north

yes but the movement came first THAT is my point the movement came from , in this case two objects time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

while that maybe mathematically true practically it is untrue Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged so again movement matters

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure yes time is if nuclear decay happens but has still a dependence on time , control the nuclear decay dynamics through time and time alone it won't happen , ever

yes

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared . it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

actually if this was true would mean that simply adding time into a system and /or object would cause a thaw , so that everything would have movement again try just adding time into a system " alone " and you will find nothing still happens , obviously

really so a Falcon can't overtake a pigeon just by observing the interaction by the two ? obviously the Falcon can overtake the pigeon by observation alone , with NO measurement of either the pigeons speed or the Falcons . and for hundreds of yrs of Falconry it was obvious and is still true

so you don't trust what you see ? interesting

of course motion can its more like without motion of objects, by objects , there is no way to measure time because without the objects movement there is no fundamental basis on which time can be derived

of course thats just simply wrong and you that Klaynos

perhaps , but that does not make mathematics the fundamental cause , effect or affect of why the event happened fundamentally, any physical discussions are based on what the physical objects do on which the mathematics is based on therefore the physical dynamics of things are based on what they and/or don't do amongst themselves , only and therefore mathematics analysis the end consequence the two positions don't need to be measured to state the obvious one object is passing the other that should be clear

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation t=t=0 mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance no I have two , obviously to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant the out come is clear one object overtakes the other

so basicly CO2 stumps us , as far as being able to break it down other than photosynthesis interesting

not really its just about perspective really what do you base time on in order to come to this conclusion this is like saying the faster you move through space the slower the galactic spiral arms would be and the slower you go in space the faster the galactic spiral arms would be neither would happen because the speed that the galactic spiral arms would go is completely dependent on the galaxy its self regardless of your speed

how so ? how do you have oscillations without movement ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged well look at this way ; suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

from what perspective so are you saying that time and time alone has a physical influence on physical objects and therefore expansion ? how so ?

Klaynos while I understand your points there are still 3 basic things about time 1) time is based on the movement of objects 2) the rate of time is based on the frame of which the object is in ( fast , slow ) and the affects thereof 3) that no matter how you slice it , oscillations , or just plain movement , the essence of time is still fundamentally based on the objects movement characteristics caused by interaction with other objects and/or internal characteristics

I know I just thought that hermanntrude had something else in mind , besides the first sentence , in post #4

could you not though use elecrolysis to seperate C from O2 ? just asking

just curious what is your idea ?

so what makes CO2 so tough to solve ? how would you approach the problem chemically

is there not a chemical that can neutralize CO2 ? surely there must be Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedin the future we are planing to put CO2 under ground , what of a rupture ? is the CO2 so tightly bonded that photosynthesis is the only way to break this bonding ? what of electrolsis ? I don't get what the ultimate problem is ? is it money ?

yes

relativity is really about perspective only from ones perspective , an object seems to go at a certain speed but from the perspective of the object its self , it goes with a certain speed time-dilation is again about the perspective of the observer , but to the object its self , it does not dilate

space is room , elbow room so to speak time is the mathematical following of the change in position of an object too another and by doing so can lead to knowledge gained by inference as to why