Hi NG

'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.

It goes like this:

take an arbitrary point in space an place an object there.

Then you place an observer on that object (like the little prince on his
little planet).

The observer will regard himself as at rest and the time there as a
local phenomenon.

Anything else is moving, while the little prince stands upright on his
small planet.

Now he experiences certain changes in the environment and with himself.

This is called 'time' and measured with his clock.

Now this time goes always into a positive direction and stays on the
little planet.

Seen from another little planet, that is not necessarily the case,
because seen from there, the clocks of the little prince could run
backwards or very fast or very slow.

TH

El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Hi NG
>
> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
>
For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).

> It goes like this:
>
> take an arbitrary point in space an place an object there.
>
> Then you place an observer on that object (like the little prince on his
> little planet).
>
> The observer will regard himself as at rest and the time there as a
> local phenomenon.
>
> Anything else is moving, while the little prince stands upright on his
> small planet.
>
> Now he experiences certain changes in the environment and with himself.
>
> This is called 'time' and measured with his clock.
>
>
> Now this time goes always into a positive direction and stays on the
> little planet.
>

True, as every possible physics experiment uses clocks (to measure the passing of time and rulers to measure the locations of bodies).

> Seen from another little planet, that is not necessarily the case,
> because seen from there, the clocks of the little prince could run
> backwards or very fast or very slow.
>

Clocks do not run backwards. The observation of the prince will always be of our clock to run slow and our observation of his clock will always be his clock is running slow.

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 15:29:39 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> True, as every possible physics experiment uses clocks (to measure the passing of time and rulers to measure the locations of bodies).

Sure, everyone is using rulers to measure planets and their
locations. And what is the longest tuler you've ever seen,
poor halfbrain?

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 07:27:55 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.

No, that's not it. The distinction that matters is *proper* time vs *coordinate* time. The former is what *every* (working) clock ticks, whether the clock's frame of reference is inertial or not (!): it's absolute and universal, every clock ticks the one and only universal time (or we just violate relativity). Coordinate-time instead is a dimension of reference frames, and it matches proper time only for the clocks that are at rest in that specific frame: in that sense it is *local*, as a reference frame is a local projection of spacetime from the point of view of the observer at the origin of that frame: put simply, e.g. time dilation and length contraction are distortion effects introduced by the projection (then more should be said here about the distinction real/measured/seen...(*)).

Time in physics is a *primitive* notion (at least up to and including QM), the time parameter of the system, aka the parameter of evolution: and with (Einstein's) relativity it is of course *proper* time that we mean. (Again, see the study I have linked if that sounds exotic, it's utterly trivial in fact.)

That said, I have to warn the innocent reader that misunderstanding the notion of time, messing it up as in "clocks define time" (plain circular indeed), and in fact forgetting about proper time altogether, is unfortunately a mainstream plague that affects 99%+ of what's published and said all over the place, and is in fact the fundamental source of a misunderstanding of "time" and what that even means, up to the present search for a putative missing link between classical and quantum where no such link is even needed....

(*) SR 101, inertial twins:
<https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App/index.html>
(Notice, it is not even true that we cannot draw a diagram for light...)

More could be said, but it's only up to you to understand.

HTH,

Julio

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Hi NG 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
> It goes like this: take an arbitrary point in space an place an object
> there.

this is very cool. Ohh really??

LOL... Self Proclaimed Righteous Hero To Ill-informed Zero In 72 hrs...
Pure Gold [Watch To The End]
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yEUbKBkfHL3U/

hmm, the only reason in having 96% *graphene_oxide* in *all* those govt
promoted death injection, is *to_kill*.

Easy proof, very easy. Those graphene_oxide particles are *rigid* and
resonates mechanically already with *4G* forget 5G. Sort of piezo_electric
resonator, applying a voltage at extremities. But the graphene_oxide
resonate remotely with *EM*. Do the math if necessary. Imagine the
damages these resonating particles are doing with your organs, say heart
and brain. These governments are pure evil.

