You can't go from looking a clock to conceptualizing General Relativity without thinking philosophically. Scientists don't need to think about philosophy all the time but they do this often while doing theoretical physics

Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology says, according to his interviews, that the universe will expand until "it no longer knows what size it is". You have to think philosophically to unpack what that means — Gregory

And that is precisely what the Nobel Prize mathematician/physicist, Penrose, tosses at us. His is philosophical speculation by a revered scientist - not a non-scientist philosopher. That was my point. To philosophize in modern science one needs a science background.

The point being that philosophers can help scientists with conceptual orientation? — Banno

Yes, those poor scientists need a course in critical thinking skills taught by a philosopher. :roll:

Scientists don't need to think about philosophy all the time but they do this often while doing theoretical physics — Gregory

No argument from me.

Perhaps. But that's not what was contentious in your OP.

I thought it was clear that by "detecting time" i meant finding out what it was and what's it's internal structure was. What I was saying in the OP is that its conceivable for two particles to annihilate each other and go to nothing. If time reversal is involved the annihilation would appear to us like something coming out of seer nothing

When we try to connect the idea of light being in eternity and it having a constant speed (fastest in the universe) the thoughts aren't very distinguishable from philosophy. I don't think a clear line can be drawn. That was my point on that. On time, when anyone (Neitzsche or whoever) speak of cyclic time, surely they mean something more than imagining time on a circle instead of a line. A line can be turned into a circle by the imagination and vice verse. What cyclic time means is what I wanted to discuss further if anyone is interested and has some thoughts

I thought it was clear that by "detecting time" i meant finding out what it was and what's it's internal structure was — Gregory

So you use "detecting" to mean "defining".

The

I meant a physical detection where we find characteristics of it.

I meant a physical detection where we find characteristics of it. — Gregory

...like, a clock.

Name the top 5 things you know about the nature of time which reveal what it is since you so want to find a problem where there isn't one

As I said earlier, some physicists now have said time causes gravity instead of gravity causing time. So I asked "what is time then". You keep saying over and over again "time is what clocks measure" but that's not pertinent to anything I was addressing.

Name the top 5 things you know about the nature of time which reveal what it is — Gregory

I'll show you what time is - later.

Huh. Nothing you've said addresses what time reversal is or what time is

This statement, made after my previous one, shows exactly what time is.

That you cannot see this is a fact about you, not about time.

I was more interested in for example Heidegger's last section of Being and Time and other such writings, and how they relate to physics. Science and philosophical thought are very much intertwined and it's interesting how they are connected

I was more interested in for example Heidegger's last section of Being and Time — Gregory

Yep.