if you didnt know that statistics is based on logic, then please never ever use them (oh, and sue your professors for not teaching stats properly). when you make a statement using statistics in a scientific setting, basically when you design an experiment, you create a logical argument, and then test this using the appropriate statistical device. when people dont understand this, or dont understand what they are doing, this is where things go awry. i am of course speaking not of descriptive statistics, but of the more fun variety.

how is there "no relevant mass change here"???? thats a bold statement. is there a reason that there is no relevant mass change, or is it just cus you said so?

if you had a better background in "stuff about a higher being existing or not", or as it is sometimes called "metaphysics", you might realize that there is a very relevant discussion to be had about what exactly is the nature of time. and that it is only through this type of exploration that you will be able to find the fruits of progress in this discussion.

IF time is a dimension, then how/why is it alterable?? a dimension is not a 'real' thing of course, but is a construct of a system that allows one to plot the exact location of an object in space. using this definition you could make an argument that time is in fact a dimension, but then you would also have to accept that time is therefore not a 'thing in the world' that can be altered.