Strange

This procedure is sometimes done to treat severe epilepsy. There is a discussion of some of the effects here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain Whether that means there are "two consciounesses" in one head rather depends on how you define consciousness. As there is no such definition it seems to be an essentially meaningless question, to me.

Yes. 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). 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. 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.

Isn't motion just change of position over time? Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that the relativistic corrections were built in from the start. All sorts of reasons. All of them well understood. 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.

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

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.

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>

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

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

Except it doesn't. Dividing the neutron and proton masses by this gives 1200.999897256 and 1199.3466947701 respectively. As you have a fake model and arbitrary numbers, no, not really. You can "prove" anything with numerology. Well, if you can't present the math ... I am not going to try and reverse engineer your code.

So what you are sying is that out of the 14 billion years of history, science has left God with just 10-64s in which to operate. And will presumably continue to learn more and squeeze Her into an ever smaller gap.

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.

Please show us one. This should be quantitative (i.e. have specific values that can be tested against evidence). How exactly does it explain inflation? 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)

Why do you think space is more real than time?