Discussion:
What is "local time"?
(too old to reply)
Richard Hachel
2024-10-14 11:28:45 UTC
Permalink
What is "local time" in relativity?

1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

Perhaps I could be more precise here.

What are we talking about?

R.H.
Sylvia Else
2024-10-14 11:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
Where is that expression used in the English translation of Einstein's
paper?

Sylvia.
Thomas Heger
2024-10-16 05:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
Where is that expression used in the English translation of Einstein's
paper?
The term and the idea itself stem - as far as I know- from Henry
Poincare and his version of relativty.

Einstein used a different concept and kind of a 'one-dimensional' time.

For instance, Einstein was thinking about synchronisation of remote
clocks, which would include the idea of a common time for remote places,
while 'local time' means, that time is a local thing and clocks at
remote places cannot be synchronized for this reason.


TH
The Starmaker
2024-10-14 16:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?
2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?
This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.
Perhaps I could be more precise here.
What are we talking about?
R.H.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.


Einstein spoke German.

So his inglish is no too good.

I'll give you an example:


Design for a blouse

Description
Oct. 27, 1936. A. EINSTEIN 1388- 101,756
BLOUSE Filed July 2, 1936 INVENTOR.
ATTORNEY.


https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756S/en



Now, can you answer the question, "What is a "blouse"?


Most people would say a shirt for a woman or a girl.


But, Einstein's definition of a blouse is a man's or woman's shirt.


That's the German definition.


Now, if you want to know the local time in Einstein's inglish language..

it is "What time is it now?" in Einstein's inglish language he would say, "What is the Present time?"


Now Richard, tells us what is the present time?



"What watch? -Ten watch. -Such much?"
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Thomas Heger
2024-10-16 05:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?
2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?
This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.
Perhaps I could be more precise here.
What are we talking about?
R.H.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Einstein spoke German.
So his inglish is no too good.
Design for a blouse
Description
Oct. 27, 1936. A. EINSTEIN 1388- 101,756
BLOUSE Filed July 2, 1936 INVENTOR.
ATTORNEY.
https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756S/en
This patent contains a very strang error:

quotes
"ATENT OFFICE DESIGN FOR A BLOUSE Albert Einstein, New York, N. Y.
Application July 2, 1936, Serial No. 63,612 "

"Be it known that I, Albert Einstein, a citizen of the German Republic,
residing in the Borough of Manhattan, county of New York, and State of
New York, have invented a new...."

BUT:

Germany wasn't a republic in 1936 and as far as I know, Einstein wasn't
citizen of Germany at that time.

He renounced citizenship of the German Empire in 1896 and was from 1901
onwards citizen of Swizzerland.

Since Germany didn't allow dual citizenships in those days, he could not
become a German again (and also remain Swiss).

He also left Germany some time before the advent of the nazis, even if
he had been in Berlin until 1932.

Sometime is is said, that he was a citzen of Prussia.

But Germany had an undivided citizenship in those days and no
citizenship from the states from which Germany was composed.

Germany was also not called 'German Republic' anymore in 1936, but
'Deutsches Reich' ('German Empire').


...
gharnagel
2024-10-15 12:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?
2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?
This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.
Perhaps I could be more precise here.
What are we talking about?
R.H.
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time." What is "time"? Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time? Does space have time, or do just masses have time? Is
there more than one dimension of time? It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
Richard Hachel
2024-10-15 15:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time." What is "time"? Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time? Does space have time, or do just masses have time? Is
there more than one dimension of time? It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
I even have the impression that we don't know anything about it at all.

But we brag, we brag.

And we know nothing.

Worse, what we think we know is often wrong.

Is the notion of simultaneity relative by change of frame of reference?
Physicists will all answer in unison: "yes".

And they are wrong, they confuse simultaneity and chronotropy.

Is the notion of simultaneity relative by change of position

in a stationary medium? Physicists will all answer in unison: "no". And
they are wrong, they confuse relativistic frame of reference and Newtonian
frame of reference.

And I'm not talking about their completely wrong calculation on the proper
times and instantaneous speeds of accelerated frames of reference, nor the
stupidities they sing when describing rotating frames of reference.

The world is crazy.

It is man's navel more than his intelligence that has made him crazy.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-15 16:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated, but you're sooooo
stupid, Harrie.
Anyway, that's right - you don't know very
much about it; you really should stop
spreading idiotic tales about it.
Python
2024-10-15 20:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-15 21:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
made abstract, having nothing in commom with
your precioujs nature. And with your
precious experiments.
Python
2024-10-15 21:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate.
What is a coordinate?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-16 11:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate.
What is a coordinate?
A function. You assign an unique number to
every point from a given set.
For time - you have the set of all events
really happening; you're assigning a number
for every one (or, at least, you try).
Python
2024-10-15 21:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
made abstract, having nothing in commom with
your precioujs nature. And with your
precious experiments.
It is purely virtual, really? Can be anything a Polish
crank can edict?

I don't what you mean by "nature". What I know is that
if the space and time coordinates of a bullet are the
same as my head I would likely die.

This is neither "precious", "abstract" and as something
in "commom" with whatever reality is.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-16 11:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
made abstract, having nothing in commom with
your precioujs nature. And with your
precious experiments.
It is purely virtual, really? Can be anything a Polish
crank can edict?
I don't what you mean by "nature". What I know is that
if the space and time coordinates of a bullet are the
same as my head I would likely die.
Well, to see you're an idiot - just take a bullet
and put it into your mouth.

And if you die indeed - the reason is the bullet.
The bullet is not an abstract. The coordinates are
not affecting that. We can use them in the
desscription of your death, sure. That's what
they're invented for. We tend to describe things
with their help.
gharnagel
2024-10-16 03:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
made abstract, having nothing in commom with
your precioujs nature. And with your
precious experiments.
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts. Humans try to model nature, and
since, for example, trees grow, die and decay,
there is something in nature that changes. We
call that something the passage of time.
Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
that we model time. But they aren't time,
just as the map is not the territory.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-16 13:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
"time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
just don't know very much about it.
It's not very complicated
So explain.
It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
made abstract, having nothing in commom with
your precioujs nature. And with your
precious experiments.
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts.
As usual, Harrie spits. And say
nonsenses about things he admits he
doesn't know much about. Well,
it's not usual that he admits.


Humans try to model nature, and
Post by gharnagel
since, for example, trees grow, die and decay,
there is something in nature that changes.
Oh, there is a wide variety of things
that change in nature. Time, however,
is not any of them. There is no time
in nature. It's a purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing. Describing nature and other
things.
Time is almost always present in any
description of anything. That's why
it appears for weak minds to be something
real.
Post by gharnagel
Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
that we model time.  But they aren't time,
Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
Time is obviously not any of them.

As for coordinates - we have created a
number of them, and about 20-30 of them
are times.
Post by gharnagel
just as the map is not the territory.
gharnagel
2024-10-16 19:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts.
As usual, Harrie spits.
Says the congenital liar :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And say nonsense about things he admits he
doesn't know much about.
which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
he keeps conflating two different things.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, it's not usual that he admits.
I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
Wozniak's problem is his false belief that he
knows more while only being a poor observer.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Humans try to model nature, and since, for
example, trees grow, die and decay, there
is something in nature that changes.
Oh, there is a wide variety of things
that change in nature. Time, however,
is not any of them. There is no time
in nature.
Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
rock; that is, one that is changing its
position in space as a function of time
passing.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's a purely virtual abstract invented
by humans - for the purpose of describing.
Describing nature and other things.
That's only ONE definition. Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
other one. This one:

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings

This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
The punch may come from a person (who is also a
part of nature), or it may come from a falling
rock.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Time is almost always present in any
description of anything. That's why
it appears for weak minds to be something
real.
Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
understand that there are two kinds of
"time": the real one in nature and our
attempts to describe it (with clocks and
coordinates).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
that we model time.  But they aren't time,
Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
Time is obviously not any of them.
Agreed. Time is a part of nature; it's neither
clocks nor theories.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for coordinates - we have created a
number of them, and about 20-30 of them
are times.
Of course, DUH!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
just as the map is not the territory.
Just as a clock is not time.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-16 20:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts.
As usual, Harrie spits.
Says the congenital liar :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And say nonsense about things he admits he
doesn't know much about.
which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
he keeps conflating two different things.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, it's not usual that he admits.
I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
Right, you don't know much. Typical
with a brainwashed fanatic idiot.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Oh, there is a wide variety of things
that change in nature. Time, however,
is not any of them. There is no time
in nature.
Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
rock; that is, one that is changing its
position in space as a function of time
passing.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's a purely virtual abstract invented
by humans - for the purpose of describing.
Describing nature and other things.
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
Post by gharnagel
This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
The punch may come from a person (who is also a
part of nature), or it may come from a falling
rock.
It may. Time remains purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Time is almost always present in  any
description of anything.  That's why
it appears for weak minds to be something
real.
Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
understand that there are two kinds of
"time": the real one in nature
An assertion of an ignorant idiot mystician
means nothing.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
Time is obviously not any of them.
Agreed.  Time is a part of nature; it's neither
clocks nor theories.
Nope.
Time is a coordinate. Neuther a clock, nor
a theory, and has nothing in common with the
nature.
gharnagel
2024-10-17 04:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As usual, Harrie spits.
Says the congenital liar :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And say nonsense about things he admits he
doesn't know much about.
which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
he keeps conflating two different things.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, it's not usual that he admits.
I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
Right, you don't know much. Typical
with a brainwashed fanatic idiot.
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”
-- Richard P. Feynman

