Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

[Sy Borg]

Interesting, but not the central intention of the topic. The intention was far more mundane.

My intention for the thread was this: There are many, many people who look at the findings of modern science and, essentially, just say "nonsense" or "mathematical fantasy" or something similar. My point is that they can, possibly, find out if it really is nonsense. Not just assert that it is. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the physicists are all worshipping a floating roof with no support. Maybe they're not. We don't have to speculate as to which of those two things are true. We can find out. If we're interested. Most people aren't. That's fine. But what I find odd is the people who aren't interested in looking at the foundations and walls but still accuse the physicists of worshipping a floating roof.

We used to debate that way back when we lived in an information black hole, where checking one's information meant either looking up an encyclopaedia or taking a trip to the library. In a real-time situation, though, a debate's "winner" is the one whom asserts their case most convincingly. Looking at the travels of newly-installed His Holiness Pope Donald, sent by God to save the US, it's clear that the winners of such old-school exchanges did not need to be logical, honest or correct. It's a game or power, style and strategy - a way of determining whose display behaviour is the most effective.

That's not much good for finding out what was really going on, of course. Being on the autism spectrum, I was highly vulnerable to pushy people asserting themselves. I could never think on my feet quickly enough. And that's why I became interested in statistics - not heavy analyses, just the main, important calculations - so I could work out who was telling the truth and who was blustering.

The numbers certainly can lie, but if you accept their limits, they tend to still be more reliable than people, including well-meaning ones.

[creation]

The reason you do not want to deal with any of the rest of my post is so for about the fourth time you do not have to deal with the contradiction that you wrote....

And so on. I'm not going to take part in another 60+ pages of irrelevant mutual bickering. If you found anything I've said in the past misleading, I apologize. I clarified it and then twice referred you back to that clarification. End of.

Just so this is absolutely very clear, you now say that, if two observers are moving towards each other and the velocity becomes larger, then they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, correct?

Anybody with money and/or the authority that is. Otherwise a lot of these experiments and equipment are completely out of reach of most people.

A valid point. But since we're starting at the beginning, with experiments that we could perform ourselves, we can deal with that issue when we come to it.

So, are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

Stick and sun are part of the story. But we are not in agreement that what we view today in relation to 'time' was built just upon that.

I never meant just that.

Considering we both talked about looking at the foundation, and seeing if that was solid enough to support the "walls", and then the "roof", then as I said this is as far as I can go back. This, to me, is the foundation of 'time'. If you can go further back, then great, where do see is the foundation? If you cannot go further back, then as I just asked you; Are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

That's one observation; one part of the foundation. A good start. But to look at all of the things in physics, today, which involve the use of the word "time" we need to do what I suggested we do. Start with the earliest experiments and work forward.

And what is that earliest experiment?

To me, the word 'time' is nothing other than the measurement of change.

I've stated my own view in many, many posts that time is what clocks mark. This is roughly the same as what you're saying here. So we appear to agree on that.

I think you might be misunderstanding me, but truthfully I think I am also not not fully understanding what you mean.

So, when you say, "time is what clocks mark", are you meaning something like time is some actual thing that exists, apart from clocks themselves, and which clocks are "marking", by their "ticking", for example? If you are, then that is not what I mean at at all.

If that, however, is not what you mean, then what do you actually mean?

To me, the measurements taken are not of any thing existing other than change, itself. The measurements, themselves, taken however is what the word time is actually referring to. Time is not a thing in itself other than the measurement taken.

This is because of the way clocks are designed and created to work, and what clocks tick in relation to exactly means that, to me anyway, there is no such thing as time in any other way, nor in any other sense, other than in thought or concept only.

What clocks are referenced to, or designed to be synchronised with, to me, is obviously not a time itself but something else.

What are clocks actually set to, and adjusted to?

The answer to this will provide a clue as to if there is an actual existing thing as time, itself. or not.

