Daniel Foreman

And what do those "light fields" travel through to before they get to me?

Lead by example, if you want to inject what you perceive as science feel free. As far as I'm concerned what we are discussing is science. Discussing "how to view" the universe could be argued as the most fundamental nature of science. Observe, seek to understand, that's how it works. I observe that everything around me is capable of being moved, or is in active motion. I don't however see time. But then we don't see gravity either we only see it's effects on matter as I drop the ever famous apple. Some chose to attach that motion through space as an example of time passing. I chose to view the motion of that apple through space as nothing but motion. At which point do you fail to see science happening? I would argue the reverse. Time is not observable, but both space and matter are. For example, if I place an apple on a table, and take 5 steps back then I am observing two things. 1) there is an apple on the table. 2) there is space between myself and the apple I do not however see time. I also know through astronomy thanks to my telescope, that the same rules apply within a vacuum. While I've not been to space myself I take it as an item of faith that it is a vacuum except for trace amounts of dust, (the following image serves no purpose I just think it's cool yes it is space dust ) So my conclusion is that because I can see Saturn quite clearly (I posted it on youtube yay) visible even at it's massive distance, thus providing the same apple and 5 steps demonstration, using a planet and my position on earth. That the only thing separating us is space, therefore space is observable via distances between objects. So again, I would state that the only factor that can not be observed is mysterious time force thingie. I can see motion, but I don't see motion being a consequence of time.

Yes, I love Sheldon, he both makes me want to strangle him and discuss physics with him at the same time. Hello Zorro I would counter that, by saying. What would time be without space? Time by itself is not observable, so without matter to affect, and indeed matter to make up our moral forms, what would be the point in time? Then again, one may ask the question in the exact reverse. What would matter, and space be without time. For you can't really speak about space and not treat it as a framework for matter to exist. But, while time is nothing without space and matter to affect. Matter doesn't have to exist under the constraints of a time "force"/"dimension" as most people seem to think of it. There are only two certain things we can absolutely observe with total certainty. 1) Matter exists (it is observable, and interactive so therefore it must exist) 2) Matter Moves (and therefore matter must have something to move within, aka X, Y and Z) Now, as matter moves, we start to ask the question. Why does it move? Or at least I do. This is where we start getting into the fundamental forces, gravity, small nuclear, large nuclear, electromagnetic. Each seems to occupies it's own domain within space and affect matter according to it's own observable rules. After much testing we have come across multiple techniques to predict the movement and interaction of matter which of course we write down as mathematics. Because we needed a tool to define snapshots of the universe in multiple states (past, present and future) we invented the concept of time. The mark of a good mathematical system is the ability to take multiple data points and then predict both past and and future interactions with a great deal of accuracy. This is why time was invented. In fact one may argue that the past doesn't exist any more than the future is. While you may have abilities that I don't or another perception on this, I personally only ever experience the ever present now. I can remember the past and kinda relive it, sometimes very intensely, but that is still a function of now. I can not do the same thing for the future, because the future was never a now while the past was once a now that occurred. Of course Sir Terry Pratchett might say that that the reason we can see the past and not the future is because we're walking through time backwards. But such human fancies aside, the fact remains that I am the now of the moment, and the was of the past simply remains as a certain configuration of neurons in my mind. No more real in the moment than the future was. So if there is only the moment and the past and future was at heart a human invention, then why does any form of time need to exist. There is only matter, and the motion of that matter, the interaction of that matter, and affection of forces upon matter. In order for time to exist, at least in my primitive mind, as anything other than a set of tick tocks of ever moving matter. Then it would have to be a governing force. Time would have to fold into itself all fundamental forces, and then all forces within the universe would have to be an expression of time. Now while I can accept that the forces might be an expression of a greater force in a way we don't understand, I don't think that whole unified force is time. But something we don't really have a concept for at present. Either way, in my own primitive way I look at the tick of clockwork, the swing of a pendulum, the burning of a candle and the movement of the sun by the one factor they all have in common. Motion. And motion, certainly isn't time. That's why it has a word all to itself. P.S. thanks hyperion1is it's nice to be back.