Wozniak isn't even THAT smart.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Oh, there is a wide variety of things
that change in nature. Time, however,
is not any of them. There is no time
in nature.
Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
rock; that is, one that is changing its
position in space as a function of time
passing.
Wozniak isn't even smart enough to observe
that time passes.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's a purely virtual abstract invented
by humans - for the purpose of describing.
Describing nature and other things.
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content because time doesn't
pass. Obviously, Wozniak the congenital liar
is lying again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
The punch may come from a person (who is also a
part of nature), or it may come from a falling
rock.
It may. Time remains purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Time is almost always present in  any
description of anything.  That's why
it appears for weak minds to be something
real.
Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
understand that there are two kinds of
"time": the real one in nature and our
attempts to describe it (with clocks and
coordinates).
An assertion of an ignorant idiot mystician
means nothing.
A dishonest assertion by a congenital liar
means nothing.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
Time is obviously not any of them.
Agreed.  Time is a part of nature; it's neither
clocks nor theories.
Nope.
Time is a coordinate. Neuther a clock, nor
a theory, and has nothing in common with the
nature.
Repeating half-truths doesn't make them whole
truths. Half-truths are lies, which is what
Wozniak always does. And he doubles down
when his false assertions are exposed.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

“How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner
self is telling him.” – Frank Herbert

Or, perhaps, maybe Wozniak doesn't have an inner self?

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell
yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

That seems to be where Wozniak is.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 05:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
gharnagel
2024-10-17 13:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay. He must believe that they didn't do
so before clocks were invented :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions. I have
pointed out the insanity of that monumental absurdity, yet
Wozniak maintains his foolishness, apparently because he
can never admit it even when he is glaringly wrong.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd
better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly
can't rearrange the universe." – Isaac Asimov

Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov

I suspect that Wozniak is the disproof of that quote since
NO ONE in the whole world believes anything he says.
Python
2024-10-17 13:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, ***@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 14:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated and it
has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
Python
2024-10-17 15:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
So (almost) the whole word is wrong and a only a ranting old Polish guy
who never really studied physics is right.

Sounds reasonable, right?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 15:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Why - instead? those are independent.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
So (almost) the whole word is wrong
Your moronic church is no way any whole world.
Sorry, poor stinker.
Python
2024-10-17 15:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Why - instead? those are independent.
"instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people and
because you overestimate yourself (both are facts).

I did study logic in three distinct fields : math, CS and philosophy.

This brings some relevance to *my* claim :
- You suck at logic
- You suck at physics

Moreover, as a member of Humanity, I claim that :
- You are a despicable human being
- You are only making a fool of yourself
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
So (almost) the whole word is wrong
Your moronic church is no way any whole world.
All decent people who took time to study Relativity can
recognize that it is consistent. Cont rarely to you claims.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.
Nice signature.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 16:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Why - instead? those are independent.
"instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people
Not especially. You've got a logical proof
that the mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent - are you convinced?
Post by Python
- You suck at logic
- You are a despicable human being
- You are only making a fool of yourself
See, that's the whole power of logic. Instead
convincing people it makes them raving,
spitting and slandering.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
So (almost) the whole word is wrong
Your moronic church is no way any whole world.
All decent people who took time to study Relativity
were brainwashed by that shit.


can
Post by Python
recognize that it is consistent.
Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
can do about it is spitting, slandering
and utterly idiotic asserting, poor stinker.
Python
2024-10-17 20:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Why - instead? those are independent.
"instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people
Not especially. You've got a logical proof
that the [SR] was not
even consistent - are you convinced?
I didn't get such a proof. I got a utterly stupid argument
that is very low even according to your low standards.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
- You suck at logic
- You are a despicable human being
- You are only making a fool of yourself
See, that's the whole power of logic. Instead
convincing people it makes them raving,
spitting and slandering.
Not in my world.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.
So (almost) the whole word is wrong
Your moronic church is no way any whole world.
All decent people who took time to study Relativity
were brainwashed by that shit.
facepalm...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
can
Post by Python
recognize that it is consistent.
Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
can do about it is spitting, slandering
and utterly idiotic asserting
No. No proof in sight but utterly idiotic arguments from
an old ranting Polish demented guy. So ?

And my answers were not "spitting, sladering, etc." yours
are.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker
Nice signature.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 21:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by gharnagel
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?
That's simple: logic is overestimated
Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
instead?
Why - instead? those are independent.
"instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people
Not especially. You've got a logical proof
that the [SR] was not
even consistent - are you convinced?
I didn't get such a proof.
Yes you did. I've pointed directly
2 denying each other predictions
derivable in the physics of your
idiot guru. That's a prof of inconsistency
and a fanatic idiot screamin "NOOOOO!!!",
spitting and stamping his feet is changing
nothing.

Anyway, what makes you think logic
convinces people? Did you witness
many examples?
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
  can
Post by Python
recognize that it is consistent.
Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
can do about it is spitting, slandering
and utterly idiotic asserting
No. No proof in sight but utterly idiotic arguments from
an old ranting Polish demented guy. So ?
I've pointed directly
2 denying each other predictions
derivable in the physics of your
idiot guru. That's a prof of inconsistency
and a fanatic idiot screamin "NOOOOO!!!",
spitting and stamping his feet is changing
nothing.
Post by Python
And my answers were not "spitting, sladering, etc." yours
are.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker
Nice signature.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 15:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
so before clocks were invented :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".

Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
Python
2024-10-17 15:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
so before clocks were invented :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
And another one got the name "dog". Dogs do no exist.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 15:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
so before clocks were invented :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
And another one got the name "dog".
Is dog a human invention, poor stinker?
Python
2024-10-17 15:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
I don't refuse to see something just
because it is some mystical bullshit
lacking any content.
So nature has no content
So the "definition" of yours has no content.
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
so before clocks were invented :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
invented by humans - for the purpose of
describing.
So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
Or he's just lying again.
No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
And another one got the name "dog".
Is dog a human invention
Definitely. We've turned wolves into dogs.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker
Nice signature.
gharnagel
2024-10-17 19:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
....
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees. So the sun has been named by
humans, so Wozniak is claiming humans invented the sun.
This is where his ludicrous claim goes down the rabbit hole.

Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.
Wozniak continually confuses naming an object with the
object itself. His bizarre assertion is thoroughly
refuted.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
Simple only to a simpleton.
Post by Python
And another one got the name "dog". Dogs do no exist.
At least they didn't before they were named. But how
could they be named if they didn't exist? Hmmmm.

And another one got the name Maciej Wozniak, so he didn't
exist before he was named. It's an unsolvable conundrum.

Maybe if we unnamed Wozniak, he would cease to exist! :-)

One could only hope.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-17 21:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
....
I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
that time only exists because of human inventions.
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees.
No, I don't. Harnagel is lying as usual.
As for time -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
article. Point those which are parts of
nature.
Post by gharnagel
Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.
Time is not an objects, but, anyway, I could
example hundreds of objects invented by
humans.
gharnagel
2024-10-19 13:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees.
No, I don't.
Of course he claimed that because it's a logical deduction
of what he said. Assertions have consequences, something
most people learned as a child.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Harnagel is lying as usual.
Just stating the consequences of Wozniak's absurd assertions.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for time -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
article. Point those which are parts of
nature.
Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
nature of time with clocks. This is typical of a so-
called "information engineer" who believes only in
"information":

“Information is not knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein

Here's some REAL knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

23 pages of discussion in one site, not mentioning time
just 20 times (ooh, ANOTHER definition of "time") with
20 references plus external links.


https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.
Time is not an objects,
Irrelevant and deceptive. Objects experience time.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
but, anyway, I could example hundreds of objects
invented by humans.
Irrelevant and deceptive. I can give examples of
millions of objects NOT invented by humans. For
starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

Wozniak can't seem to admit that he could possibly be
wrong, even when buried by overwhelming disproof.
Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not
wisdom.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-19 19:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees.
No, I don't.
Of course he claimed
No I didn't. Or - a quoting pls, poor lying piece of shit.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for time -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
article. Point those which are parts of
nature.
Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
nature of time
Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
of time", poor idiot.
So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
article are parts of nature. Let me guess - none
of them?
gharnagel
2024-10-20 03:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees.
No, I don't.
Of course he claimed ...
Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
conivingly deleted
Post by Maciej Wozniak
... that because it's a logical deduction of what he said.
No I didn't. Or - a quoting pls, poor lying piece of shit.
Obviously, Wozniak is completely ignorant of the implications
of his erratic assertions.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for time -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
article. Point those which are parts of
nature.
Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
nature of time
Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
of time", poor idiot.
So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
profanity instead of cogent argument).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
article are parts of nature. Let me guess - none
of them?
https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/

The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
Time"

The very title has the NATURE of time in it :-))

