Strange

No one is minimizing the findings. You seem to be confusing "small" and "unimportant". We have very small fluctuations that are very, very important. In this case, although I have seen some discussion of this, there isn't a lot to go on. A sample size of 1 doesn't tell us too much.

"The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky. However, tiny temperature variations or fluctuations (at the part per million level) can offer great insight into the origin, evolution, and content of the universe." http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

Why do you make random responses to simple questions? Your comments often have nothing to do with the question asked, or even the subject of the thread. Who mentioned Fourier transforms? Or factorials?

What is the scale of those variations? (Homogeneous is, of course, a relative term. Hence my use of "almost perfectly".)

Who mentioned Fourier transforms? Or factorials? Nonsense.

What is a draw? What idea? A single wavelength can transmit no information.

That doesn't sound right. The CMB, which is at nearly 14 billion light years, has a Z of about 1100. In other words, the difference in clock ticks would be about a factor of 1,100.

I think they are just different words for the same thing. "The metric" is, as far as I understand, just how distances are defined.

In that case you will need to use a general purpose radio module such as: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/433mhz-module I think 433 MHz is licensed (in some countries) to general purpose, low-power use for remote controls, etc.

Do you have a reference to support this? As far as I know, the CMB is an almost perfect black body spectrum and almost perfectly homogeneous.

Of course you could. But I can guarantee that this will be a much slower and more error prone than just transmitting digital data. And then the use of digital data means that you can do things like data compression and error correction, which allows for even higher data rates. Some very, very bright people have been thinking about this for many decades. You need to learn about all the advanced techniques used (and how to evaluate and test them) before attempting to come up with something better.

How could you tell? There is still no way to compare a clock today with a clock then. Therefore the question has no meaning (as all we can talk about is RELATIVE time differences). Gosh. I wonder why none of the experts in GR and cosmology have never considered that...

Your laptop can probably transmit Wi-Fi and Bluetooth already. You can buy a GSM (cell phone) dongle. And probably other protocols I am not aware of.

I'm not sure what this means - maybe because of your non-standard use of words. The "single wavelength" that is modulated is called the carrier. The thing that modulates the carrier is the signal. This is the information you want to transfer. It could be analog or digital, and encoded in any way. Much of the decoding of complex systems (e.g. GPS or mobile phones) is handled in software. Partly because it is easier, but also because it gives you the flexibility to handle changing or different protocols with the same hardware. They synchronize by using information in the signal. For example, the information transmitted in "packets". Each packet has a unique bit-pattern at the start so it can be recognised as the start of a packet. Note that this synchronization is not "absolute" but relative to the arrival of the signal. After all, receivers at different distances will receive the signal at different times. There is an old joke that you can encode the entire contents of Wikipedia (for example) into a single mark on a stick. You measure the distance of the mark from the end of the stick. Convert that to binary and, as long as you measure it precisely enough, it can have any number of bits. That is the problem with your scheme: how accurately can you divide up the time periods to decode the number being transmitted? Then you need to compare that with how many bits of normal (or compressed) data can be transmitted in the same time. Measuring those intervals accurately would be much, much easier in hardware than software.

Link? By the way, the link to 56K modems in that excerpt shows that the highest data rate achievable over standard telephone lines is the Shannon limit. It was the switch to using those lines for digital data (e.g. removing filtering) that increased the bandwidth of the line and therefore increased data rates above 30 kbaud.

Not in any detail, no. Partly because it is complicated and partly because it is different for different types of encoding and partly because I have forgotten most of what I knew about this!

That "extra dimension" is one of the ways that this analogy is misleading. However, as you seem hooked on it, you might like this demo of someone showing how gravitational waves can spread across such a sheet. http://nerdist.com/gravitational-waves-are-made-simple-in-this-easy-to-understand-demonstration/

Here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ Not so much that they are constantly changing. They just don't have a well-defined state.

I have no idea who thought of it. But as it is horribly misleading in so many ways, I would not spend any time on it. As gravity IS [the curvature of] space-time then, yes, it extends wherever there is space (and time!) Interesting analogy. I guess it could be considered an image of the mass-energy distribution.

The difference is that the shoe (glove) is right or left from the moment it is made. So this is just a problem of lack of information. In the quantum case, the state of either photon is not just unknown but is indeterminate until measured. You can tell the difference from the probabilities of various outcomes. There is a good video on this that has been posted here a few times. There is also a good series of articles by someone going by the name of "Dr Chinese" which explain it very well - with and without math.

Yes. Me and many others said this some time ago. (Although, personally, I think using the word "aether" is unnecessarily confusing as it was originally used for something completely different.)

Exactly.

No. Ethernet specifies exactly how the signals are encoded on to the wires. If you started changing the frequency, then it wouldn't work. Wired Ethernet is faster, cheaper and more secure than wireless. (I should add, I don't know how Ethernet is implemented at the physical level. But I suspect I am about to find out ...)

No that is not correct. The drawing shows 2 dimensions just because it is easier than trying to represent 4, or even 3. The curvature occurs in 4 dimensions of space-time. (And does not require a 5th dimension)

The only way of comparing them would be by using "proper time" - the time as measured by a clock at that point. In which case, answer is 1s per second.