Everything you just discussed, speed, light speed, is judged by the motion of a particular particle, a photon. You are not describing time there you are describing the motion of something within the universe. The big bang isn't important because that's merely the starting point (btw, as far as I'm aware Big Bang is the wrong term now, it's universal inflation). Though it does make a really cool name for a TV show. Either way, space ending, light waves, speed of light. This is all directly related to space, and the movement of matter within the space. This has nothing to do with defining time as a separate entity, force, dimension, whatever. It's just space, space and more space. Just as that which lays between my ears is

Wonderful, we're back to talking about time as if it something more than a mere measurement. I would remind everyone that space does exist, that is indisputable. We know that matter exists, that is also indisputable (though I suspect someone might try to dispute it, there's always someone). We know that matter moves within space. Now this is where people need to adjust their thinking a little, and start drawing a mental line between tools to analyse the universe, and what actually makes up the universe. Time is merely a way of measuring the motion of matter by taking a small repetitive motion, for example the tick of a clock. By doing this we invent the famous sum Don't Spill Tea. Distance = Speed * Time Or perhaps better restated as: Distance = Speed * CP (Comparative Motion) Comparative motion of course is time, so we're not comparing two distance motions, but the point at which a motion changes direction, tick, tock, tick, tock. This is a second. Or as I like to think of it, a regular change in state of motion. Now we can work out how far something has travelled, the rate at which is is travelling and predict the time taken to travel (or rather how many regular change in states of motion). And thus you have a system by which time as an independent dimension or object or form of matter or force or anything else people think it should be, doesn't exist. This basically means that concepts such as time travel, i.e. winding the universe back to a previous state, requires instant and universal reversal of every motion and interaction in the universe. Something which is clearly impossible. Of course that doesn't fit into science fiction so it will never become a popular concept with the man on the street.

Well duh. Numbers are just another form of representative language. Aka, the word table represents tables in general yet no table specifically. If you wish to discribe a table in complex detail then you use mathematics. Mathematics = specific language English = Generalized language The statement "I am feeling sad" is completely interprative. It can mean anything from you want to slash your wrists, to I saw a sad puppy which I'll forget about in the next 5 seconds. The statement "I am feeling sad" in mathematics would have to be brought down to measurements, I guess the only accurate way of documenting how sad they are is to measure all the processes in their body at that time, and then isolate those that deal with feelings of sadness. Extremely complex and probably impossible by todays science. So yes, numbers are a representative language designed to compare, measure, predict and proceduralize the universe, but they are not the universe itself. Anyone who says different needs to re-evaluate their reality, and possibly grab a little medication along the way

I can not deny that space exists, I move in it on a daily basis. Our ancestors spent a lot of their evolution developing senses that can detect the tiger jumping out of the forest at you quickly enough to get away. Space is real and it's here to stay... well until it all implodes anyway But my point is that ONLY space has to exist, time doesn't. If you have space and a freedom to move within that space at will, then why do you need time at all? Why have we invented this "rail system" that can drag you forward and backward? A rail system based on a single observation, we move forward! Without ever observing going backward. People seem to say spacetime as space now, so why does time have to be added at all, why isn't there just space? As far as I can tell time is a mechanism for dealing with "multiple spaces" all at the same time. You take a snap shot of events at time frame A, you take another snap shot at time frame B, and a final snapshot of time frame C, then you compare the three together and look for patterns. It's a fine tool, but it doesn't make time itself a real force or presence in the universe, all we are really doing is taking multiple samples for the purposes of comparison. P.S. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php If that was supposed to prove something other than that people play with words (like time) and then chose to accept them as truth because they feel like it, then well done. I think you made my point for me

lol, I should hope not! I'd rather like to continue living! Sherlock Holmes. "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" I prefer Occam's Razor, the principle states "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" When you start having to add additional dimensions to your mathematics to make it work I'd say it's probably wrong. It also states that bad theories are those theories which make too many assumptions. Just because we see a dark blob in the middle of a photograph, people immediately start saying BLACK HOLE! It kinda looks like gods cappuccino to me, he's just added the chocolate and given it a swirl. Can anyone tell me what that white blob is in the middle? Would a black hole have a white core? Seems unlikely to me! No sorry, doesn't do it for me. But if people want to use this as evidence for it then they are welcome to believe it if they want too, just don't ask me too. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.pdf Einstein himself wrote the above document it is hosted on nobelprize.org, is that legitimate enough for you? It's well known that Einstein sadly went to his grave never fixing all the problems with General Relativity, and that General Relativity nor Special theory of relativity can married with the Standard Model. this is why there's so much work going into the unified theory.