[Steve3007]

We used to debate that way back when we lived in an information black hole, where checking one's information meant either looking up an encyclopaedia or taking a trip to the library. In a real-time situation, though, a debate's "winner" is the one whom asserts their case most convincingly. Looking at the travels of newly-installed His Holiness Pope Donald, sent by God to save the US, it's clear that the winners of such old-school exchanges did not need to be logical, honest or correct. It's a game or power, style and strategy - a way of determining whose display behaviour is the most effective.

Yes, and for that reason, in this topic at least, I want to try not to think in terms of "winning" and "losing" a debate. In any case, even in the absence of the modern Trump style of politics, both sides in that kind of adversarial debate usually seem to think of themselves as having won. In this topic I wanted to just explore, at least briefly, the history that led to the modern theories of physics which can seem so counter-intuitive. I wanted to show that those theories weren't just made up on a whim. And I wanted to see if I can at least start to demonstrate that the people who invent these theories aren't members of some exclusive club which forever bars outsiders. Anybody with the patience can follow the arguments and the experiments to the point where they can critique the theories from a position of knowing what they say and why they say it, looking the theorists squarely in the eye. I also want to show that this kind of critique is welcome; it is what drives progress.

Just so this is absolutely very clear, you now say that, if two observers are moving towards each other and the velocity becomes larger, then they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, correct?

Yes. And if moving away from each other: slower. That is what I was intending to say all along. It is what I said explicitly, with a worked numerical example showing tick ratios of 3.73, in the post from another topic to which I linked way back when we first started talking last year. As I said, if a post somewhere gave the wrong impression on that, I apologize. I just don't want to spend pages discussing this one issue.

I never meant just that.

Ok. Understood.

Considering we both talked about looking at the foundation, and seeing if that was solid enough to support the "walls", and then the "roof", then as I said this is as far as I can go back. This, to me, is the foundation of 'time'. If you can go further back, then great, where do see is the foundation? If you cannot go further back, then as I just asked you; Are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

It's not that I necessarily want to go further back. I want to point out that the foundation of what is now said about time are not just in experiments that explicitly and obviously measure time. The reason I thought that Galileo's experiments are a good starting point is because that is where the thought process began which ended up with Einstein's (and his contemporaries') theories, which say some things about time (and about space) which some people find hard to believe.

Galileo started the ball rolling (so to speak) by doing various experiments which led to Newton's laws of motion. Those laws are down near the bottom of our metaphorical building, on the roof of which sits Einstein. I'd like to examine what those laws say, and what they imply for the concepts of both time and space.

And what is that earliest experiment?

It's hard to pick a single one, because history probably doesn't record a single, first, bona fide experiment. That's why I picked a whole set of experiments by Galileo as a reasonable start. But as a brief aside from that, a very, very early example of the power of simple experiment was the one carried out by Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago. With simple observations of such things as the shadows of sticks and the reflection of the sun in the water at the bottom of a well, he is the first person we know of to accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth.

I think you might be misunderstanding me, but truthfully I think I am also not not fully understanding what you mean.

So, when you say, "time is what clocks mark", are you meaning something like time is some actual thing that exists, apart from clocks themselves, and which clocks are "marking", by their "ticking", for example? If you are, then that is not what I mean at at all.

No, that's not what I meant either. That's why I think we agree with each other on this. As a general rule, I think concepts like both time and space are abstractions that we create. As such, they don't exist independently of the ways that they can be potentially measured. As I said in a previous post:

viewtopic.php?p=344769#p344769

What is a clock? It's a device for measuring the passage of time.
What is time? It is the thing that is measured by clocks.

I propose that this circular definition of both clocks and time is the only one that is physically meaningful. I propose that all others are meaningless, hand-waving metaphysics for passing a few hours on a rainy afternoon.

But we have to be clear that we're not talking about one particular class of clock. We're talking about that property which is common to all possible physical systems that we feel we can point to and say "clock". That's generally how we tend to define nouns. We (metaphorically or literally) point to examples of physical instances of that noun and say "it's whatever it is that all these things have in common".

As I said there, I think that 'time' is simply the thing that all "clocks" have in common, using that word "clock" in its most general possible sense.

...This is because of the way clocks are designed and created to work, and what clocks tick in relation to exactly means that, to me anyway, there is no such thing as time in any other way, nor in any other sense, other than in thought or concept only.

