Strange

And are you ready now, Oh Great One, to reveal what is the The Nature Of Time? Your disciples await! But what does that mean if we do away with the notion of time, as you suggest in your opening sentence. That "duration" just means "elapsed"? Maybe you could ask the mods to change the forum software so it doesn't mark every post with the time it was posted; that must be rather an embarrassment in a thread that wants to dispense with time.

The scientific method is evidence based. Therefore to be "scientifically" impossible, you would need evidence. Obviously. Interesting as it is, I am going to ignore the rest of the discussion of the scientific method as it is off-topic.If you want to continue that discussion, sort a thread in the philosophy section. This does not sound like any explanation I have heard before. Do you have a mathematical model based on this that produces results that match the evidence? If not, it sounds like just a guess. A guess cannot be proved wrong. Only a model that makes specific predictions can be proved wrong (or shown to be consistent with observation). But whatever the explanation, you appear to agree that photons are quantised and can't be partly absorbed. That is pretty much all the word "particle" conveys in this context. I still don't see how that is an analogy for anything. So you are happy to say it is a wave that cannot be divided, and don't like the word particle. That's fine. There may even be plenty of physicists who agree (certainly with disliking the "particle" word). I have no idea what you mean by "to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality". All quantum theory says is that the waves of electromagnetic radiation are quantised. You seem to agree with that. Where does magic or "discontinuity of reality" come into it. It is important to realise that classical waves can be divided or split to form two waves with half the energy. You can see this with waves in water when they meet a barrier; with sound waves and (on the macro scale) with light waves. But in the case of electromagnetic waves, there is a smallest size they can be split into: the quantum of electromagnetic radiation or photon. I emphasise that because I am not really sure if you understand or accept that yet. (I have no idea how to find the experiments measuring the time taken for a photon to be emitted. I did a quick google and didn't see anything relevant.) Of course it isn't. It is completely natural - it uses nature to raise animals and grow crops. Humans have done it for millennia.

You are totally ignorant of how science works. You don't now what the word theory means. You have now waved the "only a theory" flag and revealed your true colours. You have demonstrated yourself to be an ignorant crackpot. At the very least, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just place holders for phenomena that are not explained. In the case of dark matter there is now overwhelming evidence that t is a form of matter. You can, of course, ignore that based on your religious beliefs. But you shouldn't pretend you are interested in science. In the case of dark energy, yes: everyone admits we don't know what it is. That is not exactly news. I am suggesting the mods close this thread as there is clearly no science here.

I thought you wanted to stick to physics instead of introducing more of your woo.

As you can't do the maths, this is just bullshit. And this is just BS, period.

Really? While there are some solutions for a spherical body (e.g. the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions) there is nothing special about spherical systems. There are planar solutions as well.

I'm sure it used to be possible to edit the markup (the tags like , etc.) in the previous version, if not the HTML (which I agree would be a Bad Idea).

Yes. I have tried to explain that the whole universe was larger than the little bit that grew into the observable universe. But it doesn't seem to have worked. This seems to answer lots of common questions: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm This is a good description of the source of the CMB (with a nice "surface of last screaming" analogy): https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html The bit inside the blue sphere is our observable universe. The bit outside is the rest of the universe (or part of it). Everything (both inside the blue and outside) is expanding and cooling.

Why call it the visible universe when it is already called the observable universe? The size (now) is 96 Bly. 13 billion years is the time it took light to get here. No. The observable universe is just the part of the universe that is visible. To us. Because of light travel time. There is no explanation or evidence for anything starting at t=0. However, whatever explanation applies to the observable universe also applies to the rest of the universe. That's what I said. There is no single source for the CMB, it was created everywhere. So we see it coming from a sphere all around us and so does everyone else in the universe. No. It is not a process that took place 13.8 by ago. It is a process that is happening now. The whole universe is expanding and cooling. And has been for 13.8 by. Why does the fact that there are parts of the universe we can't see cause you such a problem?

I don't see that. (I have occasionally missed the "edit HTML" functionality. That is for inserting code (monospaced text) I think. Yep: for i in (1 to 10) print i end

Sorry, I seem to have missed that. Could you say which post you explained the reason in? LMGTFY: http://bfy.tw/E8cz

FIFY Why do you have to wait at all? Why not just tell us now?

Wouldn't it be polite to consider whether others feel equally satisfied (or not)? If you are not willing to reveal what you have in mind, then you may not get very relevant thoughts on the subject. So, for example, you appeared to be very frustrated that people gave you answers related to "time" when, apparently, that is not what you are after. But if you are unwilling/unable to explain what you are after then you cannot complain when people answer what you appear to have asked. We are not mind readers. I bet they can hardly wait. Personally, I have cancelled all my appointments for tomorrow to be sure I don't miss it.

There is a "report" link at the top of each post. I would suggest using that. (if you haven't already.) So what is the problem with just telling us what the "nature of time" is? Is it so secret that you have to close the thread in case it is accidentally revealed? And why does duration have a different nature than time? I think you mean "DURATION schedule" and the "maximum duration allowed". I am not aware of any upper limit.

As you are unwilling to reveal this secret, I don't see how anyone can answer the question.

When I am supposed to be working, chocolate makes a good substitute.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. However, as noted previously, the duration (not time) is determined by looking at the current rate of expansion (e.g. how the distance of galaxies increases with time duration) and the current temperature of the CMB radiation (and therefore how much it has cooled in the time duration since recombination). We can trace the evolution of the universe over time duration back to a much earlier time point (our current physical theories no longer earlier than that time point). And so we know that there is a time duration of about 360,000 years from the earliest time point we can model to the time point when recombination happened. But I am curious as to why you say it is impossible to know this? Is that based on a flaw in the physics? Or a philosophical/religious belief? Or ... ? Disappointed that you are not willing to share your knowledge. How, exactly, will I make this determination?

Why not? Then what is the "nature of time"? I look forward to being enlightened by your greater knowledge of the subject.

Are humans risk averse? They do all sorts of extraordinary and dangerous things in pursuit of knowledge, thrills or just entertainment. Please provide some evidence for this "global phenomena". (And you mean "phenomenon", singular.)

To put it simply, we have a model that describes the universe evolving from an early hot, dense state. We can determine the physical characteristics of the universe at each time, and hence work out when it was cool enough for recombination to occur. The timeline is derived from multiple lines of evidence; the simplest being an interpolation of the expansion we currently see. But this is confirmed by things like the temperature of the CMB. That seems a bit silly. The science pages generally reliable. And you can just use it as a list of references to the the sources of the information if you don't trust the editors to have summarised it accurately. That sounds more like a question for philosophy than physics.

A singularity means that the mathematics has ceased to be applicable; i.e. that the theory no longer works under those conditions. It has no physical reality.

That would appear to contradict conservations laws. How could everything cease to exist. That makes no sense.

Then you should be able to use GR to confirm your claims about the orbital velocities in galaxies. But you keep saying "the math hasn't been invented yet" which implies GR cannot explain it. Although you seem to base your handwaving on GR.

I don't really know what you are asking. There isn't any connection between the CMB and the size of the universe. The CMB we see comes from about 13.5 billion light years away because that is how far light has travelled in that time. The CMB that someone 10 trillion light years away would have come from about 13.5 billion light years away from them, because that is how far light has travelled in that time.

There is no point repeating this claim as it is only supported by vague and incoherent hand waving. Until you can produce a model that matches observation, you are just wasting everyone's time. Including your own. And, yes, it is c not C. And "the rate of time, space, and C" is meaningless.