Implying that the whole treatise is about time as nature.
Wozniak's guesses wrong, as usual. And he deletes the most
damning examples I gave that naming something doesn't mean
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars
Wozniak can't seem to admit that he could possibly be
wrong, even when buried by overwhelming disproof.
Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not
wisdom.
“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
with millions of cases that disprove his assertion. His
pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
false assertions.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-20 05:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
they usually give a name to it. One of their
abstract inventions got the name "time".
Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
that humans invented trees.
No, I don't.
Of course he claimed ...
Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
conivingly deleted
Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
of lyiong shit.
Post by gharnagel
of his erratic assertions.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for time -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
article. Point those which are parts of
nature.
Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
nature of time
Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
of time", poor idiot.
So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
profanity instead of cogent argument).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, which, precisely,  of the times mentioned in the
article are  parts of nature. Let me guess - none
of them?
https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/
The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
Time"
Teke your pseudophilosophical mumble and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic asS where it
belongs.
So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
article are parts of nature.
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
with millions of cases that disprove his assertion.  His
pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
false assertions.
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
gharnagel
2024-10-20 12:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
[All Wozniak's previous mumblings and bumblings deleted]
Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
conivingly deleted
Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
of lyiong shit.
Wozniak spits and screams. The truth hurts, eh?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
profanity instead of cogent argument).
So, which, precisely,  of the times mentioned in the
article are  parts of nature. Let me guess - none
of them?
https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/
The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
Time"
Teke your pseudophilosophical mumble and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic asS where it
belongs.
:-)) Wozniak spits and screams when his abysmal claims are
exposed for the lies they are :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
article are parts of nature.
Many places. The subject is the NATURE of time. How could
a REAL "information engineer" miss that?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
with millions of cases that disprove his assertion.  His
pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
false assertions.
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
Wozniak is the one "spitting, insulting and slandering" when
his pet assertions are proven asinine.

https://healthypsycho.com/self-reflection-the-key-to-constructive-criticism/#google_vignette

"Before pointing fingers at others, it is crucial to
examine our own actions thoughts and attitudes. Self-
reflection allows us to identify our biases, weaknesses
and areas for improvement."

We could all improve in this area, but Wozniak is way
behind the curve on this. ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
is a bit behind in this area, too.

“When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing
with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling
with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.”
― Dale Carnegie
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-20 13:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
[All Wozniak's previous mumblings and bumblings deleted]
Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
conivingly deleted
Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
of lyiong shit.
Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?
It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
relativistic shit.

So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.
You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
which is a part of nature. And your philosophical
proof that an elephant must be pink is not interesting
me, no matter how brilliant it is.

Till next time, poor trash.
gharnagel
2024-10-21 00:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?
It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
relativistic shit.
Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.
You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
Quote:
I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
by humans and named by humans. For starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented. I gave many more examples of people
naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
is NOT a human invention. The quote:

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings

is proof that the time spoken of in that quotation is
NOT a human invention, it's an observation of nature.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And your philosophical proof that an elephant must
be pink
Wozniak is telling a half lie. I never said that time
MUST NOT be a human invention. My thesis is that in
some definitions of time, it is a human invention and
in other definitions it's not.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
is not interesting me, no matter how brilliant it is.
Another Wozniak lie. If he weren't interested, he
wouldn't have wasted his time posting his B.S. :-))
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-21 06:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?
It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
relativistic shit.
Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.
So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
invented trees please.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.
You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars
None of your examples is a time, unfortunately.
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented.
Do you claim that humans don't name
things they have invented, poor trash?




, which refutes
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
No it doesn't.
It just shows that a star doesn't have
to be a human invention. Sure.
Post by gharnagel
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
As said, your philosophical proofs that
an elephant must be pink - are not
interesting me.
gharnagel
2024-10-21 11:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.
So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
invented trees please.
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented. I gave many more examples of people
naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
is NOT a human invention. The quote:

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings

is proof that the time spoken of in that quotation is
NOT a human invention, it's an observation of nature.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars
None of your examples is a time, unfortunately.
Wozniak is being deceitful again. The list is proof that
humans name things which aren't human inventions. The
quote:

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented.
is proof that time, in the case mentioned, is not a human
invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Do you claim that humans don't name
things they have invented, poor trash?
Only a really stupid person or a congenital liar would
claim that from what I've said.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
which refutes Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a
human invention.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Only a really stupid person or a congenital
liar would claim that from what I've said.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It just shows that a star doesn't have
to be a human invention. Sure.
"doesn't HAVE to be"? So now Wozzie is claiming that
some stars ARE human inventions? What a fool!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
is NOT a human invention.  The quote: ....
Dishonest fool Wozzie-fool deletes the quote so he can
cover his stupidity. He's "crafty and mean. But not
creative, not truly intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As said, your philosophical proofs that an elephant must
be pink - are not interesting me.
Then stop answering my posts. He has proven once again
that he is a FOOL and a liar.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-21 13:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.
So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
invented trees please.
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
I've still provided about 20 (and, after adding
24 zone times - about 40) examples of times which
are human invention. You've provided no example
of the opposite.
See, poor trash - you admit yourself, you don't
know much about time, and amongst things
you don't know about it - is - what it is.
Post by gharnagel
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
is NOT a human invention.  T
You could as well show that in philosophy
elephants are pink; who cares.

Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
your mystical time bullshit is similar. Nothing
like that ever existed in the reality. There
are only entities like UTC, TAI, zone times.
All are human invented, all have nothing in
common with nature.
And all are observer independent.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-10-22 03:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Wozniak: I think that time is experienced and recognized by animals
because they compare rates of change, and the bear in Alaska anticipates
the salmon run at the time of year it experienced it before. Some
flowers bloom on the same day at the same length every year. So, time is
an abstraction with different human conventions. Since it is a
comparison of rates of change, it helps to have one standard of
reference. Since that is an abstraction, to vary it would be a
reification fallacy, like changing the meter. An excellent book on time
is "Primitive Time Reckoning" by Martin Nilsson, a famous scholar who
wrote it while Europe was waging WWI.
gharnagel
2024-10-22 11:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
I've still provided about 20 (and, after adding
24 zone times - about 40) examples of times which
are human invention. You've provided no example
of the opposite.
Lying so-called "information engineer" Wozniak deletes
the INFORMATION that he's wrong:

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings

The only "engineering that Wozniak does is engineer
his disinformation.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor trash - you admit yourself, you don't
know much about time, and amongst things
you don't know about it - is - what it is.
I know that time can be a human invention AND a
product of nature, which is twice as much as Wozniak
knows.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
is NOT a human invention.  T
You could as well show that in philosophy
elephants are pink; who cares.
Wozniak cares, or he wouldn't keep posting disinformation.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
your mystical time bullshit is similar.
Wozniak's disinforming again. The "rigid rod" is like
a map: They're both useful simplistic models to consider
deeper problems, like: What are the consequences of a
universal speed that is the same for all observers? One
example: even if a rod were perfectly rigid, it would
appear to be shorter when moving.

Wozniak is so stupid, he doesn't understand that ALL
human thinking is a form of imagination. As babies
grow, they develop ideas about the world, which change
as they mature. Unfortunately, some people like Wozniak
get calcified in their thinking and stop growing. And
they have the audacity to call themselves "information
engineers" :-))

They're not, they're disinformation manipulators.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nothing like that ever existed in the reality. There
are only entities like UTC, TAI, zone times.
All are human invented, all have nothing in
common with nature.
So humans created time so everything doesn't happen at
once? Stupid, stupid Wozniak. If this is how Wozniak
thinks:

“Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And all are observer independent.
Baloney! Observers are human inventions and human
inventions can be redefined, so they definitely aren't
"observer independent." What a pile of poop Wozniak is
spreading now.

“Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.”
– Friedrich Schiller
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-22 15:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
invention and he claimed that people name things that
they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
I've still provided about 20 (and, after adding
24 zone times - about 40) examples of times which
are human invention. You've provided no example
of the opposite.
Lying so-called "information engineer" Wozniak deletes
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings
An assertion as worthless as meaningless.
Typical for the knights of The Shit, of
course.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor trash - you admit yourself, you don't
know much about time, and amongst things
you don't know about it -  is - what it is.
I know that time can be a human invention AND a
product of nature
Real elephants are grey, gedanken/fabricated
elephants can easily be pink.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
your mystical time bullshit is similar.
Wozniak's disinforming again.  The "rigid rod" is like
a map:  They're both useful simplistic models to consider
deeper problems
So was your gedanken time - when it was
similar to real ones, i.e. before your
idiot guru revolutionized it.
Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid
rod".


, like: What are the consequences of a
Post by gharnagel
universal speed that is the same for all observers? One
example: even if a rod were perfectly rigid, it would
appear to be shorter when moving.
Wozniak is so stupid, he doesn't understand that ALL
human thinking is a form of imagination.
It's not me, it's you deeply believing that
The Shit of your idiot guru was something
Nature Herself was singing to him.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nothing like that ever existed in the reality. There
are only entities like UTC, TAI, zone times.
All are human invented, all have nothing in
common with nature.
So humans created time so everything doesn't happen at
once?
So.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And all are observer independent.
Baloney!  Observers are human inventions and human
inventions can be redefined
They can be. It's just not as easy as Orwell
thought and The Shit's doggies didn't succeed;
not that they didn't try hard, of course.



