You know your physics. I am more of a fan, not an expert. I knew someone would find that eventually, even if it did take a while.Originally posted by Succumbus
now, one little thing that annoyed me in this thread
I hate to say Time isnt constant, it is relative to the speed of the object for which time is being measured. I'm not going to say much more, as it gets horribly compicated to try an explain it in anything other than maths most people cant follow (not trying to be offinsive but it is true) and even then its difficult. The are very few things that are constant in the universe, the most well known being the speed of light in a vacuum. Also there are very good physics departments at both Oxford and Cambridge universities (tho personally I prefer the Department at Manchester University, which has had some of the Greatest minds in physics either learning or teaching there, and also owns Jodrell Bank, the second largest directable radio telescope in the world, and the one NASA keeps asking to find their lost space probes ). However Cambridge university has a greater history of studying sciences as it is the less traditionally religious of the two universities, so was more able to fund study into the "Dark arts" of science at a time when the church was very powerfull. This is the reason that the great scientists of history studied there and not at Oxford.
On Stephen Hawkins, he holds the position of "Lucasian Professor of Mathematics" in the "Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics".
Hugs to all
lilnymph
This message was not ment as a flame, just to clear up some mistakes in earlier posts.
Some shadows can be cast on this theory because time might also be related to energy, gravity, mass, ect. I have heard people claim that measurements are inaccurate because the speed of light was not correctly compensated for, even though many of the tests had the time difference caused by the Earths rotation.
Humans don't have the ability to get a 100% correct measurement of the speed of the object due to the lack of us knowing where the center of the universe is, if the universe does have a center. Even if the Big Bang theory is proven true we might find that several Big Bangs were also taking place trillions of light-years away, which could eliminate the chance of us finding a center of the universe. That is unless we describe time as being in the perspective of the observer, not as from the center of the universe.
Btw, Isaac Newton also held the same position as Stephen Hawking, who created the idea of negative time to describe the universe without unexplained phenomenon’s appearing. The "Multiple Dimensions of Time" theory was actually created by one of his friends, unless I am mistaken. I believe I read part of it months ago and forgot about it, and then re-explained it to Capo.
I would be interested in hearing what you have to say on cosmic strings, I can never find much information about them.