Time Isn\'\'t What it Seems to be (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 12:34 (4938 days ago) @ David Turell

David has alerted us to a new theory about time:-"The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object's speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change [...] "-
"By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
This view doesn't mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time."-I'd be interested to hear the opinions of Matt and Tony on this, especially in view of the oft repeated argument that time does not exist and physicists have long since rejected the concept of a "flow". Now we just have "some researchers" theorizing, with a number of speculative "mays". I'm also confused by the reference to "absolute time", as if it were the current favourite concept. I thought this theory had been under fire ever since Einstein.