573v3

So you'r saying time is fictive term, a word we came up with to define the activity of events rather then time as a construct; the construct of space-time; a 4dimensional universe; an existing degree of freedom in wich energy moves?

LHC, is that a reference to that thing they'r constucting down at cern? As for the typo, you just couldn't leave the opportunity to comment on it right Yes, I copy-paste a lot, whenever possible, It's a way of avoiding mistakes due to my dislexia.

So basicly you'r saying: if it would be theoreticly and practicly possible, then yes I believe it would. Not much opinion in that statement, now is there. Do you personally think there exist a complete, background-independent, deterministic, and fully quantifyable (i.e. discrete) model of how spacetime behaves? I do, but I don't think we'r very likely to find out

I think that is a lousy defenition of time when talking about relativity if that was what you meant then. Think about this, if the earth would stop spinning, would time stop? Your defenition seems to implie that if you ask me. If All matter would come to a stop, would time stop to? Would the fabric of time, the dimention suddenly sease to exist?

I guess it all depends on quantummechanics. Some people think that quantummechanics gives these statistic results because that is the best we can get while others believe our knowledge on it is simply to small to see why sometimes we have one outcome and sometimes another. In other words believe that chaos is an order we fail to understand. theoreticly, ... practicly would of course be a whole diffrent thing as bascule pointed out

Again, nothing new here, we call them photons.

I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell, all it does is display some images the source:

we all know that it's just an old name that survived the newer theories How would you "see" the light when it is drawn away from your eyes?

I read this over and over and over agin, but I still can't figure it out. I take it the second part: "interpretted as how you choose to combine the frequencies to call it one unit." means: "however you feel like interpreting that and whatever you like to call it" But the first part: "the frequency of the universe" When I read frequency I automaticly think of vibration. Are you trying to say time is defind by the frequency of the vibration through it's dimention? And if you are saying that, the vibration of what? A particle? The entire universe?

damn, you beat me to it, and there i was wasting my time ttrying it with: Sin (2a) = [2 tg (a) ] / [1 + tg^2 (a)] Sin (2t) = {2 sin (t) / cos (t) } / {1 + [sin^2 (t) / cos^2 (t)]} Sin (2t) = {4x^2 / cos (t) } / { 1 + [x^4 / cos^2 (t) ]} Sin (2t) = {4x^2 / cos (t) } + {4x^2 / cos (t) }/ {x^4 / cos^2 (t)} Sin (2t) = {4x^2 / cos (t) } + {4x^2 / cos (t) }{cos^2 (t) / x^4 } Sin (2t) = {4x^2 / cos (t) } + {4 cos(t) / x^2 } Sin (2t) = 4{ [x^4 + cos^2(t) ] / [x^2 cos (t) ]} Didn't amount to much Glad you found the answer though

It's been a long time since I dealth with this, but aren't you confusing: cos (t) = 1 - sin (t) with: cos (t)^2 = 1 - sin (t)^2

This is a standard formula: Sin (2a) = 2 sin (a) cos (a) Lets use it for your problem (I replaced theta with t for easy typing, hope it isn’t to confusing with t-formulas) Sin (2t) = 2 sin (t) cos (t) of which we can replace Sin (t) with x^2 so: Sin (2t) = 2 x^2 cos (t) somehow I sense there’s a mush more elegant solution then this, but technically, this would be a valid answer. And your signature does ask for simplicity

Hmmm, I think it will be more likely to be due to the fact that only 2 splits have to be made to see "god is nowhere" apposed to 3 splits to recognise "God is now here". See, it's just easyer.