what if time was not included in any calculations?

No, it's not what I mean.
Go back and read the thread where this has been gone through many times.

No.
If there's no time then there's no movement possible.
Here, now: there, then.
They're inextricably linked.
Without a "then" there's no "there", everything must remain where it is, at its own "here".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

to the objects themselves the " then or "there " are irrelevent , since they are not sentient things , only we see things as as relationship using time

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

further the motivation for things to move is based on the Nature of the thing its self only

for instance if I have both the car and a person walking , none will move just because I increase their time into an equation , the car will only accelerate if I push on the accelerator and the person walking will only move if one starts walking

time is important for our understanding of movement of course , but time has absolutely nothing to do with the reason of why the movement occurs in the first place

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

look at the speed of light

the speed of light is a measurement of lights ability to get from one point to another point , time has nothing to do with lights ability to do so

it is the Natural electromagnetic property of light that dictates our measurement of lights speed , when measured

 

Oh, really?


Giorgini, Benner, Ostro, Nolanb, Busch, "Predicting the Earth encounters of (99942) Apophis," Icarus 193 (2008) 1–19. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/Apophis_PUBLISHED_PAPER.pdf

Each trajectory was then separately propagated from those initial conditions using the complete non-linear parameterized post-Newtonian n-body equations of motion.​

Pitjeva, E. V., "High-Precision Ephemerides of Planets—EPM and Determination of Some Astronomical Constants," Solar System Research, 39:3 (2005), 176–186. http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/EPM2004.pdf

The dynamical model of EPM2004 ephemerides includes the mutual perturbations from major planets and the Moon computed in terms of General Relativity ...​

Standish, E. M., and J. G. Williams, "Orbital Ephemerides of the Sun, Moon, and Planets," Explanatory Supplement to the American Ephemeris and Nautical
Almanac, Chapter 8 (2003) http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/XSChap8.pdf

The equations of motion used for the creation of DE405/LE405 included contributions from: (a) point-mass interactions among the Moon, planets, and Sun; (b) general relativity (isotropic, parametrized post-Newtonian); (c) Newtonian perturbations of selected asteroids; ...​

Tabachnik, S. A. & Evans, N. W., "Asteroids in the inner Solar system - I. Existence," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 319:1 (2000) 63-79. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000MNRAS.319...63T

... and takes into account the effects of all of the planets (excepting Pluto) as well as the most important post-Newtonian corrections ...​

 

I didn't say that time was relevant to the objects.
Strawman.

Utter nonsense.

Which has nothing to do with the point.
As PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED to you in the other thread: time is not a motive power.

Correct: time is not a motive power. Which is nothing at all to do with time being required for movement.

In a given amount of time...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't work out if you're deliberately trolling or really this dense.
Time is not the motive power.

So what?

You really need a new user name. Maybe you should preface your current one with the words "Incapable of.."

 

I think the OP was answered in the second post.

:toilet flushing:

 

Thinking,
My friends and I travled out of state the other day. On the way back we drove 403.6 km at an average speed of .0224 km/sec. By using the implied reasoning within your OP I would have no way of asking the obvious. How many hours did we drive? Whithout time I have no way of knowing when I would arrive at my house! No offence but I think you're confusing the act of timekeeping (Oct 21, 2009 @8:00pm) with the phenomena of time (change). One is manmade the other is not. You would be right to ack how it is we keep time but removing it altogether ... I just don't see how this is practical. If eliminating time from all of the equations prevents us from knowing the simple answers attached to my obvious question then it's a step backward. Maybe you know of a way to determine how many hours it takes to travel 403.2 km with an average speed of .0224 km/sec without using time in the equations. My interview starts at 6:00pm; what's the latest I can leave my house?

 

Well if time wasn't included you won't be able to use most of the equations known today since velocity and acceleration are both dependent on time. Physics definitely won't be the same with no concept of time. But I'll take a guess and say that even without time physics is possible. Just don't ask me how my ideas are very vague on this. Time is chosen because it is a convenient dimension. Have you ever thought one cannot perceive time without consciousness ie for unconscious people time stops.

 

There's a vast difference between the passage of time and the perception of that passage.
Otherwise you'd wake up at exactly the same time as you became unconscious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was talking about perception of time of course, not the real cuckoo clock time.

 

agreed


but my point is , the OP , is that without including time in the equation , we see that the real motivation of a thing to move is the thing its self or the things themselves and/or the interaction(s) between things

which leaves " time " as a consquence , of movement

therefore " time " is not a true dimension

 

Except that, as I said, there's no way we can leave time out of it.
Even your "solution" relied on time.

And again: time is NOT and NEVER has been claimed to be the "real motivation".

No it doesn't.

But it is.

 

Thinking,
This is the flaw I see in your reasoning. You imply that we should " ... see that the real motivation of a thing to move is the thing itself ... (this) leaves (the obervation of time) as a consequence of movement." The reality of it is quite the opposite because movement is the consequence of time. In my example motion is inferred through the average speed of the car. Without time it would be impossible to measure the rate of change throughout the given distance traveled. In other words, there would be no way to find the average speed thus no way to distinguish motion. It seems to me that you are looking for a way to show that time is not a physical dimension in the same sense that space is. I can't see how this method accomplishes that. Once again, I just don't see how this is practical.

 

to the object(s) itself or themselves , observation is irrelevant

that is the reality of the Universe

agreed

but what I'm trying to point out is that , while impractical , leaving time out of the equation , has nothing to do with the ability of an object(s) to just do what they will , move and interact

 

You have repeatedly "pointed it out".
And you're still wrong.

 

prove it , prove that I'm wrong here

 

There's an entire thread in Pseudoscience (in which YOU participated and failed to make one single point that actually stood up).
Go back and re-read it.

 

I proved my point , its just that YOU chose to ignore it

 

Yeah, you're wrong on that too.
It comes from the fact that you have very little understanding.