The Voice of Allan Zade
After waiting for half an hour, the person began the next phase of the experiment. Both clocks show a similar indication of 9:00. The person understands that indication as 9:00 AM. He stops the movement of the clock “B” pendulum. The clock stopped operating, and its indication was frozen at 9:00. What happened? Why does the measurement of that device display static information? Is it a “static time” or any other “fixed time” phenomenon? The person must ask that question because, unlike a thermometer, a clock is stoppable.
A thermometer is an unstoppable device. Its indications only relate to the specific physical properties of any measuring thing—an indication of a thermometer changes following variation of that property. Hence, a thermometer becomes an unstoppable device because it shows an indication of measuring property (temperature) ever because of physical interaction between a device and a measuring physical property. As soon as a measuring property (temperature) exists eternally, a thermometer makes its measurement continuously without any additional activity from humans. Hence, nobody can stop the operation of a thermometer. The only possible method for that is the destruction of the device.
Unlike a thermometer, a clock is a stoppable device. What does it mean? Can a human break the interaction between the so-called “flow of time” and a measuring device as a clock? Why does the “flow of time” stop interaction with a stopped pendulum clock? Is Time so wise to avoid interaction with a clock in such a condition? How can Time identify a stopped clock and prevent interaction with a device in such a condition? Is it bright enough? It is impossible for any physical property to be “intelligent or smart or avoidable,” etc. For instance, nothing that was put in any liquid can avoid interaction with that liquid's temperature (as a physical property). “Time” looks exceptionally doubtful that way.
The experiment goes further. After waiting for 15 minutes, when clock “A” indicates 9:15, the man brings clock “B” back into operation. He pushes the pendulum, and the arms of the clock run to life again. Everything goes well except for a little problem. The indication of clock “B” now shows 15 minutes left from the indication of clock “A.”
Moreover, clock “B” shows no desire to speed up its indication to meet clock “A.” Why does it happen? If “right Time” at the moment of evaluation equals 9:15, why does clock “B” do nothing to achieve that indication? It is “right Time,” and “a right clock” “must ever show right Time”! But it does not. That is the greatest failure of a clock. Clock “B” never has the “right indication” again, no matter how many “time” the observer likes to wait.
The bemused observer starts the next phase of the experiment. He stops waving the clock “A” pendulum. To his surprise, clock “B” ran out, and the difference between the indications of the two clocks began to decrease. What did happen? Does “flow of time” forget the existence of clock “A” to “flow” only through clock “B”? Does a jammed pendulum stop moving the clock “through time”? Is it possible to control the so-called “time flow” and “time itself” by using a clock pendulum??? The astonished observer falls into the chair next to the table. He was unable to agree with those questions. His mind was helpless to confront such questions.
After a quarter of an hour, indications of both clocks look similar. Both devices indicate 9:15. The observer pushes the pendulum of the clock “A” and brings it back to operation. Everything looks well, but there is a small problem AGAIN. Despite the equal indication of clocks and their synchronous operation, the person understands that they have 15 minutes left from his imagination of the so-called “right moment of Time.”
That is out of physics! In physics, any measuring instrument indicates the current value or a measuring property (physical property). That value cannot be treated in teams of right and wrong imagination of a human being because each physical experiment must be independent of any human influence. Therefore, a show of any illusionist is not a physical experiment.
Despite that contradiction, the person waits until noon to measure the position of the Sun in the sky by sextant (Which is an “Instrument for determining the angle between the horizon and a celestial body such as the Sun”, from sextant. (2008). Encyclopedia Britannica) and checks indication of both clocks at noon (maximal right ascension of the Sun). He suspected that both clocks indicated the “wrong time” because they indicated 11:45 instead of noon. To change the indication of both devices and make them comparable to his imagination of “the right moment of Time,” “flow of time,” and many other ideas from his mind, the person changes the indication of both clocks manually.
After that procedure, an indication of both clocks coincides with the person’s innate idea of Time because both devices show noon. As with any other innate idea, “Time” cannot be wrong from a human point of view. If any device contradicts his point of view, the device has the “wrong indication” of absolute and ever-right “Time.” Hence, this indicates that the device must be changed manually. That is a perfect example of the innate idea, but the person does not realize that and continues the comparison between his imagination and an indication of a physical device instead of a correlation between indications of two different physical devices (disregarding his imagination).
The double device experiment was finished, but the experimenter did not have any idea of his delusion. The whole experiment and behavior of any number of clocks show the same answer to the old question. Nobody and nothing can make any measurement of any property that never exists in the Universe. No number of clocks synchronize with each other by themselves because no property propagates throughout the Universe that can be used to synchronize any number of clocks (two or more). Unlike clocks, any other measuring device operates using physical interaction with a given physical property of a thing (object, substance, etc.) That interaction cannot be stopped. Moreover, it does not require any additional human activity. For instance, an idea about using a sextant to improve the indication of a thermometer looks odd, even for a modern physicist.