[Origin]

I repeat : The reality is what happens localy.
Non local is what happens "around" (concerning space or time) where the phenomenon is occuring.
I am totaly convicted that real physic has to do with what happens at some point, at "the time" it occurs (time and space "position", so "the time" for some local observer).

This is terribly vague.
Let's assume someone is eating an omelet and I observe him through a telescope from 100 miles away.  Is what happens to him from his position 'reality' but what I observe from a distance an illusion?

[Deecart (OP)]

Let's assume someone is eating an omelet and I observe him through a telescope from 100 miles away.  Is what happens to him from his position 'reality' but what I observe from a distance an illusion?

Good job !
It is an illusion.
Everytime you dont stick to the local phenomenon, you have to understand that "the local phenomenon" you are observing elsewhere is not the phenomenon itself.
(This is my opinion, and i will be most poud of it if nobody agree with it... please dont try to understand it)

[Kryptid]

What, you do mistakes  ? ? ?
Is your brain ill ?

Making mistakes doesn't make your brain ill. You've made plenty of grammar mistakes in your posts, for example, but that doesn't mean your brain is ill. Everyone makes mistakes.

It is an illusion.

Are you saying that the omelet doesn't exist for Origin when he looks at it through a telescope or what?

[Origin]

Good job !
It is an illusion.

That could be the issue right there.  You may be defining the term 'illusion' in a nonstandard way.
Please define illusion.

Everytime you dont stick to the local phenomenon, you have to understand that "the local phenomenon" you are observing elsewhere is not the phenomenon itself.

How far away do you have to be from a phenomena to make it non-local?  Is there any mathematical equation that defines the distance at which something is non-local?

[Bored chemist]

The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.

Perhaps me, perhaps you.
Whats the proof of that ?

The proof that you don't understand it is your inability to explain what symmetry corresponds to your suggested  "conservation of now".

[Bored chemist]

I never do mistakes, i learn.

OK, both instances of the word "I" there should be a capital letter.
And the word "do" is incorrect, the correct word is "make".
You can't even tell us that you don't make mistakes without making  mistakes.

[Colin2B]

Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Here, you are in the "New theories forum".
Therefore you cant request, like you do, some reference like you did.
I dont need any reference to claim anything.

Fortunately you do not make the rules here. We expect everyone in New Theories to defend their assertions with experimental evidence or references.

If you continue to insult people you will find your posting rights are withdrawn.