, so they definitely aren't
Post by gharnagel
"observer independent."
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
gharnagel
2024-10-23 03:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've still provided about 20 (and, after adding
24 zone times - about 40) examples of times which
are human invention. You've provided no example
of the opposite.
Lying so-called "information engineer" Wozniak deletes
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
-- Ray Cummings
An assertion as worthless as meaningless.
Typical for the knights of The Shit, of
course.
Only a disinformation manipulator would make such an
outrageous baloney-filled claim.

Does everything happen at once? No, it doesn't. Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once? No, it didn't. Did humans invent time so
everything doesn't happen at once? No, they didn't.

Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion is refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor trash - you admit yourself, you don't
know much about time, and amongst things
you don't know about it -  is - what it is.
I know that time can be a human invention AND a
product of nature[, which is twice as much as
Wozniak knows.]
Real elephants are grey, gedanken/fabricated
elephants can easily be pink.
So Wozniak sees pink elephants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink_elephants

"'Seeing pink elephants' is a euphemism for hallucinations
caused by delirium tremens or alcoholic hallucinosis,
especially the former."

Wozniak needs to lay off the booze.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
your mystical time bullshit is similar.
Wozniak's disinforming again.  The "rigid rod" is like
a map:  They're both useful simplistic models to consider
deeper problems
So was your gedanken time - when it was
similar to real ones, i.e. before your
idiot guru revolutionized it.
Irrelevant baloney intended to misdirect and obfuscate.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid
rod".
More irrelevant bool poop. Much of Wozniak's beloved
"information" that he fondles doesn't exist, either.
Apparently, he doesn't believe in maps since they're
not the territory.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
like: What are the consequences of a universal speed
that is the same for all observers? One example: even
if a rod were perfectly rigid, it would appear to be
shorter when moving.
Wozniak is so stupid, he doesn't understand that ALL
human thinking is a form of imagination. As babies
grow, they develop ideas about the world, which change
as they mature. Unfortunately, some people like Wozniak
get calcified in their thinking and stop growing. And
they have the audacity to call themselves "information
engineers" :-))
They're not, they're disinformation manipulators.
It's not me, it's you deeply believing that
The Shit of your idiot guru was something
Nature Herself was singing to him.
Wozniak is lying and obfuscating in a sorry attempt to
misdirect the discussion. The question of whether time
is a human invention has NOTHING to do with relativity.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nothing like that ever existed in the reality. There
are only entities like UTC, TAI, zone times.
All are human invented, all have nothing in
common with nature.
So humans created time so everything doesn't happen at
once?
So.
So Wozniak is wrong that time is ONLY a human invention.
Apparently, he's seeing too many pink elephants to draw
an obvious conclusion.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And all are observer independent.
Baloney!  Observers are human inventions and human
inventions can be redefined
They can be. It's just not as easy as Orwell
thought and The Shit's doggies didn't succeed;
not that they didn't try hard, of course.
Wozniak is full of merde. The question of time is MUCH
older that relativity, as much as his prejudices force
him to twist all discussions into that casting.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
so they definitely aren't "observer independent."
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
More attempts to redefine the discussion about relativity.
Complete bull merde (pardon my French).

More proof that Wozniak's assertion is false:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-time-20240229/

Yes, what is the NATURE of time?

https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031022

"Autonomous Quantum Clocks: Does Thermodynamics Limit Our Ability
to Measure Time?"

"our autonomous quantum clock consists of a system out of thermal
equilibrium—a prerequisite for any system to function as a clock—
powered by minimal resources, namely, two thermal baths at different
temperatures. Through a detailed analysis of this specific clock
model, we find that the laws of thermodynamics dictate a trade-off
between the amount of dissipated heat and the clock’s performance
in terms of its accuracy and resolution."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-science-of-clocks-prompts-questions-about-the-nature-of-time-20210831/

"They found that an ideal clock — one that ticks with perfect
periodicity — would burn an infinite amount of energy and produce
infinite entropy, which isn’t possible. Thus, the accuracy of
clocks is fundamentally limited."

Hence, NO real clock can measure the thing called time with
unlimited accuracy. IOW, although clocks may be human inventions,
this thing called time is not.

And since NO clock can measure time with complete accuracy, we
are free to choose natural clocks with lower accuracy, such as
the rotation of the earth, its trip around its yearly orbit,
the half-life of a radioactive nucleus, or any number of natural
processes.

Not all clocks are human inventions and time is NOT what clocks
measure anyway since no clock can measure time with complete
accuracy.

Wozniak is spreading bool merde, as usual.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-23 05:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Does everything happen at once?  No, it doesn't.  Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once?  No, it didn't.
Sure, sure - time(i.e. "what clocks indicate")
had nothing in common with that.
"'Seeing pink elephants' is a euphemism for hallucinations
caused by delirium tremens or alcoholic hallucinosis,
especially the former."
Wozniak needs to lay off the booze.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that
damages their reputation, or the making of
such a statement.

BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
I was a bit mistaken about real elephants never
pink. Time - part of nature is rather like
purple elephants.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
your mystical time bullshit is similar.
Wozniak's disinforming again.  The "rigid rod" is like
a map:  They're both useful simplistic models to consider
deeper problems
So was your gedanken time - when it was
similar to real ones, i.e. before your
idiot guru revolutionized it.
Irrelevant baloney intended to misdirect and obfuscate.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid
rod".
More irrelevant bool poop.  Much of Wozniak's beloved
"information" that he fondles doesn't exist, either.
Apparently, he doesn't believe in maps
What is apparent to an utter relativistic idiot doesn't
matter.
Wozniak is lying and obfuscating in a sorry attempt to
misdirect the discussion.  The question of whether time
is a human invention has NOTHING to do with relativity.
An assertion is no way an argument, poor
trash.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nothing like that ever existed in the reality. There
are only entities like UTC, TAI, zone times.
All are human invented, all have nothing in
common with nature.
So humans created time so everything doesn't happen at
once?
So.
So Wozniak is wrong that time is ONLY a human invention.
Nope. Harnagel is wrong that it isn't. He admits
himself - he doesn't know much about the subject -
but being a DK idiot he still acts as if he knew
everything.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
They can be. It's just not as easy as Orwell
thought and The Shit's doggies didn't succeed;
not that they didn't try hard, of course.
Wozniak is full of merde.  The question of time is MUCH
older that relativity
And so is the mistake of your moronic church
of physics.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
More attempts to redefine the discussion about relativity.
Complete bull merde (pardon my French).
Just pointing some properties of a real time.
gharnagel
2024-10-23 12:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Does everything happen at once?  No, it doesn't.  Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once?  No, it didn't.
Sure, sure - time(i.e. "what clocks indicate")
had nothing in common with that.
Dishonest Wozniak dis-invented the rest :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Did humans invent time so everything doesn't
happen at once? No, they didn't.
Which refutes Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion
that time is strictly a human invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
"'Seeing pink elephants' is a euphemism for hallucinations
caused by delirium tremens or alcoholic hallucinosis,
especially the former."
Wozniak needs to lay off the booze.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that
damages their reputation, or the making of
such a statement.
Wolowitz has no proof that it's slander.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
I was a bit mistaken about real elephants never
pink. Time - part of nature is rather like
purple elephants.
Of course there are no pink elephants. They only exist
in Willowwisp's besotted imagination :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid rod".
More irrelevant bool poop.  Much of Wozniak's beloved
"information" that he fondles doesn't exist, either.
Apparently, he doesn't believe in maps
What is apparent to an utter relativistic idiot doesn't
matter.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wimponiak is lying and obfuscating
in a sorry attempt to misdirect the discussion.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
An assertion is no way an argument,
Which is all Wallowniak has: an assertion, and a refuted
one at that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor trash.
Wosnistink signs his name again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So Wozniak is wrong that time is ONLY a human invention.
Nope. Harnagel is wrong that it isn't. He admits
himself - he doesn't know much about the subject -
but being a DK idiot he still acts as if he knew
everything.
:-))

Does everything happen at once? No, it doesn't. Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once? No, it didn't. Did humans invent time so
everything doesn't happen at once? No, they didn't.

Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion is refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Wozniak is full of merde.  The question of time is MUCH
older that relativity
And so is the mistake of your moronic church
of physics.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wimponiak is lying and obfuscating
in a sorry attempt to misdirect the discussion.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
More attempts to redefine the discussion about relativity.
Complete bull merde (pardon my French).
Just pointing some properties of a real time.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wozniliar is obfuscating in a sorry
attempt to misdirect the discussion. He does this because
he can't refute the fact that time has a natural existence.

Stupid, ignorant dishonest Woznichicken can't face the
arguments presented in honest treatises so he pretends
they don't exist. But they do, and they are here again
to be stuffed down Wozzidissembler's lying mouth:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-time-20240229/

Yes, what is the NATURE of time?

https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031022

"Autonomous Quantum Clocks: Does Thermodynamics Limit Our Ability
to Measure Time?"