Interesting to follow, whether they succeed again, rewriting history.
Either way, it will not end well. They went too far already 2020. See you
in Glucksburg.

Emmett Bradshaw wrote:

> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Hi NG 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
>> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
>> It goes like this: take an arbitrary point in space an place an object
>> there.
>
> this is very cool. Ohh really??
>
> LOL... Self Proclaimed Righteous Hero To Ill-informed Zero In 72 hrs...
> Pure Gold [Watch To The End]
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/yEUbKBkfHL3U/
>
>
> hmm, the only reason in having 96% *graphene_oxide* in *all* those govt
> promoted death injection, is *to_kill*.
>
> Easy proof, very easy. Those graphene_oxide particles are *rigid* and
> resonates mechanically already with *4G* forget 5G. Sort of
> piezo_electric resonator, applying a voltage at extremities. But the
> graphene_oxide resonate remotely with *EM*. Do the math if necessary.

Actually also, through *_inductive_coupling_*, forgot to mention. Shorter
distance, more effect transferred to the tag/target. Pure evil.

Undoubtedly also, they did alot of mistakes, due the large scale
implementation, and they soon will start blaming each other. Just wait.

> Imagine the damages these resonating particles are doing with your
> organs, say heart and brain. These governments are pure evil.
>
> Interesting to follow, whether they succeed again, rewriting history.
> Either way, it will not end well. They went too far already 2020. See
> you in Glucksburg.

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 16:07:08 UTC+2, Emmett Bradshaw wrote:

> These governments are pure evil.

....not to mention, the enemies of life and intelligence. Good luck future learners finding anything useful in this flooding of all channels with bullshit and unreason. A real plague...

*Plonk*

Julio

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 15:41:24 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

> No, that's not it. The distinction that matters is *proper* time vs *coordinate* time.

And which one of these two is responsible for simultaneity
stuff, poor fanatic crank?

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 16:07:08 UTC+2, Emmett Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> These governments are pure evil.
>
> ...not to mention, the enemies of life and intelligence. Good luck
> future learners finding anything useful in this flooding of all channels
> with bullshit and unreason. A real plague...

You don't understand shit, are you? Stupid like wood etc. There's more
physics in what you deleted, than everything you "learned" in that
shithole country you are a sheeple resident of. You are a disgrace, with
your puerile behavioural. Listen to him, *plonk*. What an idiot.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 15:41:24 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
>
>> No, that's not it. The distinction that matters is *proper* time vs
>> *coordinate* time.
>
> And which one of these two is responsible for simultaneity stuff, poor
> fanatic crank?

absolutely, you are wasting your time with the stupidest crank till date,
he knows nothing about *EM_resonators* and *inductive_coupling*. A
complete uneducated idiot, thinking posting in sci.physics.relativity
makes him bigger. Just piss on his ugly stupid face.

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>
> El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> >
> > Hi NG
> >
> > 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> > parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
>
> For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about
> what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).

Well. maybe we know Something about why time is anisotropic/asymmetrical.
We have entropy and statistical physics. Quantum time seems to be isotropic,
but it gets lost at the classical level. See J. A. Vacarro, "The quantum theory of
time, the block universe and human experience"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05177

> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:

> > For physicists, time is what a clock reads.

Not quite; anyone can check that what a clock reads in GPS is t'=t;
it's rather that for a physicist time is what his idiot guru said
a clock reads.

On 29.Jul.2021, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know
>> about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to
>> future).
>
> Well. maybe we know Something about why time is
> anisotropic/asymmetrical.
> We have entropy and statistical physics. Quantum time seems to be
> isotropic,
> but it gets lost at the classical level. See J. A. Vacarro, "The
> quantum theory of time, the block universe and human experience"
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05177

You may certainly want to reconsider. If the "dynamics" is predictable,
then you go back in time, making them rich with the lottery numbers.
There's no time nor entropy quantum level.