Yes, although I'd leave out the word "designed" to emphasize that we're talking about all natural clocks too.

What clocks are referenced to, or designed to be synchronised with, to me, is obviously not a time itself but something else.

What are clocks actually set to, and adjusted to?

They can only possibly be adjusted to other "clocks".

The answer to this will provide a clue as to if there is an actual existing thing as time, itself. or not.

I think/hope we've established what we both think 'time' is and the sense in which it does or does not exist.

[Atla]

And I wanted to see if I can at least start to demonstrate that the people who invent these theories aren't members of some exclusive club which forever bars outsiders. Anybody with the patience can follow the arguments and the experiments to the point where they can critique the theories from a position of knowing what they say and why they say it, looking the theorists squarely in the eye.

What about intelligence? For example many people can't follow arguments more complex than say Creationism or Flat-Earthism.
The majority can't follow modern physics, no matter how patient they are, because they simply can't grasp the arguments and experiments.

[Steve3007]

What about intelligence? For example many people can't follow arguments more complex than say Creationism or Flat-Earthism.
The majority can't follow modern physics, no matter how patient they are, because they simply can't grasp the arguments and experiments.

Well, I'm a "glass half full" kind of a guy. I guess some people might require more patience than others. And if we're starting from scratch then there's a hell of a lot of maths to learn if we want to understand the arguments in details. But I think, in principle, most of the population could learn enough to be able to see how the arguments work, and how they're based on the evidence. I think the biggest barrier is that most people simply aren't interested in the subject. And I can't blame them for that. Starting at the foundations in physics means a lot of not particularly uninspiring experiments and learning the habit of meticulous documentation of those experiments. Anybody who remembers studying physics at school will remember that. I can remember myself being impatient to rush forward to the philosophically interesting stuff.

[Steve3007]

Typo: "...a lot of not particularly uninspiring experiments...". The double-negative was not intended.

[creation]

Interesting, but not the central intention of the topic. The intention was far more mundane.

My intention for the thread was this: There are many, many people who look at the findings of modern science and, essentially, just say "nonsense" or "mathematical fantasy" or something similar. My point is that they can, possibly, find out if it really is nonsense. Not just assert that it is. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the physicists are all worshipping a floating roof with no support. Maybe they're not. We don't have to speculate as to which of those two things are true. We can find out. If we're interested. Most people aren't. That's fine. But what I find odd is the people who aren't interested in looking at the foundations and walls but still accuse the physicists of worshipping a floating roof.

What some might also find odd is the people who are not interested in looking at the foundations and wall but still accept the physicists who are worshiping a floating roof.

But I would suggest to all of those that either accuse or accept others, to just remain completely open, if they are interested, to investigating and finding out if the roof is actually floating or not, before accusing or accepting of anything here. Let us find out if the roof is floating or not before we accuse or accept physicists of "worshiping".

On this forum, at this particular point in time, the poster called "gater" happens to be the exemplar; a useful extreme example to illustrate the phenomenon. But there are, and have been, many many others.

To be absolutely clear about the intended meaning of that metaphor: the foundations are everyday experiments that everyone can do, and which were done hundreds/thousands of years ago. They involve such things as observing the shadows of sticks and rolling balls down slopes. The walls are the gradual process of building on those early experiments by numerous people. The roof is such things as QM and SR/GR which are the main focus of derision. We don't have to speculate whether that roof has solid support. We don't have to simply assert that it either does or doesn't. We can find out. If we're interested.

We can also find out, if we are interested, if that roof, sitting on the supports, are both actually sitting on solid ground or foundations in the first place, and then move forward, or work upwards. Obviously the roof does not line up, as it is working against itself at the moment.

So, to find out why the roof is inconsistent, and actually conflicts with its own self and so cannot back up and support itself, then somewhere prior something is not logically solid.

For those of us who are truly interested to find out where and why this flaw or instability is, then we can find, and so discover where the actual fault is and lays in this construction.

[creation]

Interesting, but not the central intention of the topic. The intention was far more mundane.

