what if time was not included in any calculations?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by thinking, Oct 19, 2009.

  1. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so what would be the consequence of not using time in any movement calculations ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    In short: we'd be fucked.
    You can't leave time out of the equations because it's required.
    Whatever you came up with that ignored time would be meaningless.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    I disagree

    instead of time , one would have to define the basis of time within the equation based on the movement of any object
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    On what grounds?

    Wrong again.
    What would use to replace the time factor?
    Bearing in mind that movement is based on time.
     
  8. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
     
  10. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    when you say " time is required for movement "

    in what way do you mean this , specifically ...
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So you didn't learn anything from the other threads?
    If there's no time there's no movement.
     
  12. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    what then is the mechanism of time that causes movement ?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What makes you think that time causes movement?
    Please, do us all a favour and go back and READ the thread in Pseudoscience.

    Is there a "mechanism" in length that causes movement?
     
  14. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Not exactly, you could potentially have infinite speed in which case there would be no time and there would be movement as well. At least that is what I think

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Potentially infinite speed?
    No C limit?
    Instantaneous acceleration?
    And that's just that particular object.
    There's the rest of the universe to consider: parts of that move at considerably less than infinite speed...
     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    time is relative? So the no-time will only apply to the thing that has infinite speed- everything else will have time.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    you said in post # 6 that " time is REQUIRED for movement "

    explain then what you mean
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Movement requires velocity. Velocity is defined to be the rate of change of distance. "Rate of change" means with respect to time. In equations, we have for constant velocity:

    v = d/t,

    where d is the distance travelled and t is the time taken.

    If you want to get rid of time, you'll have to redefine velocity. How do you propose to define it without reference to time?
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Exactly.

    A car does 50 miles PER HOUR, a man walks at 4 miles PER HOUR.
    If there is no time then there is no "interval" of now to then for you to be here then there.
    PLEASE - go back and read the thread in Pseudoscience.
    All of this was explained to you many many times.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    That's just reparameterising your time coordinates. If Person A decides to model the motion of a ball in terms of its position as a function of time (x(t),t) then it doesn't matter if Person B decides to model the motion as a function of some parameter s so you have (x(t),t) = (x(t(s)),t(s)) provided various analysis conditions on the function t(s).

    Various physical systems have time inherently built into them, such as the wave equation :

    \(\frac{\partial^{2} y}{\partial t^{2}} = v^{2} \frac{\partial^{2} y}{\partial x^{2}}\)

    The ratio of these second derivatives defines the velocity.
     
  21. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Time is generally not a consideration when calculating the orbits of planets to the extent that the speed of gravity forces is considered > 2x10^10(c) or effectively instantaneous. Usng the speed of light for the motion of gravity force waves would generate a solar system unrecognizable from what is seen today. If it takes say, 15 minutes for light to reach Jupiter from the sun and say 5 minute for forces from Saturn to reach Jupiter and Jupiter must react to both forces, how can, or how could orbital equilibrium ever be established?

    Convicted felons would like it as they couldn't be sentenced to serve "time in jail".

    But then, Mother Nature included time in her creation so everything wouldn't happen all at once!
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    As I said to Geist in his thread where he whines about relativity, this is obviously wrong because GR says gravity propogates at light speed and it is able to very very accurately model the solar system, so much so it's better than the instantaneous Newtonian model.

    Geist, you have basically just claimed that any system where signals propogate slower than instant cannot form coherent structure. Electromagnetic signals move at light speed and we have structures of atoms and molecules.

    How about a simpler one. Find a friend (or failing that a random stranger) about equal in body size to you and get him to hold the end of a 3 or 4 metre rope and you hold the other end. Told it so its taut and then both start spinning about the middle of the rope , using the tension in the rope to keep yourself upright. If you try to tug the rope, while spinning about, the signals propogate at the speed of sound in the rope (a few km/s at most, much less than light speed) and yet you'll both be able to find a stable spinning configuration.

    Finite speed signal propogation is an inherent property of any material which isn't perfectly rigid. Even steel bars have speeds of sound only in the km/s range. It's possible to make a model of the Earth going around the Sun where they are connected by a metal rod and rotating in a stable manner.

    Not only are you basing your claims on the debunked work of Flandern, you're also showing you are utterly ignorant of even basic mechanics. Newtonian mechanics. But by the looks of it you're never going to learn.
     
  23. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    you actually mean that , without time , the interval could not be measured

    not that the difference in their movement is not actually observed , only that you can't know or find out what this difference or interval is
     

Share This Page