Please elaborate.

lol I teach computer game programming, and write software for a living. I could instruct the computer to visually create anything within my talent's range. You don't expect Mario Superbrothers to provide real world physics demonstrations so why on earth are you using the extremely limited and inaccurate CGI rendering tool blender? Heck even the fluid simulation isn't that accurate! no you're going to have to do better than knocking up something in blender. Build it Film it Prove it

As far as I'm aware this was a real experiment that demonstrated that light can be significantly delayed with travelling through an material medium. Our atmosphere and the gasses within it are varying types of material medium are they not? So we have established that the electromagnetic spectrums can be delayed by the materials it meets along the way.

The rock is the act of producing experiments that can be well established and tested. The sky is theories that things we can't test exist. Before you can start guessing at what you can not see, you have to establish the rock upon which it is based. As far as I am aware there's no way of testing dimensions outside of a mathematical construct. Ok, then how about form the man himself. http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein04.html there's plenty more web pages listing problems with relativity. In fact Einstein died trying to correct the problems with General Relativity with his special theory of relativity. Since then more holes have been punched into it. Apart from anything else, marrying together the standard model and the special theory of relativity is problematic at best. @ abisha If you want a great diagramming tool check out OmniGraffle for the Mac or iPad. I used the iPad version to create the image that follows. In regards to black holes at the beginning of the universe (aka the big bag) which was superceeded by inflation theory. The big bang may have been the most compact collection of matter in history, however we can not call this a black hole because the specific properties are entirely different. A black hole under it's own gravity field can not expand, it sucks everything in becoming denser and denser. The beginning of the universe started with all the matter of the universe compressed into one spot, but with the key difference that it could inflate at a constant rate. Clearly it had some kind of internal pressure that allowed it to do so, not only could light escape, it was undoubtedly forced to escape. When dealing with the beginning of the universe there's many ways of looking at things. My own idea's can be summarised in the following diagram. And I'm not trying to pass this off as fact, or well researched, right or wrong, merely a conceptual idea I've been building for a science fiction story I'm working on. Unified origin is a general term for whatever exists outside of our universe. The basic principle for this is the following: It is a completely alien entity (not living, merely a fundamental universal construct) that has it's own set of rules, framework and internal mechanics. It has no need for mass, matter, spatial dimensions, time or anything else we take for granted. Due to some kind of unknown internal mechanic this Unified Origin emits a corrupted or incomplete fragment of itself. As a consequence it's nature changes and it corrupts further. First, there is a corruption of it's own framework, this becomes our spatial dimensions, X, Y and Z Second comes a Super Force. A collection of all forces within our universe. The Super Force due to the corrupted framework can not maintain itself as a single force and begins to separate and "filter" itself through our spatial dimensions unevenly. The creates the fundamental forces, to which I am including the Higgs force, even though it has not been officalli recognised as a fundamental force. Each of these forces interact with each other. The Higgs field creates mass, gravity attracts mass together. The Higgs force is the strongest force, while gravity is the weakest. In between you get the nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces. This distribution of all of this is pretty random. Whenever the Unified origin emitts a fragment of itself it either forms something self sustaining, partly self sustaining, or entirely unstable. This means while you've been reading this forum post 10,000 new universes with differing frameworks from our own have been created. Some have become stable. Some like ours are unstable and others fail to create anything and simply fall back into the unified origin. In this concept, universes are emitted, then forced to spread out and break down with enough time. They are then absorbed, which creates a minor imbalance which created a new cycle of universe birth. Again, I don't claim this is true or right or researched or experimented, this is just something I cooked up for my own science fiction work. It has no scientific method, the only hope this system has of being right is 1) by total luck and 2) by somehow stimulating some clever sods imagination to the point that they actually discover what did happen while at the same time completely disproving this concept. There's little point in creating beginning of the universe stories, until we understand everything we can about how our universe works, and then reverse engineer that knowledge back through time, and beyond.

I'm absolutely certain that I exist, I think therefore I am. You can't build castles in the sky if you don't have your boots firmly on rock.

