Yuk, why doesn't it bother anyone that this is proposing a say-so theory without any suggestions for testing it? Truth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable. Inst

Yuk, why doesn't it bother anyone that this is proposing a say-so theory without any suggestions for testing it? Truth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable. Instead, how about: In hindsight, length of time is perceived as change in world view. The more your mental state has changed in a given period of time, the longer it seems. The reason the decade from 5 to 15 seem so much longer than 55 to 65 is because of the drastic changes in your world view that occur during childhood. It's the same reason not a lot of 5 year olds are friends with 15 year olds, yet I imagine most 55 year olds can be good friends with most 65 year olds. This hypothesis would predict several micro and macro phenomena which are testable: For the micro scale, two groups of subjects are placed into an environment with no way of tracking time (no windows, no clocks) for a month. The control group is provided with books/TV shows/news programmes of their choice, asked to pick ones that they've read/seen and enjoy. The test group is asked to pick books/programmes they think they'll enjoy, but have never read or seen. After about a week, notable events are planned - maybe the light bulb burns out, or the sheets are changed to ones which are bright red, or maybe the food in the cafeteria changes. At the end of the month, the person is asked to estimate the amount of time that passed between certain events. If the hypothesis is correct, the control group should perceive less time having passed between the events compared to the test group. For the macro scale, my theory would predict people with monotonous, repetitive, jobs to experience the effects of "time passes faster with aging" more than those which expose them to new phenomena. So a Java-only career engineer will experience the effect more than someone who spends time learning new languages.