Could time be considered a force? I think I understand the basic concept of spacetime, at least some of it. And when people talk about spacetime they don't call gravity a force, but rather the result of mass interacting with it. And at the same time I feel like it is correct to call gravity a force. (Am I completely wrong here?)
I feel like there is a lot of confusion around time, and I am certainly not sure if what I say gives any sense. Personally I feel like time could be a force (And then there would have to be a counterforce...) Could it be so?
 A: 
I feel like it is correct to call gravity a force.

As you know, there are several models for how the universe works.


*

*The Newtonian model.

*The relativistic model.

*The quantum-mechanical model.


Within certain different boundaries of scale, these each work very well at predicting things that will happen. However the language or terminology of each model is somewhat distinct.
When you talk about forces, I primarily think about them in the context of the Newtonian model. In this model there are forces like gravity. When working with this model it is correct to say that gravity is a force.
When you talk about spacetime, I think about the relativistic model. This is because in the Newtonian model, time is special and distinct from the three spatial dimensions.
So it may be a mistake to mix up terms from different models unless you take care.

I feel like time could be a force (And then there would have to be a counterforce)

I'm not sure why you feel that time could be a force. Would you feel that distance could be a force.
Not all forces have counterforces. What would be a counterforce to gravity?
When Newton said something to the effect "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." He didn't mean there was a kind of antiforce for each force in the same way that particle physicists find antiparticles for particles.
Two separate bodies in space, far from other bodies, are attracted to one another by the force of gravity. While they are falling toward one another, there isn't necessarily a counterforce that opposes gravity. At least, not until they actually collide.

in the time dimension. Here everything always moves forward,

That is somewhat only a human perspective, or illusion. The laws of physics in the Newtonian model don't impose a direction on time, it's equations work both forwards and backwards in time.
We do observe that the entropy of a closed system increases as time increases and this marks a distinct direction in time.

but to move forward there has to be a force involved.

That isn't the case in the Newtonian model. An object can remain at rest or continue in uniform motion in the absence of a force.
A: I would like to make the argument that time is a force.  But I would first like to address some of the items mentioned above.
   A force does not, by definition, need to have a counterforce as a requisite for existance (F=MA).  It exists independently from any counterforce.  The "counterforce" is independent and incidental.  If you drop a ball, the force of gravity accelerates it towards the earth.  Air resistance is the "counterforce", but it cares not about defeating gravity; it's not resisting gravity, in particular, it's just resisting motion, gravity notwithstanding.  In other words, the ball could be moving away from the gravitational force, and air resistance would still be there.  In the vacuum of space, gravity still pulls objects, without a "counterforce", but if there were air molecules in space, there would be air resistance to act as a "counterforce".  But air resistance isn't necessary in order for there to be gravity; gravity would exist just the same.
   From a statement above, "Would you feel that distance could be a force?".   I say no, it is not.  The absolute value of distance is not.  But to achieve distance, you need two things.  The first, obvious, Newtonian thing is a force.  A shove, a push, a collision, the thing that MA equals.  But you also need time.  If time=0, you get no distance.  If you drop a ball, and time remains 0, how far does it fall? Time MUST act on objects.  What does every chemical reaction need?  Time.  If no time elapses, no reaction takes place.  Forces act on mass to impart a change.  If time does not act on mass, then there is no change.  We've only viewed it as a dimension, but time is a force.    I'll go further to say that anything that does not experience time does not exist.  Love and trust and honesty and the like exist because they are concepts that have perpetuated through time via conscious human thought.  Again, if time=0, they would not exist.  If time=0, nothing exists.  Time is a force.  You must have it.
A: Is time a force? 
When it comes to talking about time it becomes very difficult to even define it. But certainly one cannot treat time as a force.
Here is the reason why you cannot consider time as a force: (to understand this one needs to have a strong command on Newtonian mechanics and general theory of relativity) From newton's second law we have
$$F = ma,\tag{1}$$
(where $m$ is mass and $a$ is acceleration)
Now we also know that acceleration is nothing but rate of change of velocity, i.e ,
$$a = v/t.\tag{2}$$
From Eq (2) we can conclude that acceleration is inversely proportional to time. Now in Eq (1)
$$F = ma 
\implies F = mv/t.\tag{3}$$
( since $a=v/t$ )
From Eq (3) it is clear that even force is inversely proportional to time. 
Now let us for a while discuss Einstein's general theory of relativity. 
It basically, in simple terms, states that a person traveling at the speed of light would experience a slowing of time. For that person time would move slower than for someone who is not moving. So if u move faster than the speed of light, what is happening is your acceleration and mass is massively increasing and so, since force(ma) is inversely proportional to time, time drastically slows down .
And in the other case if there is no force acting on an object certainly it's acceleration becomes zero and from Eq  2 and 3 ,  time becomes infinite and the object's configuration will never change at any point of time, whether u see it today tomorrow or even at the last day of your life. 
So all we can conclude from this is that time is not a force.
But don't get dishearten because we can definitely describe time as a parameter of force i.e force is inversely proportional to time and it will always hold true. 
This is exactly what happens even in a black hole.
A: I would like to say that time is a 'system' where forces are created. The absence of time means the absence of force but the presence of time does not mean the presence of force. To have force, we need mass. But we can't have force if we don't have time. Only time can't create force. Also only mass can't create force, so we need them together.
Forces are created from time dilatation/contraction. The bigger the mass of an object is, the bigger the force resulted by deforming time is. Increasing the speed of an object to a speed relative to the speed of light dilates time but you can't go from A to B if you don't have time. So assuming you have the force required to accelerate to a speed relative to the speed of light but you need a distance to get to that speed. It doesn't matter how long or short this distance is but to travel that distance, you require time.
In order to understand gravity, you need to know First and Third Newton's Law of Motion
 1. In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
 2. When one body (mass) exerts a force on a second body (time), the second body(time) simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body(mass).
Time wants to remain at rest but mass deforms it by dilating or contracting it. Depends if it is 'normal' mass or dark matter. The force Time is implying to the mass by resisting deformation is what gravity is.
Earth expands time but time wants to contract back. That's why Earth's mass (we are part of Earth's mass) is pushed to the core.
Dark matter contracts time and time wants to expand back. That's why dark matter repells mass.
You can think that time in space without mass has a state of zero (not Null). Negative means that the time goes backwards and positive means that it goes forward. If we neglect the mass and if you would be in a fixed point in space, without motion, time would be stopped. However, there is no such thing as fixed point on space because everything goes *forward and has motion. A fixed object in space would mean an object that is not moving related to every single object in space.
*Forward means in any direction for 'normal' matter and we go forward in time and also.  *Forward means in any direction for dark matter and we go backwards in time.
We are 'normal' matter but in order to travel back in time, we need to achieve one of these two things:
1. We transform ourselves in dark matter.
2. We use dark matter as a propulsion system (because it repells 'normal' matter) in order to pass the LightSpeed barrier.
However, we can't create dark matter because dark matter goes back in time when we go forward in time. In other words: 'Normal' and dark matter can't coexist.
In other words: Time is like a 'bowl' of water and planets are like some plastic balls. The bigger the mass of these balls, the deeper they submerge into the water. More exactly, the bigger the mass of an object is, the more it deforms time. And space is how big is this 'bowl' is.