Oh I dunno, I'm sure if they wanted to prove that an orange existed, they'd just hand me an orange. The point is they are cautious because they are not absolutely certain. No ti doesn't, that's like saying anything that burns has to be a star. A match burns, but that's not a star. You might say yes, there is a big difference between a sun, and a match. But then, until we see a true black hole, and test what's at the centre of our galaxy there might be as much difference between them as both a match and a star. We've not seen light become unable to escape it, we're making extremely long distence observations and assuming it can't. There's a difference, espically as we've ever actually directly observed anything that can suck in light, it's just a theory. That theory has to be tested in real world situations before it becomes fact, Yet you state with total certainty that light can not escape, when in reality you only speak from theory. Naw we don't, and it's pure arrogance to think that we do (in my opinion). It's like saying I know everything about a species of beatle I observed while sitting on a mountain with a powerful telescope. I might see it's outsides, it's shell, view the light bouncing off it with differing hues, but I'd know nothing about the internal mechanisams of that beatle. For that I need to get up close, and start taking it apart ( p.s. I do not condone beetle murder, use a cat scanner instead! ) I mean imagine if an alien was looking at earth, it sees a car, what would they think about this car? What if they had no preconception of vehicular design or combustion technology. Might they conclude that cars are domestic beasts people get inside of, and get out of at will? As they say,don't judge a book by it's cover. Or in this case a super dense formation of matter rotating at the core of our galaxy, it might not be what any of use expect. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I can read about harry potter online, or god if I want. But I can't experiement with god, I can't touch god, I can't observe god directly. So if someone presented you with "the mathematics of god" without a god to test it against, how do you demonstrate that it's real. in what way is it accessible. This is the difference between theory, mathematics and real world situations. I can take a radio apart, understand how a radio works. I can't take apart higher dimensions or observe higher dimension. I can make no use of higher dimensions. So how can I or anyone else definitively say there are any? Yes the government won't give me any uranium to play with. Here's an interesting article on the web entitled "Problems with General Relativity" 1. The red shift. 2. Matter and energy not equivalent 3. Problem with the metric model 4. Cosmological issues 5. General Relativity is dimensionally incomplete 6. General relativity is mathematically incomplete 7. Complexity. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/15196-Problems-with-General-Relativity So it's certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. This is what I mean by observations not matching the theory. I'll see if I can dig out one of my old C++ examples, I experimented with various physics examples using a simulator and found that a specific range of numbers caused some very strange reactions. give me a couple of days I don't know where I put my backups. Absolutely it's close minded. I freely admit that. On the other hand if someone tells me that they saw a pink unicorn eating moonrocks last night as they observed the moon, then it started fighting moon dragons and flying moon pigs started invading earth with greeting cards. Well, I'd dismiss them out of hand, and that would be a very closed minded thing to do as well. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm told all the time that I'm so closed minded. Same when people claim to see ghosts. Or that the human soul exists. There's no end to the crap you'd have to believe if you were truly and completely open minded. Balance in all things, open mindedness is all very well, but sometimes you need to judge things against your own experience and knowledge. Please, post the links. I'm happy to look at anything! The term black hole was used, so that's what she called it. There was clearly no other definition or word she could compare it too.

Ok you might need to explain that one to me. It is my understanding that light is created when an atom changes energy states and emits a photon. A photon is the smallest possible packet of light at a given wavelength. The wavelength is part of the electromagnetic spectrum to which radiation, radio waves and microwaves also belong too. When passed through a vacuum light travels at a constant speed of 2.997 x 10^8 m/s but when passing through a material medium, that is air, water, or a supercooled block of dense material then that waveform, to which the photon belongs can be slowed to as little as 38 MPH. If my understanding of this is flawed I'd be grateful if you explained where it falls apart. Because right now to my mind, if light can be slowed down, and it belongs to the same spectrum as radio waves, then surely radiowaves travelling through a constantly varying density of material would experience some kind of slow down as well?

Photos, videos, list your experiments and the results of those experiments. Write up a report, and document everything as fully as possible. Please understand you can not claim such things until evidence is provided.