"our autonomous quantum clock consists of a system out of thermal
equilibrium—a prerequisite for any system to function as a clock—
powered by minimal resources, namely, two thermal baths at different
temperatures. Through a detailed analysis of this specific clock
model, we find that the laws of thermodynamics dictate a trade-off
between the amount of dissipated heat and the clock’s performance
in terms of its accuracy and resolution."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-science-of-clocks-prompts-questions-about-the-nature-of-time-20210831/

"They found that an ideal clock — one that ticks with perfect
periodicity — would burn an infinite amount of energy and produce
infinite entropy, which isn’t possible. Thus, the accuracy of
clocks is fundamentally limited."

Hence, NO real clock can measure the thing called time with
unlimited accuracy. IOW, although clocks may be human inventions,
this thing called time is not.

And since NO clock can measure time with complete accuracy, we
are free to choose natural clocks with lower accuracy, such as
the rotation of the earth, its trip around its yearly orbit,
the half-life of a radioactive nucleus, or any number of natural
processes.

Not all clocks are human inventions and time is NOT what clocks
measure anyway since no clock can measure time with complete
accuracy.

Wozniak won't acknowledge REAL information because he is a
disinformation manipulator: he is "crafty and mean. But not
creative, not truly intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-23 13:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Does everything happen at once?  No, it doesn't.  Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once?  No, it didn't.
Sure, sure - time(i.e. "what clocks indicate")
had nothing in common with that.
Dishonest Wozniak dis-invented the rest :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Did humans invent time so everything doesn't
happen at once?  No, they didn't.
Which refutes Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion
that time is strictly a human invention.
Nope. It just shows that time has nothing
in common with that.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Wozniak needs to lay off the booze.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that
damages their reputation, or the making of
such a statement.
Wolowitz has no proof that it's slander.
Why would I need it a proof, poor trash?
Am I a prosecutor?
Without proof it is still a slander. What
was that Socrates was saying about a slander?
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
I was a bit mistaken about real elephants never
pink. Time - part of nature is rather like
purple elephants.
Of course there are no pink elephants.  They only exist
in Willowwisp's besotted imagination :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
Not quite.

But still, for sure there is no time in nature.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
What is apparent to an utter relativistic idiot doesn't
matter.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity.
An assertion of an utter relativistic idiot
(being simultaneously a piece of lying shit,
BTW) is no way an argument.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nope. Harnagel is wrong that it isn't. He admits
himself - he doesn't know much about the subject -
but being a DK idiot he still acts as if he knew
everything.
:-))
Does everything happen at once?  No, it doesn't.  Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once?  No, it didn't.  Did humans invent time so
everything doesn't happen at once?  No, they didn't.
Conclusion: time has little in common with things
not happening at once.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
More attempts to redefine the discussion about relativity.
Complete bull merde (pardon my French).
Just pointing some properties of a real time.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity.
Somehow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
none of the real times mentioned there
dilates.
See, poor trash, as a human invention time
and clocks are obeying common sense. Not
the nature. Nor some religious maniacs
self-appointed to speak in the name of
the nature.
You may gedanke a dilating time and clocks
indicating it - sure. Or you may gedanke
purple elephants; similar bullshit.
gharnagel
2024-10-23 13:23:47 UTC
Permalink
[Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]
Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
on relativity. He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
and mean. But not creative, not truly intelligent."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-23 13:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
[Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]
Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
gharnagel
2024-10-23 14:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
[Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]
Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
See? Wozniak the dissembler can't make a cogent rebuttal
against the fact that time is a natural phenomenon, so he
does exactly what I said: he tries to twist the discussion
into a diatribe on relativity. Furthermore, his "proof"
against relativity has been completely refuted.

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
-- Winston Churchill

Wozniak's malice has attacked the truth, and failed. His
ignorance is incapable of logical rebuttal, and the facts
that time is a natural phenomenon and relativity is a
valid model of the world in its domain of applicability
are true ... and there they are.

An "information engineer" is the least of the professions,
it comes below even the oldest profession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_profession_(phrase)

Information is NOT knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-23 15:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
[Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]
Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
See?  Wozniak the dissembler can't make a cogent rebuttal
against the fact that time is a natural phenomenon,
I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
times which are not a part of nature. You've
provided no example of a purple elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
You even admit yourself - you know little
about the subject. But, being a DK idiot -
you still act as if you knew everything.
gharnagel
2024-10-24 14:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
times which are not a part of nature. You've
provided no example of a purple elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
Ah, but I have. Wozniak can try to hide it but
there it is.

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
-- Winston Churchill

Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
which does not refute other possible definitions. Words
often have more than one definition and this is true
of the word "time." The dictionary presents several:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time

Our attempts to measure time (clocks) are what Wozniak
is talking about:

"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"

But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
is something else, which is also referred to as time.
Clocks are analogous to maps, and as maps are not the
territory, clocks are not this:

"b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of
events which succeed one another from past through present
to future"

which is not a human invention, as evidenced by our not
being able to fully understand it.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-time-20240229/
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You even admit yourself - you know little
about the subject.
Of course, only stupid or arrogant people think they're smart.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and
you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.” -- Richard P. Feynman
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But, being a DK idiot
“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.
[…] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly
the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”
—David Dunning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Wozniak has demonstrated no competency in any of his posts,
so he shouldn't be casting stones. We have Merriam-Webster
above which shows that Wozniak's definition of time is not
unique.

Wozniak claimed 40 examples of his definition. If he wanted
to make it a pissing match, how many dictionaries are there
in the world? More than 40? :-))

- you still act as if you knew everything.

“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-24 15:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
times which are not a part of nature. You've
provided no example of a purple elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
Ah, but I have.
Nope. You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.
as expected from a good relativistic doggie.
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
which does not refute other possible definitions.
Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
elephant - he can always define an orchid
as one.
gharnagel
2024-10-24 19:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
times which are not a part of nature. You've
provided no example of a purple elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
Ah, but I have.
Nope.
Always-Wrong Wozniak is wrong again!

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
space, none of which are human inventions.

Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.
Wozniak is projecting his own behavior since he ASSerts
incorrectly that time can only be a human invention when,
in fact, humans do not create time: they only attempt to
measure it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
as expected from a good relativistic doggie.
:-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
which does not refute other possible definitions.
Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
elephant - he can always define an orchid
as one.
https://www.thepurpleelephantny.com/

I embrace purple elephants:

https://edenbengals.com/what-does-a-purple-elephant-symbolize/

"a purple elephant symbolizes the achievement of something
that is both impossible and fantastical. It represents the
pursuit of something that may seem unattainable, yet is worth
striving for. It is a reminder to think outside the box and
to embrace creativity and imagination in all aspects of life."

Wow! How did Wozniak manage to know me so well? Surely, he
must be a GENIUS!
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-24 21:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
times which are not a part of nature. You've
provided no example of a purple elephant/time
which is a part of nature.
Ah, but I have.
Nope.
Always-Wrong Wozniak is wrong again!
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"
So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
space, none of which are human inventions.
Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me, poor
trash. I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown
me none.

Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
some things from happening at once... Am I
your example of a time?

But I'm not quite a part of nature too.
Post by gharnagel
Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.
“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.
Wozniak is projecting his own
I'm not the one lying about my opponents
alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
as expected from a good relativistic doggie.
:-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
which does not refute other possible definitions.
Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
elephant - he can always define an orchid
as one.
https://www.thepurpleelephantny.com/
https://edenbengals.com/what-does-a-purple-elephant-symbolize/
"a purple elephant symbolizes the achievement of something
that is both impossible and fantastical.
Exactly, harrie. Just like a time being a part
of nature.
Still - it's as I said: if you need a purple
elephant badly - you can always define
an orchid as one; wouldn't be much stupider
than the definitions you're presenting.
gharnagel
2024-10-25 13:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."
Events may human OR natural happening. The word "time" has many
definitions: sometimes it means what clocks read, sometimes it
means "a nonspatial continuum" (i.e., part of nature), sometimes
it means a natural "irreversible succession from the past through
the present to the future."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."
"Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the
Truth.” -- Buddha
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"
Time is measured but not invented by humans.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
space, none of which are human inventions.
Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me,
He wouldn't be posting if he weren't "interested." Wozniak is
lying again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor trash.
All he does is spits, lies and slanders .. and blames others
for what he does.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown me none.
At least this time he didn't delete actual dictionary entries
that completely refute his ridiculous ASSertion. How strange
that a so-called "information engineer" would reject information
from multiple dictionaries. Actually, not so strange if one
considers the source: a sociopathic congenital liar who is in
denial of reality.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
some things from happening at once... Am I
your example of a time?
Wozniak can't prevent anything important from happening,
like the truth.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But I'm not quite a part of nature too.
Of course he is. Animals are part of nature and Wozniak
is an animal. He is part of nature and he could create
human inventions -- but he doesn't because he's not smart
enough: he's

"crafty and mean. But not creative, not truly intelligent."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.
“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
I'm not the one lying about my opponents
alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.
Wozniak thinks hypothesizing is lying? Since he's shown such
interest in pink elephants, it's a possibility that he has
delerium tremens. And since he has now switched to purple
elephants it's also possible that he's hooked on mary jane:

https://www.allbud.com/marijuana-strains/hybrid/purple-elephant

These possibilities explain a lot about his psychotic behavior.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still - it's as I said: if you need a purple
elephant badly - you can always define
an orchid as one;
Or marijuana :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
wouldn't be much stupider than the definitions you're
presenting.
Wozniak is in denial of multiple dictionaries :-))

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you
tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

“Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.”
– Friedrich Schiller

“By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, [Wozniak] keeps
us in touch with the [stupidity] of the community.”
-- Oscar Wilde
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-25 13:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."
Events may human OR natural happening.  The word "time" has many
definitions: sometimes it means what clocks read, sometimes it
means "a nonspatial continuum" (i.e., part of nature), sometimes
it means a natural "irreversible succession from the past through
the present to the future."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."
"Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the
Truth.” -- Buddha
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"
Time is measured but not invented by humans.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
space, none of which are human inventions.
Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me,
He wouldn't be posting if he weren't "interested."  Wozniak is
lying again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor trash.
All he does is spits, lies and slanders .. and blames others
for what he does.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown me none.
At least this time he didn't delete actual dictionary entries
that completely refute his ridiculous ASSertion.
You can find many entries in a dictionary
which describe things tat don't really exist.
There are gods and cyclops and minotaurs...
Even such an idiot should understand that -
but somehow he doesn't.