My intention for the thread was this: There are many, many people who look at the findings of modern science and, essentially, just say "nonsense" or "mathematical fantasy" or something similar. My point is that they can, possibly, find out if it really is nonsense. Not just assert that it is. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the physicists are all worshipping a floating roof with no support. Maybe they're not. We don't have to speculate as to which of those two things are true. We can find out. If we're interested. Most people aren't. That's fine. But what I find odd is the people who aren't interested in looking at the foundations and walls but still accuse the physicists of worshipping a floating roof.

We used to debate that way back when we lived in an information black hole, where checking one's information meant either looking up an encyclopaedia or taking a trip to the library. In a real-time situation, though, a debate's "winner" is the one whom asserts their case most convincingly.

And, this might just occur because the "winner" is a better communicator than the "other", and not because of any actual real evidence at all, correct?

Looking at the travels of newly-installed His Holiness Pope Donald, sent by God to save the US, it's clear that the winners of such old-school exchanges did not need to be logical, honest or correct. It's a game or power, style and strategy - a way of determining whose display behaviour is the most effective.

That's not much good for finding out what was really going on, of course. Being on the autism spectrum, I was highly vulnerable to pushy people asserting themselves. I could never think on my feet quickly enough. And that's why I became interested in statistics - not heavy analyses, just the main, important calculations - so I could work out who was telling the truth and who was blustering.

The numbers certainly can lie, but if you accept their limits, they tend to still be more reliable than people, including well-meaning ones.

I find the actual truth to be far more reliable than people and numbers, individually or together.

But I did notice we are in agreement on the first point I was making here, correct?

[creation]

We used to debate that way back when we lived in an information black hole, where checking one's information meant either looking up an encyclopaedia or taking a trip to the library. In a real-time situation, though, a debate's "winner" is the one whom asserts their case most convincingly. Looking at the travels of newly-installed His Holiness Pope Donald, sent by God to save the US, it's clear that the winners of such old-school exchanges did not need to be logical, honest or correct. It's a game or power, style and strategy - a way of determining whose display behaviour is the most effective.

Yes, and for that reason, in this topic at least, I want to try not to think in terms of "winning" and "losing" a debate. In any case, even in the absence of the modern Trump style of politics, both sides in that kind of adversarial debate usually seem to think of themselves as having won. In this topic I wanted to just explore, at least briefly, the history that led to the modern theories of physics which can seem so counter-intuitive. I wanted to show that those theories weren't just made up on a whim. And I wanted to see if I can at least start to demonstrate that the people who invent these theories aren't members of some exclusive club which forever bars outsiders. Anybody with the patience can follow the arguments and the experiments to the point where they can critique the theories from a position of knowing what they say and why they say it, looking the theorists squarely in the eye. I also want to show that this kind of critique is welcome; it is what drives progress.

These words I find very refreshing, and the conclusion, to me, could not be more correct.

I am very keen to have some actual words put to me so that I am then in a position of knowing what theorists say and why they say it, so I can finally look the theorists squarely in the eye, and explain where I think the confusion, which has caused the inconsistencies and contradictions, has come from.

Just so this is absolutely very clear, you now say that, if two observers are moving towards each other and the velocity becomes larger, then they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, correct?

Yes. And if moving away from each other: slower. That is what I was intending to say all along. It is what I said explicitly, with a worked numerical example showing tick ratios of 3.73, in the post from another topic to which I linked way back when we first started talking last year. As I said, if a post somewhere gave the wrong impression on that, I apologize. I just don't want to spend pages discussing this one issue.

Neither did I want to spend one second more than was necessary in clarifying. That is why I quoted what you wrote, and just asked you are very direct, very simple clarifying question from the beginning.

You do not have to apologize.

I never meant just that.

Ok. Understood.

Considering we both talked about looking at the foundation, and seeing if that was solid enough to support the "walls", and then the "roof", then as I said this is as far as I can go back. This, to me, is the foundation of 'time'. If you can go further back, then great, where do see is the foundation? If you cannot go further back, then as I just asked you; Are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

It's not that I necessarily want to go further back.

I never thought you wanted to go back any further. But, considering we both want to find and look at the 'foundation', itself, and move forward from there, then we have to go back to as far as we can.