I note that the writer of the article at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bh_obsv.html did not say that it was definitely a black hole. I suspect that we're simply discovered something quite interesting and then slapped the black hole label on it for lack of anything better to call it. Perhaps the term core mass would be a better one for now? After all in that article both subject matters are at the centre of their own galaxies. It's not surprising to me that the heaviest, most dense object is at the centre of the galaxy, we see that naturally within our own solar system. The sun is in the middle and everything else has naturally fallen into an orbit. If we zoom out on our own galaxy, (correct me if I'm wrong here) doesn't every star and solar system in that galaxy also orbit the centre like a giant pin wheel? Do we not see this in other galaxies? Circling around and around a larger core be it larger from multiple particles, or a single larger mass, seems to be a repeating theme down to a certain level. Once you get into particle physics I believe this behaviour starts to change quite dramatically, though I'm still learning about that myself. So yes, I can accept that the core of our own galaxy and others are super dense. But does that mean it's so dense that light can not escape? Also what is it's actual size in proportion to it's down density? How do we actually test for these things from so far away, and with such limited information? If so, is this actual evidence for higher dimensions for extra curves in space which was the original subject matter of this thread? This is one of the reasons I dislike blackholes so much is that many people seem to want them to exist, or assume they exist. I think that is a very dangerous trend in science. At the end of the day I can only judge what is likely based on my own experiences, what I know myself, I fully admit I am no professor, and certainly not an expert. My understanding of the mathematics behind most of the subjects I'm discussing today is certainly beyond my understanding I freely admit that. I am reading what everyone says I promise even if I do sound incredulous, and I am taking on board what everyone says. I suppose my biggest issue with most of this is the inaccessibility of it all. For example, I know ohms law works because I've applied it on many occasions, I can see that it works reliably every time. When I want to work out the distance between two points in space, I know trigonometry works because I use it all the time when programming. From that programming I can also simulate various aspects of physics, such as the impact of mass, how to calculate the bounce of a ball. These are all things that are extremely accessible. I also know that if I adjust the numbers for these sums beyond certain ranges these sums can create some very weird stuff that simply would never ever occur in nature, so I have to place limiters on these things in a very artificial way. The limiters of the sum are not built in naturally and have to be added with additional insertions of logic. It's these experiences that make me more sceptical of these things. I simply can't physically play with higher dimensions, and I can't relate them to my 3D world. Many people assume that time is a dimension in of itself, but time dilation kinda disproves that for me, after all why would one part of the dimension proceed at a lesser rate then another? Then people start talking about space time, and curved space time. Something I've certainly never seen nor been able to play with. So I simplify things. I know motion exists, I know that time is based on the motion of pendulums, I know that at very least we represent waves of radiation with the movement of a sin wave, or signal at least giving the idea of movement within it's internal mechanisms. I know that atoms energy states and internal motions are a factor even if the idea of motion here becomes a little bit wonky. I know from the double slit experiment that various sized particle firings create some fascinating interference fields, suggesting an influence exerted by the particle that appears to extend beyond it's own physical dimensions. So I can accept the presence of forces. These are all things that have been demonstrated to me. So I hope the world of practical science really does one day discover black holes, but to be honest I'm probably unlikely to be convinced by them until I fly up to one and transmit my final words as "opps, they were right" to this forum via galatica-com

Sorry that was a tad emotional. But, blackholes don't exist outside theoretical mathematics, it's incredibly rare for mathematics to predict anything in reality. Typically, we see, observe, then study and understand. It's not impossible to predict something no one has seen, but until we see it it's a theory only. When people start talking about them as if they are a well studied and observed reality I do start to lose my patience.

Blackholes are one of the biggest myths of modern society. I really have no time or patience for them. Sorry. I can understand how mathematics can produce oddities like black holes if you tweak the numbers enough but I highly doubt they exist in nature no matter how many Gamma ray bursts and X Ray emissions astrologists claim to detect. These are just another invention to fill the holes in theories like this. When you can't explain why something doesn't quite work (aka relativity not quite predicting were everything is in the universe) people just end up inventing something to plug the hole be it Dark Matter, or Dark Force or whatever. Instead of saying "we don't know why it doesn't work" we end up with invented stuff sci-fi writers jump all over becoming the popular culture buzzword.

