what if time was not included in any calculations?

of what , exactly ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of everything, apparently.
This is the what? third? thread you've started on the subject?
Even after being referred to threads on a similar topic by others, you keep coming back and spouting exactly the same rubbish that has been shown to be wrong many times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in post #26 you admitted that " time " is not motive power , twice

and therefore you AGREED with me , you are a condradiction

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another superb example of your misunderstanding.
Length isn't a motive power either...
AT NO POINT EVER has time been claimed to be either a motive power or physically responsible for movement.
It's a requirement for movement to take place, as is length.

 

of course not , duh

good

length is part of the three dimensional world , you know , length , breadth and depth , the fundamental properties of the manifestation of existence

so I see nothing special in your above statement

what are you then getting at ?



I don't

 

So time, which is also a dimension, is treated much the same way.

Yup, and time is part of a four-dimensional world.
In which we live.

No you wouldn't.

What I'm "getting at" is that I didn't agree with you so much as point out the fallacy of your assumption.
If there's no time there's no movement. Same as if there's no length there's no movement.

 

time is a mathematical dimension only , the measurement of movement

time has no physical dimension , in the sense that adding time , alone , has no consequence on the behaviour of any object

 

Wrong.

You keep inventing ridiculous propositions and then consider them, somehow, to be a validation of your ignorance.

How would one go about adding "time, alone"?
Or even "length, alone"?

 

time is not a part of the three dimensional world , and thats my point

and the three dimensional world is the Universe unobserved

 

I agree.
But it's a fatuous point since you have limited (by definition) the world to three dimensions.
But similarly, thickness isn't a part of a 2 dimensional world, and thickness AND length aren't a part of a one dimensional world.
Get the picture?

Specious crap.
The universe is at least four dimensional, and we inhabit four dimensions.

 

there is your flaw

length is just a part of the three dimensional , Universe , world , energy , matter and the existence of things

you can't pull length out of the essential properties of that which takes for something to essentially exist , and then add to it , some sort of abstract property

such as time

 

Nope the flaw is yours: you're assuming that time isn't a part of the universe.
Your WHOLE chain of "reasoning" is predicated on the idea that time isn't a "real" dimension and you use the argument that it isn't to "prove" that it isn't.

 

well lets discuss this

if I take any of the three fundamental dimensions length , breadth and depth from an object , would the object still exist ?

 

You're trolling (again).
This has been done to death in previous threads and it proves nothing.

 

this has nothing to do with trolling , since I don,t

I asked you a question , answer

 

Since this is the fourth(?) thread on this ONE topic that you've started, trolling would be the apt description.

And since that question has been asked (and answered) in those threads, that would ALSO constitute trolling.

 

so your avoiding my question , interesting

 

You see?
Another total failure of your understanding.
The question has ALREADY been answered in other threads (as I stated).
You're trolling.
End of "conversation".

 

since D won't answer my question

my point is , is that , if I take any of the fundamental dimensions away from an object , then the object ceases to exist

but if I take the dimension of time from an object , the object continues to exist and therefore still can move and/or movements

therefore time is not a true dimension

 

Since the question has ALREADY been answered.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.