Does time really exist?

TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE MOTION IN THE FIRST PLACE , OF THINGS
thats whats important to understand

north wrote:

TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE MOTION IN THE FIRST PLACE , OF THINGS
thats whats important to understand

Quote:

As it stands, I dont understand. If motion cant be defined without including time, then how is "the essence of motion" independent of time?

true , you don't understand what I'm trying to convey

what I'm saying is that , first motion has NOTHING to do with time

for instance consider a game of snooker , what is the essence of the movement of your turn to shoot ? lets start here

for instance consider a game of snooker , what is the essence of the movement of your turn to shoot ? lets start here

north wrote:

for instance consider a game of snooker , what is the essence of the movement of your turn to shoot ? lets start here

Before I can start, I need to know what you mean by "essence of movement", also, how do you define "turns" without reference to time?

Can you define motion without including time?

Displacement.

I don't know about that but I mean displacement as the observation of an object moving from one point to another.

ughaibu
it is your turn to shoot , notice that you are physical form , which interacts with other physical forms , pool cue , white ball , which hits either the red , black , pink , green , blue etc. balls , now we can calculate by using time as to the speed of your shoot and position prior to your shoot
true ?
get me so far ? just a simple yes or no

"From one point to another" seems to me to include time. Can you state this without reference to time?

north wrote:

ughaibu
it is your turn to shoot , notice that you are physical form , which interacts with other physical forms , pool cue , white ball , which hits either the red , black , pink , green , blue etc. balls , now we can calculate by using time as to the speed of your shoot and position prior to your shoot
true ?
get me so far ? just a simple yes or no

Quote:

Yes.

good

so now say that you were replaced by time as the physical form that took the shot , how would time do this ? physically..

This would only be so if you wish to arbitrarily count cyclycal increments or events that happened as the object travels between the two points.

so now say that you were replaced by time as the physical form that took the shot , how would time do this ? physically..

ughaibu wrote:

"From one point to another" seems to me to include time. Can you state this without reference to time?

This would only be so if you wish to arbitrarily count cyclycal increments or events that happened as the object travels between the two points.

north wrote:

so now say that you were replaced by time as the physical form that took the shot , how would time do this ? physically..

I've no idea, why not tell me.

a consequence of physical movement by physical things which change position , which is measureable by using time

we are living in motion not in time.

ughaibu wrote:

north wrote:

so now say that you were replaced by time as the physical form that took the shot , how would time do this ? physically..

I've no idea, why not tell me.

thats the thing , time can't

time can't because time isn't physical but is a consequence of physical movement by physical things which change position , which is measureable by using time

understand what I'm saying ?

thack45 wrote:

This would only be so if you wish to arbitrarily count cyclycal increments or events that happened as the object travels between the two points.

Okay, please provide a definition or description which avoids this. As far as I can see, you'll be stuck with something like A is at P1 and A is not at P2, and A is not at P1 and A is at P2, which doesn't make a great deal of sense.