I understand that it's an example, not the thing itself. But you're still saying "What is apparently and visually straight, is now curved". So I guess the question is, how do you prove it's curved. I can fire a laser beam between two points and work out if that laser goes between two points without deviation. But how do you prove that laser beam is in face following a curve in space. From all practical observation we know that a laser beam, travelling through empty space will travel in a straight line. So how do you test if that line is in fact curved in ways we don't see? I mean we know light itself can be bent so that we can apparently see certain stars that should be behind the sun. But that doesn't demonstrate that space is curved, and adding time into it seems pretty pointless. Where is the physical experiment demonstrating this? Fair enough. When something seems strange it's just my natural inclination to assume it's wrong. Again I accept that this is a simplistic view, and that I may be wrong myself. But I guess I can only work within my own limitations.

Atoms have all sorts of internal motion going on. I'm not un-inclined to treat movement or passing of energy states as motion in of itself. You certainly have the internal motion of the radiation's own frequency to consider. The internal mechanics of atoms constant internal motion. After all there's a strong relationship between all particles and waveforms, the old double slit experiment demonstrates this as much with bucket balls as it does electrons. So we use the movement of light instead I'm sure they call it time dilation effects. But that doesn't mean that time is slowing down and speeding up. When passing a photon though a super cooled materials it's speed can drop to as low as 38 miles an hour. Source: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html Now we know that the sun has a powerful enough gravity field to bend light. If light can be bent, can it be accelerated and decelerated? Do we know that light and the whole electromagnetic signal range is arriving and leaving at exactly the same speed? If light can be slowed down by matter, with the variety of gasses and collections of water vapour flying around in the atmosphere and varying amounts and concentration, can this not affect the speed of these signals. Could not this, combined with systematic errors from the equipment itself account for these predictable (within a tolerance I'm sure) flaws in the data? Saying time changes just seems a way of analysing the obvious errors in the system, lumping all the data under a single heading, applying the maths and then calling it time dilation. I am sure they are, but I'm also sure it's not perfect. So it does have an impact then. Get enough of these small niggling interferences going in, gravity, other signals, vibrations from the air craft, air pressure, and god knows what else, and you have a complex dataset indeed. Lumping it all under "time dilation" seems to be a way of collecting all these errors, applying a tolerance of error, and then giving the impression that time itself is somehow changing as these clocks travel through space.

Sure the GPS Satalites maybe, but what about the cheap tom tom returning the signal. Doesn't that add any kind of timing data. I presume the system has to go "Hey GPS! I'm the satalite." The portable device goes "Hi satalite, I received your communication @ X time, and returned the signal at X time". Phones, tablets, and most GPS systems are using ARM based RISC processors. Their floating point calculations are going to be truncated, and their own time keeping certainly isn't going to be based on an internal atomic clock. So you've got two systems in place here. 1 satalite, with super accurate hardware, and 1 cheap consumer device responding with the signal. Add multiple satalites, and multiple returns and you're going to get an average of the returned error, but again the data isn't going to be as precise as the satalites own data. I imagine the system will have to make some assumptions long the way while doing all of this. In addition to this weather, and solar flares disrupt communications like this. Solar storms can throw off systems and shut down power grids. No there's a lot going on with these systems and I don't think we have to go writing the rules of the universe to point out possible flaws. Yes he used the rubber sheet idea, a weight in the middle of a rubber sheet creating a curve in space that allows for orbits and falling. So essentially that tells me that gravity doesn't exist at all there's only an unseen curve that forms around every bit of matter. You don't have to have "time" for that to work, you only need curved space. But again, I suspect there's something completely different going on here, it's a very nice visual image but gravity is a total mystery. Why is it so much weaker than the other forces. How exactly does it draw two unconnected objects together? There's all sorts of idea's floating around about this but it's not something anyone understands. So again, my approach is to go for the simple mundane answer. We know electromagnetism works on objects both repelling and attracting, so we know forces can work invisibly to draw bits of mater together. I'm pretty sure it's not curving spacetime to do it, otherwise why would it only attract certain arrangements of matter to itself? And if a magnet isn't curving space time to attract things to itself, why the heck should gravity have to start warping the very fabric of space to do it's job? A toolkit is a complete collection of tools. We have lots of individual tools to explain various things, but we don't have the complete toolkit. For all intents and purposes at the moment we're an Engineer trying to pry off the tyre of the universe with nothing but a greasy comb, a number 2 spanner and the tip of a pen I'm sure we'll develop more of the tools as we go along, and when we do there will be a massive shake up of our thinking. At the moment we're peeking under the rim of that universal tyre, but we're certainly no near it's inner-tube!