I want to point out that the foundation of what is now said about time are not just in experiments that explicitly and obviously measure time. The reason I thought that Galileo's experiments are a good starting point is because that is where the thought process began which ended up with Einstein's (and his contemporaries') theories, which say some things about time (and about space) which some people find hard to believe.

But the 'thought' process began well before galileo's experiments.

But if we did start with galileo's experiments, then we miss out on the very thing in question here, What is 'time'?

See, if we do not look at and into the actual observations and/or experiments about where the concept of 'time' might of originated from, from our ability to go back as far as we can, then we might miss where the actual fault lays, in what some people are disagreeing about here in what einstein said/predicted.

I find it best to check to very foundations, themselves, to see if they are truly solid "as a rock" (as some might say).

Galileo started the ball rolling (so to speak) by doing various experiments which led to Newton's laws of motion. Those laws are down near the bottom of our metaphorical building, on the roof of which sits Einstein. I'd like to examine what those laws say, and what they imply for the concepts of both time and space.

Again if we want to talk about 'time', then what is the 'foundation' from which 'time' is derived from, and from that foundation what does it say 'time' is exactly?

To discover this, is to understand just why some people say 'time' cannot 'dilate', while others say 'time' can 'dilate'.

To me, this is exactly where all the actual confusion and misunderstanding is coming from. But, I do tend to see all things from a very basic, very simple, and very easy perspective.

And what is that earliest experiment?

It's hard to pick a single one, because history probably doesn't record a single, first, bona fide experiment. That's why I picked a whole set of experiments by Galileo as a reasonable start. But as a brief aside from that, a very, very early example of the power of simple experiment was the one carried out by Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago. With simple observations of such things as the shadows of sticks and the reflection of the sun in the water at the bottom of a well, he is the first person we know of to accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth.

This, to me, sounds like a reasonable place to start.

So, what is actually being observed by the shadows of sticks, relative to the light from the sun?

In other words, if we were to mark off that shadow in equally separated increments, then what is 'it' exactly that is actually being measured?

After this is clarified, then just to forewarn, I will ask another clarifying question about what 'it' is that all clocks are actually set in relation to, exactly.

The agreed upon answers to these becomes known, then we can decide if 'time' is some actual thing that 'dilates' or not.

See, it might just be the use of the word 'time' in the term 'time dilation' where a lot of conflict and criticism is coming from in discussions around this matter.

I think you might be misunderstanding me, but truthfully I think I am also not not fully understanding what you mean.

So, when you say, "time is what clocks mark", are you meaning something like time is some actual thing that exists, apart from clocks themselves, and which clocks are "marking", by their "ticking", for example? If you are, then that is not what I mean at at all.

No, that's not what I meant either. That's why I think we agree with each other on this. As a general rule, I think concepts like both time and space are abstractions that we create. As such, they don't exist independently of the ways that they can be potentially measured. As I said in a previous post:

viewtopic.php?p=344769#p344769

What is a clock? It's a device for measuring the passage of time.
What is time? It is the thing that is measured by clocks.

I propose that this circular definition of both clocks and time is the only one that is physically meaningful. I propose that all others are meaningless, hand-waving metaphysics for passing a few hours on a rainy afternoon.

But we have to be clear that we're not talking about one particular class of clock. We're talking about that property which is common to all possible physical systems that we feel we can point to and say "clock". That's generally how we tend to define nouns. We (metaphorically or literally) point to examples of physical instances of that noun and say "it's whatever it is that all these things have in common".

As I said there, I think that 'time' is simply the thing that all "clocks" have in common, using that word "clock" in its most general possible sense.

But from what you wrote in the quote here I think we still disagree quite a lot. I do not see 'time' as the thing that is measured by clocks at all. I see things very differently in fact.

I am now curious as to why you think we are in agreement, especially in light of what I have written in regards to what 'time' is, which is; 'time' is just a word used for describing the action of the measurement, itself, taken; in relation to the duration between one agreed upon event and another agreed upon event. To me, clocks certainly do not measure anything known as 'time', and, to me, 'time' is certainly not some thing that is measured by clocks, nor could even be measured.

