north

so then your saying that time is a physical force , beyond time as a mathematical concept prove it ; prove that time can influence any physical dynamic , without any physical dynamic being involved , so that time is the cause alone of any physical dynamic not possible

why though ? as I thought no reasonable reponse to my question

moo what I'm putting forth is not based on logic but on reason do you not agree that the sun is giving off solar plasmic energy at the other side of the sun opposite to us ?

mooeypoo I didn't mention ether what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

what " here " do you have to deal with in the end ? if you were somewhere else , where do you go back to for a drink ? here

I think that Einstein was wrong about space-time Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedso why do I think this ; because neither space or time have any substance associated with them therefore it seems to me that , while accurate to a degree , Einstein's findings have been misinterpreted for example ; the light from a star from behind the sun has not been bent because of space-time but because of the matter IN space

don't know but many , many , many , many people do unfortunately Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged why ?

my point is though , is that , if in the equation you change the time numbers, that will not equate into the change of the physical dynamics of the object or objects involved

true

exactly so that the equation is based on the physical dynamics , not on time time in the equation is a consequence of physical dynamics just simply changing time in the equation means nothing

well mooeypoo ?

okay here goes ; if the change in time is made in the mathematical equation , will this change alone influence the physical dynamics of a situation ? inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

agreed the problem becomes when some people think that time actually has some sort of substance associated with it which is wrong of course , but mathematical physics does this , unfortunately

agreed:D

really so if I let two tires roll down a hill ( and they were let go at the same moment), and one tire passes the other its about time ?

agreed

hmm... a theory needs imagination mathematics is guided by the imagination

time has NO " fabric " in the first place

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ? yes it would , my point , AGAIN

my point is , is that you don't have to refine movement to relise that a movement has happened and therefore makes time irrelevent take the tortise and a Human and both must go from A to B , the quicker wins , no abnormalites exist within the Human or tortise nor on the course , everything is fair and on the up and up obviously the Human gets there first , all things being equal then try one point at a time

why not it ? it seems plain to me the Nature of the object(s) is what it does purely because of what it is given , whether it be chemical , atomic , size and energy and any combination thereof

so what do you call motion that is undefined ? surely you can see that if we go back enough in history that people noticed that something round went faster down hill than something flat

had to reread them look my point is and still stands movement of any type is independent of time time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all so in the end time is not real you can't use time and time alone , to influence any physical dynamic behaviour of any object within or any interactions between objects

what does ? you can't do it it an atomic clock is based on movement within the atomics of the atoms in the clock , which you base the clock on why would you try to even remove movement from the atomic clock ? it is the movement within say a ciesium clock that gives consistent time , hence why it is used Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged but I'm not trying to define movement with time all I'm saying is that the fundamental movement by object(s) is independent of time