In the beginning... what?

I have to stop watching the Science, Discovery, and other channels like it. It's addictive and has side effects. Mostly headaches caused by theoretical conundrums.

Take the Big Bang, for instance. I grew up thinking that the Big Bang theory pretty much summed up what happened. I could grasp it, it made some sense, it could even be reconciled on religious terms. But I was younger and not nearly as skeptical as I am now.

Since man first emerged as a sentient creature, he has wondered how it all came to be. Well before he had a clue as to what it all was, he wanted answers to that question. I, and many others, think this was how religion began... with that simple question, "How did it all start?" I think the answer is not all that important myself. At least, not as important as the question itself.

I know so very little that pertains to the physics involved. I wasted only a few months in college (and that was in two obscure junior colleges) before giving up and never took a physics course. My understanding of these things is that of a layman. In other words, I really do not understand the theories. Doesn't stop me from having an opinion (or opinions) about the beginning of time as we know it.

We all know a little about the Big Bang Theory, don't we? In the beginning, there was a singularity and then... "for no particular reason"... it blew up. And when it did, time began. That's the simple description. There is, of course, very complex math which provides the tentative proof of this and explains it in detail for those who have the background and education to understand it. I don't understand the math involved, it is way over my head.

Still, I think I grasp the concepts of the newer theories... except one. The ones I grasp are variations of the Big Bang. One of these is that the universe expands until it reaches a limit and then collapses down to that singularity which become critical again and boom another big Bang and a new universe. The other I like is that the universe expands until it reaches a critical point and then becomes the Big Bang for a larger universe which expands until it happens again. Think of universes inside of universes or vice versa. I like this better than the expand and collapse model mainly because the universe's expansion is not slowing and, in fact, may be increasing in velocity.

The one I don't understand at all is the one that involves multiverses. Something about a kind of bumping together which triggers the bang which becomes our universe.

There are many sticky things involved, not the least of which is the concept of time. I like to think of time as our fourth dimension. Things must exist with depth, width, height, and time. I mean, something could exist for no time but not in any universe we could perceive. Did time exist before the Big Bang? Or did it start with it?

None of it really matters, though, in the great scheme of things. At least, not to you and me. It won't make it any easier to pay our bills, increase our retirement accounts, or find us true love. Beyond those, nothing is important.

A signpost up ahead... You are entering "The Twilight Zone"

I'm fairly stupid, in a relative sense. And relativity is what this is about. Einstein and relativity. Einstein looms large over modern technology and space travel. I came across a couple of articles that intrigued me. Well, the headlines intrigued me. Headlines are supposed to do that. Intrigue us, that is. This one grabbed my attention:

NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/05/04/2691291/nasas-gravity-probe-b-confirms.html#ixzz1LUBwpRgW

When I say I am "fairly stupid", I mean much of the article makes little sense to me. The article is talking about the effect of earth (or any large object in space) on the space-time surrounding it. Also called the "geodetic effect." So, basically, I am dumbfounded because I don't know what that means.

We know that the earth's rotation has an effect on the shape of the earth. It causes the slight "bulge" of the equator. How do we know that? Through math, through experimentation, and through logic. To be fair, we don't really know that or understand the math involved. We, the general public, believe it to be true because we are told it is true by people who are supposed to know this stuff and who, presumably, understand the math involved. And your teachers and the scientists they rely on have never been wrong, have they?

I am one of those people who believe that everything is a matter of scale. Therefore, if an object the size of earth can have an effect on the time-space surrounding it then all objects have some (not yet measurable) effect around them. That means you and I, reader. We are constantly affecting the space-time around us. Oh, certainly by an infinitesimal amount but affect it we must. If we cannot measure the effect, it does not mean it doesn't exist. We couldn't make those measurements that we can now back when Einstein formulated his theories. Had he not formulated his theories, we might not have even known enough to try to measure it.

The mind (mine, that is) boggles.

I still can't understand time at the north (or south) pole. is it faster, relative to the equator? Or is it slower, relative to the equator. Add space to the mix and I am completely lost.

Running out of time

Does anybody really know what time it is
Does anybody really care
If so I can't imagine why
We've all got time enough to cry
[Chicago "Does Anybody Know What Time It Is?"]

I am sitting here in front of the TV in the living room (where I spend way too much time) with my laptop on my lap, wondering if I have an idea for the next blog post when I spot an ad on the back of a Golf Digest magazine. It is for a lower forearm timepiece (aka "wristwatch"). A beautiful hunk of metal, electronics, and precision. For an unspecified, but probably exorbitant, price.

Do you wear a wristwatch? I don't. I never did for more than a few days and that was many, many years ago. There are a number of reasons why I never got in the habit. I just never really had the need for one. There are clocks everywhere; on walls, in my car, on cell phones, and on other people's wrists. Why should I also wear one?

The purpose of having a wristwatch is, I presume, so you can avoid being too late (and maybe too early) for appointments. But I have never had a problem making appointments on time. I just plan for them.

When I was young, wristwatches (as well as most clocks, some of those were electric) had to be wound. A few were "self-winding" which just meant that your arm movements caused tiny weights to move and thereby "wind" the watch or, more accurately, kept it wound. Battery powered watches and clocks came later. As a child, I definitely did not need a watch or even a clock. Shouts from my mother or father woke me up in the morning, told me when it was time to head for school, and when to come in for dinner or lunch. Bells in school told me when to be in class. The parents also made sure I got to doctor and dentist appointments on time.

When I enlisted, I found I had no need for watches or personal clocks. They woke me up (reveille), told me when to eat (mess call) and told me when to go to bed (taps). And, aboard ship, the ship's bell was rung each half hour with a set pattern repeated each four hours.

1 bell - 30 minutes after the hour
2 bells - first hour
3 bells - 30 minutes past first hour

and so on until you reached 8 bells which signified the end of the 4 hour cycle. If you had no idea if it was morning or afternoon, you might be confused. That was never a problem. In addition, there were clocks everywhere. I liked those clocks. Kept accurate by the quartermaster division, all were 24 hour as opposed to 12. I liked that form. It makes more sense to me than AM and PM.

I did use alarm clocks from the time I was about 12 and the responsibility for getting my butt out of bed in the morning was finally thrust on me. And I used them even in the Navy when I lived off base/ship. I hated them. Still do. They were electric because I still could not trust myself to wind them on a regular basis. I kept them on the dresser across the room from my bed so I had to get up to turn off the alarm. I have become disciplined enough now to trust myself to keep the alarm clock within arm's reach. Most of the time. My alarm clocks are not battery powered but do have battery backup.

I have a wall clock in the living room and both the kitchen stove and the microwave have clocks built in. The latter two annoy me when there's a power hit because neither has a battery back up. The wall clock is battery powered.

Twice a year, all clocks annoy me. Going to Daylight Savings Time and going back to Standard Time. At least the ones in the cars are easy to set forward and back. And the computers do it automatically.

But I am not ruled by clocks and that is part of why I never got in the habit of wearing a wristwatch. When I wore one, I felt under its control. A slave to time, if you will.