...This is because of the way clocks are designed and created to work, and what clocks tick in relation to exactly means that, to me anyway, there is no such thing as time in any other way, nor in any other sense, other than in thought or concept only.

Yes, although I'd leave out the word "designed" to emphasize that we're talking about all natural clocks too.

But I do not know of any actual "natural" clock other than the ones human beings have designed and created.

To me, 'clocks' are designed and made to take measurements.

If there are supposed "natural" clocks besides the one that human beings have designed and created, then what is their purpose? And, if it is to take measurements, then what do they measure exactly?

What clocks are referenced to, or designed to be synchronised with, to me, is obviously not a time itself but something else.

What are clocks actually set to, and adjusted to?

They can only possibly be adjusted to other "clocks".

If this is what you believe and/or insist is true, then, until you can show how this could even logically be correct, I do not see this at all, yet.

The answer to this will provide a clue as to if there is an actual existing thing as time, itself. or not.

I think/hope we've established what we both think 'time' is and the sense in which it does or does not exist.

From what I see happening here is we are both trying to put our views forward on how we see what 'time' is but are not, yet, understanding each other fully.

[Steve3007]

So, what is actually being observed by the shadows of sticks, relative to the light from the sun?

The movement of the sun across the sky.

In other words, if we were to mark off that shadow in equally separated increments, then what is 'it' exactly that is actually being measured?

Change of position of the sun with respect to time. Otherwise known as movement.

After this is clarified, then just to forewarn, I will ask another clarifying question about what 'it' is that all clocks are actually set in relation to, exactly.

Other clocks or other "clocks".

But from what you wrote in the quote here I think we still disagree quite a lot. I do not see 'time' as the thing that is measured by clocks at all. I see things very differently in fact...

Ok. When I thought we agreed on that I must have misunderstood. We don't agree.

As I've said in various posts, I define time as the thing which is measured by all forms of "clock".

But I do not know of any actual "natural" clock other than the ones human beings have designed and created.

Examples: The Earth spinning on its axis. The Earth orbiting the Sun. The Moon orbiting the Earth. The natural oscillations of various atoms. The ageing of living things. The flashing of pulsars. In short: anything that undergoes a periodic change.

If there are supposed "natural" clocks besides the one that human beings have designed and created, then what is their purpose? And, if it is to take measurements, then what do they measure exactly?

Not being designed, they have no innate purpose. We might use them for various purposes. One possible purpose is to mark time.

If this is what you believe and/or insist is true, then, until you can show how this could even logically be correct, I do not see this at all, yet.

I don't insist it's true. If you think it might not be true, describe an example of adjusting a man-made clock by doing something other than comparing it to another form of man-made or natural "clock".

From what I see happening here is we are both trying to put our views forward on how we see what 'time' is but are not, yet, understanding each other fully.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that time is what is marked by "clocks"? I've said it many, many, many times. And I've previously described a few times what I mean by the word "clock".

[creation]

So, what is actually being observed by the shadows of sticks, relative to the light from the sun?

The movement of the sun across the sky.

So we agree.

In other words, if we were to mark off that shadow in equally separated increments, then what is 'it' exactly that is actually being measured?

Change of position of the sun with respect to time. Otherwise known as movement.

So, if we both observe the movement, or change of position, of the sun in relation to the earth, then, what is this 'time' thing here, where did 'it' come from, and how did 'it' come into your definition of 'change of position of the sun', "with respect to time".

After this is clarified, then just to forewarn, I will ask another clarifying question about what 'it' is that all clocks are actually set in relation to, exactly.

Other clocks or other "clocks".

So, to you, clocks are set to clocks.

But just so it is absolutely clear this does not make sense to me logically.

To me, all human made clocks are set to the light from the sun.

But from what you wrote in the quote here I think we still disagree quite a lot. I do not see 'time' as the thing that is measured by clocks at all. I see things very differently in fact...

Ok. When I thought we agreed on that I must have misunderstood. We don't agree.

I never agreed that time is measured by clocks.

