That duration between energy transfer events varies from place to place, or inertial reference frame to inertial reference frame. Even differences in altitudes of 1 meter apart register as different time dilations on atomic clocks. Also, don't confuse or equivocate a duration (delta t) with an instant of time. These are very different. One (delta t) has an arrow that is the same arrow as the propagation of energy in a single direction. The other (an instant of time) does not have nor does it require an arrow. In an instant of time, no energy propagates, although it may persist if it is bound as it is in matter. In the latter case, time dilation for stable particles is for all intents and purposes, infinite, yet their geometric centers may also undergo time dilations depending on relative motion and / or proximity to gravitating bodies.

I am not arguing time dilation, contraction, directions or any of the variables introduced by locality. I already gave my support to the concept for theoretical science purposes.

I am trying to look at this from a different aspect.

I am arguing that time,

*of any duration,* is a result of dynamical action or geometric measurement. Time is a just another universal mathematical aspect created by the duration of existence and is a

*purely human* invention. Time (duration) is a by-product (a result) of the chronology of events, but is not in itself causal to any universal mathematical function. The Universe does not care what time it is or how much time something will need, humans do. Time is completely observer dependent.

Time can be given any value at the local level. At the universal level there is only a timeless permittive condition which allows for mathematical quantum functions.

Indeed it appears precise enough, yet it leaves something to be desired. How does something in free fall near a gravitating body know which way it is to the center of something without instruments or a degree in math? Newton's / Einstein's "divine hand", no doubt. In both theories, that direction is just based on an assumption of a center, not something actually calculated from first principles. Not actually knowing what causes a force in a particular direction isn't "science", even though it may be perfectly complete from a mathematical standpoint. The apple that hit Newton's head could have flown from the tree in any direction.

No, I won't let you get away with that. You are ignoring the mathematical aspects completely.

His math simply assumes a center, no thought given at all as to why that unique direction is preferred, or how the apple knows of its existence.

Or a gust of wind.

Oh I disagree, the logic is not so hard to follow. One can begin by asking why all apples

*always fall *DOWN.

Have you ever wondered about certain patterns?

Why does sound change when a motorcycle passes you? Why do flowers grow toward the sun? Why does water freeze or turns to steam when heated. Why does a three minute boiled egg at sea-level take four minutes to boil high up in the mountains?

Most people ask the question at one time or another, but only Newtons and Einsteins actually try to find the answers. That's what makes them scientists. I am sure Norbert belongs in this group if he is trying to tackle Time itself.