On 29.Jul.2021, Uetake Matsumura wrote:

> On 29.Jul.2021, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>>> For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know
>>> about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to
>>> future).
>>
>> Well. maybe we know Something about why time is
>> anisotropic/asymmetrical.
>> We have entropy and statistical physics. Quantum time seems to be
>> isotropic,
>> but it gets lost at the classical level. See J. A. Vacarro, "The
>> quantum theory of time, the block universe and human experience"
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05177
>
> You may certainly want to reconsider. If the "dynamics" is predictable,
> then you go back in time, making them rich with the lottery numbers.
> There's no time nor entropy quantum level.

I don't have to speculate why there is no time nor space in quantum, but
once again it suggests that SIZE matters in this universe.

Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
> El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
>> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
>>
> For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).

OK

But any clock must be somewhere by definition.

This is actually the same idea as 'local time', because time is what
clocks measure, this time is valid, where also the clock is located.

Now we allow an observer to construct clocks and to measure local time
with them.

This does not say, that other observers at other locations would measure
the same time, because at other locations they would be somewhere else.

>> It goes like this:
>>
>> take an arbitrary point in space an place an object there.
>>
>> Then you place an observer on that object (like the little prince on his
>> little planet).
>>
>> The observer will regard himself as at rest and the time there as a
>> local phenomenon.
>>
>> Anything else is moving, while the little prince stands upright on his
>> small planet.
>>
>> Now he experiences certain changes in the environment and with himself.
>>
>> This is called 'time' and measured with his clock.
>>
>>
>> Now this time goes always into a positive direction and stays on the
>> little planet.
>>
>
> True, as every possible physics experiment uses clocks (to measure the passing of time and rulers to measure the locations of bodies).

Sure, but 'possible physics experiment' would require an experimenter,
which could be called 'observer', too.

This observer and his/her experiments need a location and that a local time.

What happens at other places is not really known, unless some kind of
contact is established to such an invisible realm.

>> Seen from another little planet, that is not necessarily the case,
>> because seen from there, the clocks of the little prince could run
>> backwards or very fast or very slow.
>>
>
> Clocks do not run backwards. The observation of the prince will always be of our clock to run slow and our observation of his clock will always be his clock is running slow.

Local clocks do not run backwards (by definition), if seen by a local
observer.

But other clocks at other locations could look like they would run
backwards, because 'other location' means also 'other local time'.

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 09:14:35 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
> > El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> >> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
> >>
> > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).
> OK

OK??

You shameless pieces of shit deserve your own extinction...

*Plonk*

Julio

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:08:54 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 09:14:35 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
> > > El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> > >> Hi NG
> > >>
> > >> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> > >> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
> > >>
> > > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future)..
> > OK
> OK??
>
> You shameless pieces of shit deserve your own extinction...
>
> *Plonk*

Time is a coordinate. Some abstract human constructed. No way
any fucken avatar of any fucken Great Mystical Mystery. Sorry,
Julio, your plonks are not going to change anything.

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:13:46 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:08:54 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 09:14:35 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
> > > > El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> > > >> Hi NG
> > > >>
> > > >> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> > > >> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
> > > >>
> > > > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).
> > > OK
> > OK??
> >
> > You shameless pieces of shit deserve your own extinction...
> >
> Time is a coordinate. Some abstract human constructed. No way
> any fucken avatar of any fucken Great Mystical Mystery. Sorry,
> Julio, your plonks are not going to change anything.

You other resident retarded agent of the enemy: *everything * we conceive is a human construct, you fucking retarded cunts are just too retarded to even make up a story...

Eat shit and die.