As I've said in various posts, I define time as the thing which is measured by all forms of "clock".

In any of those various posts, did you explain what that 'thing' is exactly, which is measured by all forms of "clock"?

If either yes or no, will you explain now what this 'thing' is exactly that you call "time", and which is measured by all forms of "clock"?

But I do not know of any actual "natural" clock other than the ones human beings have designed and created.

Examples: The Earth spinning on its axis. The Earth orbiting the Sun. The Moon orbiting the Earth. The natural oscillations of various atoms. The ageing of living things. The flashing of pulsars. In short: anything that undergoes a periodic change.

These are certainly not clocks to me.

If there are supposed "natural" clocks besides the one that human beings have designed and created, then what is their purpose? And, if it is to take measurements, then what do they measure exactly?

Not being designed, they have no innate purpose.

Is it a fact that these things have not been designed?

We might use them for various purposes. One possible purpose is to mark time.

If you did not explain what this 'thing', which you call "time" is previously, then I have absolutely no idea what this 'thing' is exactly, which could even be measured, from your perspective.

If this is what you believe and/or insist is true, then, until you can show how this could even logically be correct, I do not see this at all, yet.

I don't insist it's true.

Okay, but if you believe that clocks can only be set to other clocks, then, to you, they cannot be set to anything else, correct?

If you think it might not be true, describe an example of adjusting a man-made clock by doing something other than comparing it to another form of man-made or natural "clock".

Remember I do not see clocks as being anything else other than being human designed and made. To me, all clocks are set to, and then continually adjusted relative to the light from the sun.

We adjust our clocks to suit the sun. We do not adjust the sun to suit our clocks.

To you, if all clocks can only be set and adjusted to other clocks, then what clock is the sun, itself, set and adjusted to?

To me, the sun just does what it does, and we have been designing, creating, making, setting, and adjusting our clocks to the light from this sun, roughly since we have been observing the movement of the shadow of a stick in relation to the movement sun, relative to the earth.

From what I see happening here is we are both trying to put our views forward on how we see what 'time' is but are not, yet, understanding each other fully.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that time is what is marked by "clocks"?

No.

I've said it many, many, many times.

Have you just said, "Time is what is marked by "clocks" ", many, many, many times, or, have you actually explained what 'time', itself, is, to you, many, many, many times?

And I've previously described a few times what I mean by the word "clock".

Okay.

[Steve3007]

So, if we both observe the movement, or change of position, of the sun in relation to the earth, then, what is this 'time' thing here, where did 'it' come from, and how did 'it' come into your definition of 'change of position of the sun', "with respect to time".

It's an abstract concept that we use to quantify movement and change. It came from our minds as a result of our observations.

So, to you, clocks are set to clocks.

Clocks are set to both clocks and "clocks". I put the second instance in quotes to indicate that I'm talking about "clocks" in the most general sense.

For reference, here is a quote from one of my first posts to you:
viewtopic.php?p=343557#p343557

Yes, that sounds like a good way. The fact that the Earth spins on its axis makes it a kind of clock, in the most general sense of that word. In the most general sense, a clock is any device or system that performs some kind of regular periodic activity or event. We could call that event a "tick". The Earth "ticks" once a day, we might say.

(This was one of the posts that you block-quoted and block-labelled simply as "not speaking the truth of things".)

But just so it is absolutely clear this does not make sense to me logically. To me, all human made clocks are set to the light from the sun.

As I've said (starting with that first post and continuing from then) I regard the movement of the sun across the sky as a kind of "clock". You don't have to agree with that terminology. But if you are going to understand what I'm saying, you have to remember that this is how I use the word "clock" in the context of these kinds of discussions.

I never agreed that time is measured by clocks.

Ok.

In any of those various posts, did you explain what that 'thing' is exactly, which is measured by all forms of "clock"?

Example:

What is a clock? It's a device for measuring the passage of time.
What is time? It is the thing that is measured by clocks.

I propose that this circular definition of both clocks and time is the only one that is physically meaningful. I propose that all others are meaningless, hand-waving metaphysics for passing a few hours on a rainy afternoon.

