Certainly non psychological, there are many nature like entropic, illusional (block universe theory), Aristotelian (that which realize change), mathematical (Smolin, Bergson).
Still none of these characterizes properly Galilean physics or the bulk of established literature of physics.
What do you think is the nature of time that characterizes best the meaning it is ascribed in its use and in the framework of the definitional choices of physical parameters in theories modern physics?
Dear Philippos Afxentiou
This article maybe can help.
https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative
There is nothing illusional with the notion of time, it just requires much precautions when being debated.
For any accelerating visible body (dynamically orbital systems in general, time either dilates or contracts and it is represented as an arrow moving at once both forward and backward forming a circle, let’s commonly say that it is just a combination at once of both future and past), time is imaginary and it is all about orbital geometry.
For any non-accelerating visible body ( at rest in general, time is only moving forward and it is commonly just called past), time is real and unfortunately this is where most people get confused (like it or not... in reality everything is moving In a given orbit).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics