Oh, OK. I was talking about in the context of experiments for verifying physical theories. I wasn’t thinking of physics in general which is what I think you’re referring to. I agree with you that physics is about a lot of amazing things.
I’m no physicist if that’s what you’re asking. For that reason I don’t generally question what is said to be verified. But I do question some inferences and assumptions made by scientists which I think I’m justified in doing.
I think making reasonable inferences based on evidence is something that any layperson like myself is capable of doing. If someone can show justifiably that my inferences are not sound or I’m misinformed about the evidence then I’m willing to acknowledge it. But until someone presents justifiable objections to my views that I can’t give a reasonable response to, I think I’m warranted to hold to those views.
They’re not necessarily hypothesis in the formal sense, just propositions that seem plausible enough. Clocks are physical instruments, are they not? Gravity and velocity have physical effects on physical objects, do they not? So it’s plausible, is it not? However, I would question whether time slowing down is a plausible proposition. At least I can’t make any sense of it.
We can do experiments with clocks to observe what happens to them at different altitudes or velocities because they are physical instruments. But we can’t do those things in the same way with time. It’s not an instrument like a clock. It’s one of those realities that can’t be observed and so we have to depend on inferences from evidence to inform us about it.
In fact, we can’t even say for sure it exists. It’s possible it isn’t even an actual existing entity of the universe but just an abstract human convention for measuring rates of change. In that case it seems it would be even more difficult to make any sense of it changing speed.