Aethelwulf

All mathematics is an abstraction. I don't see why you would say it is rubbish.

I said it was a type of spatial dimension, unto which you have tried to argue its not, but now you seem to be agreeing that it is the fourth dimension of space. Contradictory much? And of course it's mathematical. It's an abstraction which defined both space and time as part of the same metric. What time is in that metric is defined under imaginary space and space itself is defined as an imaginary time. The link I showed you, explained all this. It also explained time was the 1st degree of freedom and as I explained to you before, if by ''change'' you means something which happens within the degree of freedom known as time, then I would agree. However, this does not mean change and time are synonymous, because that is patently wrong.

I actually don't even believe time exists. What I know is that time makes up the forth dimension of the metric; ie. it is a type of spatial dimension. In relativity, time is called ''imaginary space'' and space is called ''imaginary time''. http://www3.plala.or.jp/MiTiempo/former/supplement/s-1.html

The reason why I wll write it up tomorrow is because it will involve some latex and a bit of patience.

I gave you conditions in which this kind of God can exist in. Like, we know that the uncertainty principle is not violated in any way, so on the supposition that if there was a God, they must be ignorant of certain things in this universe. No it hasn't. Just because it fails to provide the concrete evidence a religious subject would be often called on for, does not make my subject aa religion. I certainly don't see my view of God as a Religion. Very philosophical however, but not quite a religion.

Yes. John Ellis I think is keeping his mind open enough to speculate it might not even be a Higgs.

I very rarely negatively rep anyone, but I have tried to negate negative reps like you have.

Of course it is a type of spatial dimension, I've told you more than once now, physicists call it the imaginary leg of the space triangle. Why do you think time makes up the fourth dimension of space?

I just find it a bit deceiving saying that time ''isn't a space dimensions'' when clearly this is what it is when you read top texts on the subject.

He didn't mention your name, as far as I was aware?

John Ellis is curiously keeping an open mind that what they found is not actually a Higgs.

I would be very curious to know if many posts that have quite a lot of negative reps are actually committed by serial offenders rather than a broad spectrum of people.

All I can suggest to you is actually investigate this for yourself. Try searching for the Minkowski spacetime triangle because nothing I have told you is false. Time and space are dimensions of the same manifold - this is as profound as saying that time is another space dimension - a special kind of one called an imaginary space dimension. We just don't believe this is the case any more. One reason comes from relativity, if it is flowing, what is it flowing relative to? I will find you a paper which would shed some light on this perhaps. Here http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0240

I actually suspected this before, but isn't it interesting to note that the moderators are completely aware of who reps who. Why keep it a secret to us but then let be known to you guys?

Of course time is a spatial dimension, this is why in relativity it was given a special name, called the imaginary space dimension. The idea was to treat it as a space dimension which was 90 degree's off of the real space legs on the spacetime triangle. Time is indeed about changes in the universe - whether one can describe that as an entire change for the universe in a global sense is heavily under debate, as I showed you. But if time is change, it better be able to refer whether a particular system is static or not simply because time is local in every sense of the word.

I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate. I guess this depends on your definition of religion. When I think of religion, I think of doctrine, Bible talk ect. Of course, our views will differ from person to person. I just don't want this becoming a discussion on Christ, Yehovah or anything canonically related.

The problem with Newtonian Mechanics views on time, is that there is no such thing as a flux (aka passage) to time. Time does not flow, as was once believed in the Newtonian train of thought. If by what you are saying ''does not mean that time does not pertain to changes'' is really meant to mean ''we can't have a change without some kind of freedom in time'' I'd agree with it in the sense that time is often treated as a degree of freedom, just another space dimension. But setting time directly equal with change is problematic because obviously a system does not need to change while time trucks on.

Of course it doesn't, but I didn't say time didn't apply to the system. I am giving you a perfect example of how a quantum system does not change even when time does. That's the point, the two are certainly not equal. On another note, systems which are measurable are physical. Time is not physical, it's not even an observable; the kind of things we can measure by observation. That would be a global time and that doesn't exist in GR. Global time vanishes when you quantize the EFE equations.

I can give you a perfect example of time not equaling change. Make momentary observations on a system ready to up its energy in the form of radiation, then you will effectively freeze the quantum evolution of that system (the zeno effect). Does time stop because your system no longer changes? Time does not mean change at all... time can truck on without there needing to be any change in your system.

There is an interaction term on your equations. If I have any time tomorrow, I will start to write up something on the Higgs Boson to try and explain how it gives a mass to systems.

Hmmm... well, I have no intention talking about religion, but then on the other hand, I knew from the outset that I could not be able to provide hard evidence for God. So... I'll leave it in your capable hands to decide the fate of this thread.

What warning given by the mods here, did you not listen to, not to talk about my late mother? Better yet, how many warnings will it take before some kind of action on you is taken? I don't understand why you keep talking about my mother... leave her out of things. I have hardly been personal towards you so have the same respect please.

that as well, if that is what he means??? Who knows...

Well said indeed.

Well, take into consideration, that momentum transfer is evaluated very early on in the universe, are you saying it is impossible for at least some galaxies to arrange stable galaxies when debris are moving at the same relativistic pace? Take into consideration the inflationary phase. Some parts of the galaxy are still moving at relativistic speeds... (according to Hawking)... and thus he explains these are galaxies, so there is nothing stopping matter forming galaxies relative to us.