Strange

That is an old philosophical debate: is math invented or discovered. My impression is that most mathematicians think it is is discovered, so it exists independently of the brain. But i didn't think that was the point you were making. I thought you meant that mathematical concepts have to be based on something that has physical existence. That doesn't seem to be true.

Where does that say "infinite space imply infinite time"? It doesn't. The dimensions are independent (by definition). What you have a problem with is hardly relevant. I'm not quite sure what that means. But this might get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

Then maybe you should study mathematics. No it isn't. What physical meaning do they have?

There is no evidence, math or logic so I am not sure how else to describe it. No. There is no connection.

That would suggest that nothing could move, no energy could flow from one point to another, no chemistry could take place, no light ... As that is clearly not true, your random guess appears to be wrong.

Why not?

That isn't the case. The particles which get their mass from the Higgs mechanism are primarily the W and Z bosons (and the Higgs, itself). These are fundamental particles and so do not contain a Higgs particle. No particles have the Higgs boson in them All particles "obey the laws of time" (whatever that means). This is so wrong, it is hard to say beside "just because" We know that neutrons, for example, decay after a certain amount of time. So time obviously exists for them. No. It just has some properties that we normally associate with waves (e.g. frequency) and some properties that we normally associate with particles (e.g. being quantised). Do they?

Maybe. That is a topic of much debate. However, the analogies devised (after the fact) to explain the mathematics to non-specialists are definitely a human construct. They are also approximations and often grossly inaccurate. For example, we have had people question the big bang theory because they don't understand the "surface of a balloon" analogy. (Or perhaps they don't understand it is an analogy.) But that is just a crude attempt to visualise the pseudo-Riemannian manifolds used to describe the intrinsic curvature of space-time , for those who don't have a solid grasp of differential geometry https://xkcd.com/895/

I don't disagree. But the GEM doesn't require undetectable and physically implausible "informatons", any more than SR requires Lorentz's aether. Claiming that magic particles are the mechanism may be valid philosophy (?) but it isn't science.

When charges move, you get magnetism. It is just a different "perspective" on charge.

That sounds about right.

Even if that were true, there is still no evidence of your magic informationotrons.

And that is why I showed you that you are using an incomplete equation. And 0x1=1 is just wrong. Not even wrong: nonsense, gibberish and meaningless.

Yes, you have made this assertion before. Now it is time to support it. Please provide some evidence that the electric charge of galaxies is sufficient to achieve that. Please explain what holds galaxies together if they have a net positive charge which is 23 times greater than the gravity of the stars. So is it charge or magnetism? Where is this magnetic force coming from? Where is the voltage coming from? Please show mathematically how these forces balance.

e = 0 x c2is valid. However, it is also incomplete and only applies to stationary masses. The full equation is e2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum). This is the version that has to be applied to massless particles (e.g. photons) or moving objects.

Maybe. That is a topic of much debate. However, the analogies devised to explain the mathematics to non-specialists are definitely a human construct. They are also approximations and often grossly inaccurate.

Science is more than just the data, though. It is the process of using that data to build models that describe the world. Those models are tested by using them to make predictions and then testing those against observation or evidence. The models are mathematical; they must be in order to be useful and in order to produce testable, quantitative predictions. The definition of those is a very deep question. Most scientists, I suspect, don't care. And, in fact, it doesn't really matter. Science builds models and makes predictions. It does that about the world we observe and so it doesn't really matter (to science) whether there is any underlying "reality" or not. Ultimately, the test is that science works.

The trouble is, this isn't physics. Until there is a reason to think that charge is not fundamental or a testable hypothesis about the nature of charge, these sort of questions are metaphysics.

Even for a single electron? Or a muon? Or a quark? As already stated, it is the same thing from a different frame of reference: charge + relativity = electromagnetism.

There is little evidence to support that view, though. (And around we go again! Wheee!)

Maybe. But if you look at the more immediate and obvious effects such as air pollution (look at China, for example) then people still don't seem to react very strongly or quickly. (And, of course, at the risk of crossing into the topic of the other thread, coal-fired power stations are a much larger source of radioactivity than any other form.)

I suspect the best you can hope for is that some or all "fundamental" properties turn out to be emergent properties from some lower-level theory (CDT, LQG, etc). Which just shifts the question to, why that theory, and why does it have the properties it does...

https://xkcd.com/435/

That sentence says there may have been someone that Jesus was based on, but that person had little in common with the Jesus of the Bible. Perhaps that shifts the discussion to the meaning of "real person" (which will probably be equally futile). It is clear that you are happy to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam. Confirmation bias is you picking that one sentence to support your beliefs and ignoring 28 pages of argument.

I already posted one link to a project monitoring oxygen levels. I would be very surprised if there were not others. And on the wider issue of possible causes (mainly the rising level of CO2) these are also being actively researched.