Actually, not so strange if one
considers the source: a sociopathic congenital liar who is in
denial of reality.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
some things from happening at once... Am I
your example of a time?
Wozniak can't prevent anything important from happening,
Your "definition differently" was not implying
things prevented from happening at once must be
important.
Of course he is.  Animals are part of nature and Wozniak
is an animal.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nature
See, poor trash - "independently of people" required.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I'm not the one lying about my opponents
alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.
Wozniak thinks hypothesizing is lying?
No, but I think lying is lying, poor lying
piece of shit.
gharnagel
2024-10-25 14:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No, but I think lying is lying,
Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor lying piece of shit.
And he's an expert not only on lying but on spitting and
slandering since he does those all the TIME, too :-))
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-25 14:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No, but I think lying is lying,
Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.
It's not me lying about alleged booze
of my opponents. Sorry, poor lying piece
of shit.
Of course, that's what your moronic church
is training doggies like you for.
gharnagel
2024-10-25 23:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.
It's not me lying about alleged booze
of my opponents.
When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
swallows camels. The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
of valid dictionary definitions:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
drug addiction. I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
purple elephants, HE was.

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often
a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to
scold someone, point out what they have done wrong. But each
time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at
ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

Wozniak has zero sense of humor. He must be a liberal.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Sorry, poor lying piece of shit.
And now he displays his coprophilia obsession.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/coprophilia
"Coprophilia is the condition of desire for sexual gratification
and sexual arousal derived from the smell, taste, or sight of
feces or from the act of defecation."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Of course, that's what your moronic church
is training doggies like you for.
And then there's his monomania about relativity. Every time he
posts his disgusting nonsense, he digs himself deeper and
deeper into his obsessive-compulsive derangements :-))
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-26 06:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.
It's not me lying about alleged booze
of my opponents.
When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
swallows camels.  The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."
Can have alef0 of very different interpretations,
and none of these interpretations is going to be
a part of nature.
Post by gharnagel
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."
Meaningless.
Post by gharnagel
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"
How did it happen that they didn't mention Cs
radiation periods here?
Post by gharnagel
Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
drug addiction.  I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
purple elephants, HE was.
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
poor little piece of lying shit.
gharnagel
2024-10-27 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.
It's not me lying about alleged booze
of my opponents.
See? Absolutely no sense of humor :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
swallows camels.  The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
"a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
irreversible succession from the past through the present to
the future."
Can have alef0 of very different interpretations,
and none of these interpretations is going to be
a part of nature.
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
"Time is the movement from past to present to future."
Meaningless.
On to a self-proclaimed "information engineer" who denies
valid information and has never engineered anything.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
"the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"
How did it happen that they didn't mention Cs
radiation periods here?
Irrelevant bovine merde. "existence: the fact or state of
living or having objective reality."

Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
the existence of time. Most clocks are a human invention but
what clocks are attempting to measure is not. Anyone with a
brain that has existed for 18 years in the world's culture
would understand this. Unfortunately, Wozniak has spent his
time in inebriation of one kind or another.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
drug addiction.  I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
purple elephants, HE was.
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple elephants.
I just pointed out the meanings of them. As usual, Wozniak has
hoisted himself on his own petard but refuses to take responsibility
for his own behavior.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor little piece of lying shit.
And with his obsessive-compulsive disorder, he wallows in his
psychopathic coprophilia :-)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-27 07:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
directly - Harnagel finally got it.
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
the existence of time.  Most clocks are a human invention but
what clocks are attempting to measure is not.
Harnagel is repeating this absurd assertion
again and again, hoping that his spitting
and slandering the opponent will make it true
without any arguments.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple elephants.
But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged
booze. What was Socrates saying about a slander,
poor little lying piece of shit?
gharnagel
2024-10-28 02:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
directly - Harnagel finally got it.
Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
ridiculous. Apparently, he is too soused to see the :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
the existence of time.  Most clocks are a human invention but
what clocks are attempting to measure is not.
Harnagel is repeating this absurd assertion
again and again,
Unfortunately, truth has to be repeated continually to some
irrational souls.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
hoping that his spitting and slandering the opponent will
make it true without any arguments.
Poor, poor Woznaik, he is just such an abused soul :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
elephants.
But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.
BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple
elephants. Seeing pink elephants is a synonymous way of
saying delirium tremens, so it is logical to assume that
he is experiencing them. After I pointed this out to him
he switched to purple elephants, which is a form of ....
marijuana. As they say, out of the frying pan and into
the fire :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
What was Socrates saying
"Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom."

Unfortunately, Wozniak is unaware of his ignorance.

"Ignoramus is a noun that means an utterly ignorant person
or a dunce."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
about a slander,
Slander? "Slander refers to defamatory statements made
verbally" -- which I have not done.

His screaming "slander" is, actually, libel :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor little lying piece of shit?
Ah, poor, poor Wozniak sinking again into his coprophilia :-(

"intense interest and pleasure in feces and defecation,
especially as a source of sexual arousal"

Wozniak is such a mental basket case that is makes no sense
for him to try to save his nonexistent "reputation"
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 07:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
directly - Harnagel finally got it.
Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
ridiculous.
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are obviously a human invention. You've presented
no example of the opposite.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
elephants.
But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.
BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple
Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
known that.
gharnagel
2024-10-28 12:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
directly - Harnagel finally got it.
Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
ridiculous.
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant. It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion that time is a human invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You've presented no example of the opposite.
Hmmm. I've presented several examples that refute Wozniak's
bizarre assertion. Either he is lying or his memory is in
terrible shape, possibly due to addiction. To jog what's
left of his memory, here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------
Words often have more than one definition and this is true
of the word "time." The dictionary presents several:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time

Our attempts to measure time (clocks) are what Wozniak
is talking about:

"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"

But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
is something else, which is also referred to as time.
Clocks are analogous to maps, and as maps are not the
territory, clocks are not this:

"b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of
events which succeed one another from past through present
to future"

which is not a human invention, as evidenced by our not
being able to fully understand it.
----------------------------------------------------------
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
elephants.
But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.
BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple
Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
known that.
:-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of "slander"
even after having it explained to him. This does indeed
imply that he may be guilty of substance abuse.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 15:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
directly - Harnagel finally got it.
Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
ridiculous.
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are  obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant.  It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion
And providing 40 I surely did an overkill
of your babbling of time being a part of
nature and dilating.


that time is a human invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You've presented no example of the opposite.
Hmmm.  I've presented several examples that refute Wozniak's
No, you've presented none.
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"
Well, 40 of mine examples fit here, you've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
No, it is just an evidence that poor idiot Harrie
replaces logic with wild assertions.
"b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of
events which succeed one another from past through present
to future"
Well, from 40 of mine examples not every one fits
here (UTC and zone times are almoust continous, but
not quite) but many do. You've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
known that.
:-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of "slander"
Asserting about someone's booze with no
other reason but disliking him - absolutely
is.
gharnagel
2024-10-28 17:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are  obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant.  It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion
And providing 40 I surely did an overkill
of your babbling of time being a part of
nature and dilating.
I said nothing about dilating. Wozniak keeps
trying to insert relativity into a topic that
has nothing to do with relativity. This is
what one does when he realizes his assertion
has been refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
that time is a human invention.
But not always.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
You've presented no example of the opposite.
Hmmm.  I've presented several examples that refute
Wozniak's
No, you've presented none.
Hmmm. Delusional oppositonal defiant disorder, too.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"
Well, 40 of mine examples fit here, you've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
A "measurable period" does not prove that the "period"
is a human invention. Wozniak is grasping at straws.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
No, it is just an evidence that poor idiot Harrie
replaces logic with wild assertions.
Pot, kettle, black :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
is something else, which is also referred to as time.
Clocks are analogous to maps, and as maps are not the
"b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of
events which succeed one another from past through present
to future"
Well, from 40 of mine examples not every one fits
here (UTC and zone times are almoust continous, but
not quite) but many do. You've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
So Wozniak that "time is a nonspatial continuum" means
that humans created time and space.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
known that.
:-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of
"slander"
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Asserting about someone's booze with no
other reason but disliking him - absolutely
is.
Woznial insists on being dead wrong even when he's proven
dead wrong:

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

It's called arrogance and egotism. Poor travelers with one
suffering from so many psychological problems :-(

Anyway, I don't dislike Wozniak, but I do dislike
disinformation, we he spouts continually. Which is
strange coming from a self-proclaimed "information engineer"

I'm a bit lazy, but people who post in this group make me
review my beliefs. Sometimes, after considerable study, I
find their assertions have merit and I grow in understanding.
Even if they're wrong, I strengthen the beliefs I hold. This
has happened many times here. Unfortunately, many here aren't
growing at all, they're just rehashing claims they've been
making for many, many years but have been refuted over and over
again.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-28 18:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are  obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant.  It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion
And providing 40 I surely did an overkill
of your babbling of time being a part of
nature and dilating.
I said nothing about dilating.
Really? Didn't you say that time is dilating?
Well, isn't it, poor trash?
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak keeps> trying to insert relativity into a topic that
has nothing to do with relativity.
Even amongst many idiocies you said in this and
other threads - this one is rather amazing.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"
Well, 40 of mine examples fit here, you've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
A "measurable period" does not prove that the "period"
is a human invention.  Wozniak is grasping at straws.
Well, if it's an outcome of a human invented
procedure... anyway, you may use any of the times
- human inventions here and it's going to fit.
How did you imagine that it's describing
something that isn't a human invention?
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, from 40 of mine examples not every one fits
here (UTC and zone times are almoust continous, but
not quite) but many do. You've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
So Wozniak that "time is a nonspatial continuum" means
that humans created time and space.
They created at least 40 different times and a lot
more of different spaces.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Asserting about someone's booze with no
other reason but disliking him - absolutely
is.
Woznial insists on being dead wrong even when he's proven
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
That's what The Shit's doggies are trained
for.
gharnagel
2024-10-29 12:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are  obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant.  It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion
And providing 40 I surely did an overkill
of your babbling of time being a part of
nature and dilating.
I said nothing about dilating.
Really? Didn't you say that time is dilating?
Not in this discussion, which has NOTHING to do with relativity.
Wozniak is trying to change the subject because he knows that
his assertion that time purely a human invention has been refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, isn't it, poor trash?
See? He is "crafty and mean. But not creative, not truly
intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak keeps trying to insert relativity into a topic that
has nothing to do with relativity.
Even amongst many idiocies you said in this and
other threads - this one is rather amazing.
Wozniak keeps trying to deflect from the fact that his
vacuous assertion has been refuted. He tries to create
an argument merely for the sake of argument. He's getting
to be soporifically boring.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"
Well, 40 of mine examples fit here, you've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
A "measurable period" does not prove that the "period"
is a human invention.  Wozniak is grasping at straws.
Well, if it's an outcome of a human invented procedure...
It's not. It's an observation of nature.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
anyway, you may use any of the times
- human inventions here and it's going to fit.
It doesn't "fit." Wozniak is being deceitful.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
How did you imagine that it's describing
something that isn't a human invention?
How does Wozniak think (and I use that word very loosely
in his case) that a period of time (like, the period of
time from sunrise to sunset) is a human invention and
not a natural process?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, from 40 of mine examples not every one fits
here (UTC and zone times are almoust continous, but
not quite) but many do. You've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
So Wozniak that "time is a nonspatial continuum" means
that humans created time and space.
They created at least 40 different times and a lot
more of different spaces.
They didn't create time and space. Wozniak's assertion
is refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Asserting about someone's booze with no
other reason but disliking him - absolutely
is.
Woznial insists on being dead wrong even when he's proven
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
words and behavior. If he doesn't like it, he can always
change.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's what The Shit's doggies are trained
for.
My, my! Coprophilia again. His brain is really messed up.
He must be a very lonely, needy soul, trying to hang onto a
dead, refuted claim so someone will acknowledge his existence.
Well, this is getting very boring. Wozniak's continually
spouts baloney so it's time for him to go pound sand.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-29 15:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
are  obviously a human invention.
Irrelevant.  It takes only ONE valid example to the contrary
to refute the assertion
And providing 40 I surely did an overkill
of your babbling of time being a part of
nature and dilating.
I said nothing about dilating.
Really? Didn't you say that time is dilating?
Not in this discussion
Sure; I did an overkil to your babble from
this discussion and your babble from other
discussions.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Even amongst many idiocies you said in this and
other threads - this one is rather amazing.
Wozniak keeps trying to deflect from the fact that his
vacuous assertion has been refuted
Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
and slandering piece of fanatic shit.





.  He tries to create
Post by gharnagel
an argument merely for the sake of argument.  He's getting
to be soporifically boring.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an
action, process, or condition exists or continues"
Well, 40 of mine examples fit here, you've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
A "measurable period" does not prove that the "period"
is a human invention.  Wozniak is grasping at straws.
Well, if  it's an outcome of a human invented procedure...
It's not.
Really? Isn't a measurement result of a
measurement procedure? Are you sure,
Harrie, poor trash?




It's an observation of nature.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
anyway, you may use any of the times
- human inventions here and it's going to fit.
It doesn't "fit."  Wozniak is being deceitful.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
How did you imagine that it's describing
something that isn't a human invention?
How does Wozniak think (and I use that word very loosely
in his case) that a period of time (like, the period of
time from sunrise to sunset) is a human invention and> not a natural process?
How do I think a period is not a process?
Well, i know the meaning of both words.
Maybe you should learn them too?
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, from 40 of mine examples not every one fits
here (UTC and zone times are almoust continous, but
not quite) but many do. You've presented
no example fitting and being a part of nature.
So Wozniak that "time is a nonspatial continuum" means
that humans created time and space.
They created at least 40 different times and a lot
more of different spaces.
They didn't create time and space.
They did create more than 40 times and many more spaces.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
Nope. What yoiu said is an obvious, wild,
baseless slander; that's what The Shit is
training its doggies for, of course.
gharnagel
2024-10-30 13:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Really? Didn't you say that time is dilating?
Not in this discussion
Sure; I did an overkil to your babble from
this discussion and your babble from other
discussions.
Word salad.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Even amongst many idiocies you said in this and
other threads - this one is rather amazing.
Wozniak keeps trying to deflect from the fact that his
vacuous assertion has been refuted
Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
and slandering piece of fanatic shit.
My, my! Still no slander here since I've never spoken a
word about Wozniak. And coprophilia again in the same
sentence. His brain is really messed up.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
He tries to create an argument merely for the sake of
argument.  He's getting to be soporifically boring.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, if  it's an outcome of a human invented procedure...
It's not.
Really? Isn't a measurement result of a
measurement procedure? Are you sure,
A measurement is done by humans. Wozniak deceitfully ignores
WHAT is being measured. Distance is a measurement of space.
Humans didn't create space, and humans invented clocks to measure
time, which in this context is not a human invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Harrie, poor trash?
Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
anyway, you may use any of the times
- human inventions here and it's going to fit.
It doesn't "fit."  Wozniak is being deceitful.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
How did you imagine that it's describing
something that isn't a human invention?
How does Wozniak think (and I use that word very loosely
in his case) that a period of time (like, the period of
time from sunrise to sunset) is a human invention and not
a natural process?
How do I think a period is not a process?
Well, i know the meaning of both words.
Maybe you should learn them too?
Maybe Wozniak should stop twisting words. It only shows his
complete lack of honesty.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
They created at least 40 different times and a lot
more of different spaces.
They didn't create time and space.
They did create more than 40 times and many more spaces.
So humans created the universe? If Wozniak really believes
this, he has a very unstable mind.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
words and behavior.
Nope. What yoiu said is an obvious, wild,
baseless slander;
First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.
Wozniak is so arrogant and egotistical that he won't use the
correct word even after he's been shown that "slander" cannot
be the right word :-))

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

Second, he was babbling about pink elephants which have a
very specific meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

And since he has opened that can of worms, his shift to
talking about purple elephants logically leads to marijuana:

https://www.allbud.com/marijuana-strains/hybrid/purple-elephant

He continually paints himself into these corners and then refuses
to accept the consequences of his action, like a young brat.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
that's what The Shit
Coprophilia again. His brain is really messed up.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
is training its doggies for, of course.
And libel again. Tsk, tsk. Well, this is getting very boring.
Wozniak never learns

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to
learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin

never changes.

“Changelessness is decay.” – Isaac Asimov

So he continues to spout the same baloney over and over again.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-30 15:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Even amongst many idiocies you said in this and
other threads - this one is rather amazing.
Wozniak keeps trying to deflect from the fact that his
vacuous assertion has been refuted
Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
and slandering piece of fanatic shit.
My, my!  Still no slander here
Just a slander there.
A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully ignores> WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement of space.
Humans didn't create space
Of course they did. And not just one. See, poor trash:
we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
speaking only about some of those referred as
"physical space".
Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.
Just a wild, baseless assertion, as expected
from a poor little Shit knight.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
They created at least 40 different times and a lot
more of different spaces.
They didn't create time and space.
They did create more than 40 times and many more spaces.
So humans created the universe?
No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
a very unstable mind.


