems to be bogged down mentally with the prime-mover question. Why? I don't know since I think the original BB model logically answers questions concerning the beginning, in my opinion, far better than Hawking's ideas.