Sure, the floating point calculation varies itself. When you truncate any value, the amount of lost data is going to vary, and can spawn all kinds of unpredictable errors within any system. I had a mere 5000 line game developed about six months ago, and there was the oddest of errors in the player accuracy calculation. Suddenly at seemingly random instances the score would go up 5 points and then suddenly go into negative values. I was at a loss as to what caused it for a few weeks on that one, before I realised I'd accidently defined a float value as in integer! This truncated the number got fed into the sum and produced the error. A very simple mistake occurring in part of the program I didn't think to look at. Comparatively speaking you have a far more complex system developed by various people expanding god knows how many lines of code, not only that but we're dealing with difference devices from different manufacturers, each with their own drivers, their own hardware, and their own standards of production. Yes I've read about this in Stephen Hawkings works. There are several factors here that may affect the workings of these atomic clocks. 1) Environmental, taking any piece of hardware into an airplane with the vibrations of the engine, differing atmospheric pressures, varying speeds, varying humidities, The atoms within the clock are going to get shaken about, the detector is going to get shaken about, the counting mechanisams in the 1970's were very crude compaired to todays technologies. Perhaps the counter on it simply missed or added a few ticks? This is a far more likely explanation to my mind then time suddenly altering itself. 2) Electromagnetic fields, the world is a big electromagnetic field in of itself, we know that magnetics are used all the time to guide electrons and other particles, we also know that the planets electromagnetic field varies in strength and around the world. I suspect this can easily cause interference. 3) Gravity, yet another thing we don't understand, we know it bends light, could it add just enough of a difference to account for the change? How does gravity behave when moving clockwise around the earth vs anticlockwise?

I move through space on a daily basis, I work with 3 Dimensional representations of space via computer programming on a near daily basis. So no, I have no problems with space. Why do you ask?

I don't see or touch radio waves, but they are a part of my day to day existence. I see several possibilities for this kind of error that don't involve time having to become an entity and changing it's properties. The first, and most obvious is an issue of fractions and computers. The standard float point processor supports a double integer, this means it will calculate accurately a number as small as 0.00000000000001 as most GPS systems use ARM or similar processors I can't imagine the device themselves are any more accurate then that. As you are dealing with absolutely tiny numbers, as you say mere hundredths, or thousandths or tens of thousandths of a second.numbers. The speed of light is 186 282.397 mps ​(Miles per second) over the distance of 5 miles it will take 2.684096876850903e-5 that's 0.00002684096876850903 seconds. That last 3, is rounded up from whatever number(s) came after it. when you are dealing with numbers that small how much difference to accuracy does rounding up or down a 3 make? I wouldn't even like to guess! To get around this I imagine the plugin the average accuracy loss as a data set to compensate. But this won't always be effective, so using multiple GPS signals can help reduce the error by averaging the difference between these signals. There's also addition issues of timing, where goes the GPS get it's time from, how does it return time to the main system, is it a matter of a super precise system communicating with an imprecise system? This is what I mean by real world questions and observations. Sure to human perception these fractions of seconds are nothing to us, but the equipment we use to process this stuff is very understandable, they are systems we built after all, and as with any system man has built there is a greater or lesser margin for error. Before people start talking about time dilation and rushing off to say "this supports my theory!" they really need to look at the practical side of things. The fact that there is an error occurring in a man made system doesn't surprise me. I work with computer languages and hardware more than enough to realise they are far from accurate when it comes to scientific solutions. Make no mistake at this level we are completely dependant on the hardware and software solutions required, without trying to complicate the natural laws of the world to boot! I like Einstein work, and I feel much of it has stood up to the test of time because he took real world observations and proceeded to explain them, he explained some things so well that he actually predicted certain things we had not discovered yet. having said that classical mechanics doesn't operate very well with quantum mechanics, Einstein stuff works very well in a macro world but when it comes to the micro world we had to generate the Standard Model to explain things. Much of this unified theory business is an attempt to marry both these systems for predicting under a single set of rules, so one or both systems clearly are not perfect. But there is a difference between Einstein looking to explain real world scientific observations, and string theory which as no real world observation to demonstrate anything.