Why is our definition of time incorrect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truden
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of time, challenging the conventional definition as a "non-spatial continuum in which events occur." The proposed alternative defines time as a "relation between two events," emphasizing that time is contingent on the existence of events. It argues that without events, time cannot exist, suggesting that measuring time relies on recurring events and that a single object cannot exhibit time or motion. The conversation also touches on the implications of this interpretation for physics, particularly in relation to the principles of Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR), which are viewed as potentially flawed in their understanding of time. Ultimately, the discussion raises fundamental questions about the essence and measurement of time in the universe.
  • #51
Locked pending moderation.

Please note that the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" applies even in this forum. Thus, bastardization of physics principles based on ignorance is still not allowed.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
I'm leaving this closed. Time perception is a very interesting area of study in psychology, but it is not related to relativistic effects.
 
Back
Top