*Plonk*

Julio

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:21:56 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:13:46 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 12:08:54 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 09:14:35 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
> > > > > El jueves, 29 de julio de 2021 a las 1:27:55 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> > > > >> Hi NG
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> > > > >> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.
> > > > >>
> > > > > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).
> > > > OK
> > > OK??
> > >
> > > You shameless pieces of shit deserve your own extinction...
> > >
> > Time is a coordinate. Some abstract human constructed. No way
> > any fucken avatar of any fucken Great Mystical Mystery. Sorry,
> > Julio, your plonks are not going to change anything.
> You other resident retarded agent of the enemy: *everything * we conceive is a human construct

And tales of "laws of nature" allegedly FORCING us to follow the path of
Giant Guru are just some pure bullshit.
Still, clocks are constructed as information devices generating numbers
matching some abstract, human invented schema. And this schema
is - time. As it is constructed by us it can have whatever properties we
want, if we want to change them we simply adjust clocks differently.
That's the trick of your idiot guru: persuading those like you that they
obviously should be adjusted how HE wants.

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know
>> > about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to
>> > future).
>> OK
>
> OK?? You shameless pieces of shit deserve your own extinction.. *Plonk*

you come on usenet to plonk each and everybody?? Can you become more
stupid than that?

A man without a horse is a pussy. That's why they want you brainwashed
with homo, tranny and male sangers with women voice crap. Never ever turn
on your radio. They want you weak. That's why they "vaccinate"
children with damaging for life poison. They want them weak, so they
preserve they wealth and privileges. Look around you, my friend. Me casa
e tu casa, me friend. Kiss my ass.

El viernes, 30 de julio de 2021 a las 3:14:35 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:

> > For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).
> OK
>
> But any clock must be somewhere by definition.
>
> This is actually the same idea as 'local time', because time is what
> clocks measure, this time is valid, where also the clock is located.
>

Absolutely. The observer (or instrument) measures the readings of the clock at its location. Usually, the elapsed time is measured (ie, the time between two events).

> Now we allow an observer to construct clocks and to measure local time
> with them.
>
> This does not say, that other observers at other locations would measure
> the same time, because at other locations they would be somewhere else.

Distant observers (or instruments) can only measure the clock ticking or the elapsed time through the reception of signals, informing the observer HERE of the clock reading THERE.

> > True, as every possible physics experiment uses clocks (to measure the passing of time and rulers to measure the locations of bodies).

> Sure, but 'possible physics experiment' would require an experimenter,
> which could be called 'observer', too.
>

As I said, the word observer implies the use of instruments at the location of the experiment.

> This observer and his/her experiments need a location and that a local time.
>
> What happens at other places is not really known, unless some kind of
> contact is established to such an invisible realm.

Not really. The only thing needed is the reception from signals, informing the observer HERE of the clock readings THERE. Astronomical observatories, for instance, use electromagnetic signals, like light, radio, X-rays, gamma rays, etc. to determine the physics of distant objects.

> >
> > Clocks do not run backwards. The observation of the prince will always be of our clock to run slow and our observation of his clock will always be his clock is running slow.

> Local clocks do not run backwards (by definition), if seen by a local
> observer.
>
> But other clocks at other locations could look like they would run
> backwards, because 'other location' means also 'other local time'.

Wrong, as every clock, at a given location, just ticks in the positive direction at 1 second/second. The most extreme case would be that of a spacecraft approaching a black hole event horizon. In that case, an observer here on Earth would receive signals from the spacecraft clocks, which are severely time dilated with respect to our clocks. In the limit, when the spacecraft reaches the event horizon, the spacecraft clocks would be seen to completely stop, while the astronauts there would see no time dilation (ie their clocks would continue to tick at 1 second/second). The movie Interstellar shows this effect.

Global time started at the small universe or the Big Bang.
The totality of the universes shares a common age.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:27:55 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> 'local time' is the idea, that time is not a universal uniform
> parameter, which a cosmic clock provides, but strictly local.