But we have to be clear that we're not talking about one particular class of clock. We're talking about that property which is common to all possible physical systems that we feel we can point to and say "clock". That's generally how we tend to define nouns. We (metaphorically or literally) point to examples of physical instances of that noun and say "it's whatever it is that all these things have in common".

Whatever it is that all things we can regard as clocks have in common, that's time. It's an abstraction of the concept of a "clock".

Is it a fact that these things have not been designed?

Do you want this to become a theological discussion?

Okay, but if you believe that clocks can only be set to other clocks, then, to you, they cannot be set to anything else, correct?

No, they can't be set to anything else. If you disagree, tell me something else they can be set to.

Remember I do not see clocks as being anything else other than being human designed and made. To me, all clocks are set to, and then continually adjusted relative to the light from the sun.

Understood. Remember also how I use the word "clock" in the context of discussions like this.

Have you just said, "Time is what is marked by "clocks" ", many, many, many times, or, have you actually explained what 'time', itself, is, to you, many, many, many times?

If you're interested you could probably find out by searching my posts for the word "clock".

[creation]

So, if we both observe the movement, or change of position, of the sun in relation to the earth, then, what is this 'time' thing here, where did 'it' come from, and how did 'it' come into your definition of 'change of position of the sun', "with respect to time".

It's an abstract concept that we use to quantify movement and change.

So, do we agree that there is no such thing as 'time' other than in word and abstract concept, and that the word 'time' is describing, or quantifying, the actual measurements taken with respect to the change and movement of the position of the sun relative to the earth?

It came from our minds as a result of our observations.

Do you think or believe that each human being has their own mind?

To me, there is only one Mind.

So, to you, clocks are set to clocks.

Clocks are set to both clocks and "clocks". I put the second instance in quotes to indicate that I'm talking about "clocks" in the most general sense.

I think from your perspective clocks are human made ones, and "clocks" are non-human made ones, correct? Or, do you mean something else?

For reference, here is a quote from one of my first posts to you:
viewtopic.php?p=343557#p343557

Yes, that sounds like a good way. The fact that the Earth spins on its axis makes it a kind of clock, in the most general sense of that word. In the most general sense, a clock is any device or system that performs some kind of regular periodic activity or event. We could call that event a "tick". The Earth "ticks" once a day, we might say.

(This was one of the posts that you block-quoted and block-labelled simply as "not speaking the truth of things".)

This is part of what I wrote in reply to this post of yours.
If you want to look at and see the truth of things, then you also have to speak and say the truth of things as well. Otherwise, if you are not speaking the truth, like above, then one can all to easily just say any thing, which ends up just "verifying" what they believe and assume is already true.

My reply was not in relation to that part, quoted above, of this post that you wrote.

But just so it is absolutely clear this does not make sense to me logically. To me, all human made clocks are set to the light from the sun.

As I've said (starting with that first post and continuing from then) I regard the movement of the sun across the sky as a kind of "clock".

You don't have to agree with that terminology.

I do not.

Is it a fact that these things have not been designed?

Do you want this to become a theological discussion?

No.

I just asked you a 'yes' or 'no' question.

When someone writes something as though it is an absolute, forever more, unchangeable statement or proposition, then I sometimes just like to make that become known, or at least more obvious.

Okay, but if you believe that clocks can only be set to other clocks, then, to you, they cannot be set to anything else, correct?

No, they can't be set to anything else. If you disagree, tell me something else they can be set to.

Remember I do not see clocks as being anything else other than being human designed and made. To me, all clocks are set to, and then continually adjusted relative to the light from the sun.

Understood. Remember also how I use the word "clock" in the context of discussions like this.

[Steve3007]

To me, there is only one Mind.

Ok.

[creation]

So now there does not appear to be any disagreement that 'time' is nothing other than a word, and as such just an abstract concept, and that the word 'time' is just describing, or quantifying, the actual measurements taken with respect to the change and movement of the position of the sun relative to the earth, so then let us continue on looking at these experiments and observations that have led people to see things as they are now, when this is written.

Now that the foundation has been looked at and it appears to be "rock" solid and appears to make common sense, what do you propose is next to look at and consider?