The notion that time is what the clock read describes a faulty notion of time. It asserts that a clock second is a universal interval of time......it is not.
The only time exists is absolute time....however, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. A clock second in different frame will represent a different amount of absolute time. That’s why clocks in different frames will accumulate a different amount of clock time in different frames..
>
> It goes like this:
>
> take an arbitrary point in space an place an object there.
>
> Then you place an observer on that object (like the little prince on his
> little planet).
>
> The observer will regard himself as at rest and the time there as a
> local phenomenon.
>
> Anything else is moving, while the little prince stands upright on his
> small planet.
>
> Now he experiences certain changes in the environment and with himself.
>
> This is called 'time' and measured with his clock.
>
>
> Now this time goes always into a positive direction and stays on the
> little planet.
>
> Seen from another little planet, that is not necessarily the case,
> because seen from there, the clocks of the little prince could run
> backwards or very fast or very slow.
>
>
> TH

Am 30.07.2021 um 18:19 schrieb Paparios:
> El viernes, 30 de julio de 2021 a las 3:14:35 UTC-4, Thomas Heger escribió:
>> Am 29.07.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Paparios:
>
>>> For physicists, time is what a clock reads. There is nothing we know about what time is and why it runs in one direction (from passed to future).
>> OK
>>
>> But any clock must be somewhere by definition.
>>
>> This is actually the same idea as 'local time', because time is what
>> clocks measure, this time is valid, where also the clock is located.
>>
>
> Absolutely. The observer (or instrument) measures the readings of the clock at its location. Usually, the elapsed time is measured (ie, the time between two events).
>
>
>> Now we allow an observer to construct clocks and to measure local time
>> with them.
>>
>> This does not say, that other observers at other locations would measure
>> the same time, because at other locations they would be somewhere else.
>
> Distant observers (or instruments) can only measure the clock ticking or the elapsed time through the reception of signals, informing the observer HERE of the clock reading THERE.
>
>
>>> True, as every possible physics experiment uses clocks (to measure the passing of time and rulers to measure the locations of bodies).
>
>> Sure, but 'possible physics experiment' would require an experimenter,
>> which could be called 'observer', too.
>>
>
> As I said, the word observer implies the use of instruments at the location of the experiment.
>
>> This observer and his/her experiments need a location and that a local time.
>>
>> What happens at other places is not really known, unless some kind of
>> contact is established to such an invisible realm.
>
> Not really. The only thing needed is the reception from signals, informing the observer HERE of the clock readings THERE. Astronomical observatories, for instance, use electromagnetic signals, like light, radio, X-rays, gamma rays, etc. to determine the physics of distant objects.
>
>>>
>>> Clocks do not run backwards. The observation of the prince will always be of our clock to run slow and our observation of his clock will always be his clock is running slow.
>
>> Local clocks do not run backwards (by definition), if seen by a local
>> observer.
>>
>> But other clocks at other locations could look like they would run
>> backwards, because 'other location' means also 'other local time'.
>
> Wrong, as every clock, at a given location, just ticks in the positive direction at 1 second/second. The most extreme case would be that of a spacecraft approaching a black hole event horizon. In that case, an observer here on Earth would receive signals from the spacecraft clocks, which are severely time dilated with respect to our clocks. In the limit, when the spacecraft reaches the event horizon, the spacecraft clocks would be seen to completely stop, while the astronauts there would see no time dilation (ie their clocks would continue to tick at 1 second/second). The movie Interstellar shows this effect.

'Positive' is a relative measure.

We all advance into the positive direction in time, whereever we are.
But we cannot be everywhere.

If we are somewhere, we advance into the positive direction in time. But
this direction is positive only there and not necessarily everywhere else.

Relativity uses Lorentz transformation. and a Lorentz transform could be
imagined as complex rotation of the axis of time.

Now every location has such an axis, because every location has a local
time. Because two locations can have an axis of time in an angle, the
angle could eventually exceed 180 °, what is actually a rotation into
the opposite direction.

This direction is still positive, because time is a local measure and
only the time of an observed system could run backwards.
>

TH

Am 30.07.2021 um 19:44 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com:
> Global time started at the small universe or the Big Bang.
> The totality of the universes shares a common age.
>

This is technically a hypothesis and it is most likely wrong.

The big bang theory needs your assumption and a few other ones, which
are most likely wrong.

Much more convincing is the idea, that a black hole has another (future)
side, which is a white hole, if seen in the past.

And 'big bang' is actually something in our local past and behaves like
a white hole.

TH