  If Wozniak really believes> this, he has a very unstable mind.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
And dishonest Harnagel has slandered
about my alleged booze.
First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.
It can be and it is.
gharnagel
2024-10-31 00:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
and slandering piece of fanatic shit.
My, my!  Still no slander here
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Post by Maciej Wozniak
A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully
ignores WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement
of space. Humans didn't create space
Of course they did.
Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
and time. Weird!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And not just one.
Ah, and the multiverse, too. Wow! This guy thinks BIG!!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, poor
Ah, he believes he can denigrate others because of his
delusions of grandeur.
The only other demented person I know calling people things
like trash and garbage is Joe Biden. That explains a lot
about Wozniak.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
speaking only about some of those referred as
"physical space".
None of said space was created by humans. Proof of
Wozniak's dementia is his conflating the word with
the natural object with the human description of the
object.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Harrie, poor trash?
Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.
Just a wild, baseless assertion,
Wozniak's dishonesty about his dementia is to
be forgiven: he knows not what he does.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
as expected from a poor little Shit
Coprophilia again. Delirium tremens, purple elephant,
congenital lying, and now dementia, too. He is seriously
mentally disturbed.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
knight.
In shining armor, at your service.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So humans created the universe?
No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
a very unstable mind.
I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
create the universe. Good. The universe consists of
space, time, energy and matter. Is Wozniak willing to
admit that humans didn't create those specific things,
or is he going to keep on being wrong?

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dishonest Harnagel has slandered
about my alleged booze.
First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.
It can be and it is.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you
think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."

So it's not slander for three reasons: (1) I have spoken
nothing false about him. (2) He has no reputation to harm
and (3) he has no standing in the community of this group.

And (4) his own behavior, as evidenced by his words, imply
everything that I have said about him.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-31 07:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
and slandering piece of fanatic shit.
My, my!  Still no slander here
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

like when poor lying piece of shit Harnagel
is talking about my alleged booze, for the
ethernal glory of his idiot guru.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully
ignores WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement
of space.  Humans didn't create space
Of course they did.
Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
and time.
There is no such thing, it's either universe or
of space and time.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
speaking only about some of those referred as
"physical space".
None of said space was created by humans.
An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
such an idiotic assertion.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
a very unstable mind.
I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
create the universe.  Good.  The universe consists of
space, time, energy and matter.
No it doesn't.
gharnagel
2024-10-31 13:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says. I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response. It is restored here to cover
Wozniak's baloney with truth:

https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
like when poor lying
Does a liar know lying when he sees it? Or is he just a
whining child who can dish it out but can't take it?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
piece of shit
:-)) Wozniak reveals his fetish for coprophilia again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Harnagel is talking about my alleged booze,
Whine, whine, whine. Wozniak can't take a little ribbing,
no sense of humor whatever.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
for the ethernal glory of his idiot guru.
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
and time.
There is no such thing, it's either universe or
of space and time.
Wow! Wozniak displays his ignorance and stupidity again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

"universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."

Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory
Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.).

"The totality of all space and time; all that is, has been,
and will be."

I suppose Wozniak will now consult another sloppy Polish
dictionary, but he won't find any support for his stupidity
even there.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
speaking only about some of those referred as
"physical space".
None of said space was created by humans.
An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
such an idiotic assertion.
Wozniak's assertion is not an argument, and his opinions
aren't supported by any facts.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
-- Douglas Adams
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
a very unstable mind.
I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
create the universe.  Good.  The universe consists of
space, time, energy and matter.
No it doesn't.
Vacuous assertions aren't an argument, particularly made by
a coprophiliac, demented, pathological liar with oppositional
defiant disorder.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20375831

A church leader once said, "I am persuaded that one of the
purposes of the church is to give people the opportunity to
be offended." That's a very deep thought. Apparently, we
all need this to grow into full adulthood. Obviously, Wozniak
has never been to church, but perhaps this forum can serve
that function. Unfortunately, Wozniak continues to whine and
spit and defame and lie like a child who has never had his
mouth washed out with soap.

"Do you remember Grandma's LyeSoap?
Good for everything, everything in the home
And the secret was in the scrubbin'
It wouldn't suds; It wouldn't foam."
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-31 15:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition
, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
Post by Maciej Wozniak
like when poor lying
Does a liar know lying when he sees it?  Or is he just a
whining child who can dish it out but can't take it?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
piece of shit
:-))  Wozniak reveals his fetish for coprophilia again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Harnagel is talking about my alleged booze,
Whine, whine, whine.  Wozniak can't take a little ribbing,
no sense of humor whatever.
Of course I can always take poor fanatic
idiot impudently slandering for the
ethernal glory of his shitty church
and his idiot guru. If I couldn't -
I would avoid talking to The Shit's
knights at all, wouldn't I?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
and time.
There is no such thing, it's either universe or
of space and time.
Wow!  Wozniak displays his ignorance and stupidity again!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
"universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."
Well, a mistake. BTW, what about famous spacetime
invented by your idiot guru? And which time of which
frame do they mention here?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
speaking only about some of those referred as
"physical space".
None of said space was created by humans.
An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
such an idiotic assertion.
Wozniak's assertion is not an argument, and his opinions
aren't supported by any facts.
So are Harnagel's assertions and his opinions.
Thomas Heger
2024-11-01 07:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.

But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer', because
in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes, it is important,
that the perpetraitor has or should have knowledge about doing something
wrong.

This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his statements
were wrong and that he used false accusations, to harm somebody.

But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.

It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the perpetraitor
knows whether or not that statement was false.

Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.

If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a bank, this
would certainly harm his reputation.

But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.

But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
wouldn't be slander.

It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not 'slander'.

...


TH
gharnagel
2024-11-01 12:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.
European law is even worse.
Post by Thomas Heger
But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer',
because in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes,
it is important, that the perpetraitor has or should have
knowledge about doing something wrong.
This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his
statements were wrong and that he used false accusations, to
harm somebody.
But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.
It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the
perpetraitor knows whether or not that statement was false.
Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.
Indeed, and Wozniak has nothing to harm. Any "reputation" he
may have once had, he has frittered away by his own behavior.
He himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
No one believes anything he says.
Post by Thomas Heger
If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a
bank, this would certainly harm his reputation.
But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.
But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
wouldn't be slander.
It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not
'slander'.
TH
Consider, however, when one calls a statement a "pink elephant,"
as Wozniak did, he is trying to say that the statement is an
illusion when, in fact, any rational person would say it was
perfectly true. Is he not "harming the reputation" of the one
making the statement? Thus Wozniak is the one "slandering."

And if his "pink elephant" accusation is turned around and bites
him in the butt, it is just karma. So Wozniak screaming "slander"
is exposed as the childish ranting of a mendacious hypocrite.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-11-01 13:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.
European law is even worse.
Post by Thomas Heger
But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer',
because in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes,
it is important, that the perpetraitor has or should have
knowledge about doing something wrong.
This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his
statements were wrong and that he used false accusations, to
harm somebody.
But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.
It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the
perpetraitor knows whether or not that statement was false.
Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.
Indeed, and Wozniak has nothing to harm.  Any "reputation" he
may have once had, he has frittered away by his own behavior.
He himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
No one believes anything he says.
Post by Thomas Heger
If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a
bank, this would certainly harm his reputation.
But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.
But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
wouldn't be slander.
Consider, however, when one calls a statement a "pink elephant,"
as Wozniak did, he is trying to say that the statement is an
illusion when, in fact, any rational person would say it was
perfectly true.  Is he not "harming the reputation" of the one
making the statement?  Thus Wozniak is the one "slandering."
And if his "pink elephant" accusation is turned around and bites
him in the butt, it is just karma.
Was it karma slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
well known piece of lying shit.
Not that it can be surprising somehow,
that's what The Shit of Einstein is training
it's doggies for.
gharnagel
2024-11-01 16:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Was it karma slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation! He can't go on
anymore, he can only sit at his computer and whine, whine, whine.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
well known piece of lying
Pot, kettle, black. Wozniak is so familiar with lying because
he does it all the time.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
shit.
Not that it can be surprising somehow,
that's what The Shit
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
Coprophilia: "There are also social problems with eating feces.
It causes bad breath"

I'll bet Wozniak uses gallons of Listerine. :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
of Einstein is training it's doggies for.
I'd take offense at that if it weren't from an inebriated Pole
with a proven track record of dishonesty and stupidity :-)

“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous
Maciej Wozniak
2024-11-01 19:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!
I'm not at all. Don't I know
relativistic scumbags? Don't I
know The Shit training them to
bark, spit and slander its
enemies?
gharnagel
2024-11-02 01:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!
I'm not at all.
Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever. The record shows
that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.

Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know relativistic scumbags?
Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer, and a DK idiot.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know The Shit
This he DOES know because of his coprophilia. He gets off on
it when he eats it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
training them to bark, spit and slander its enemies?
Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering. He can't
take it when his abhorrent behavior is exposed, so he whines and
whimpers about how abused he is. He's a wuss.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-11-02 07:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!
I'm not at all.
Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.
I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
scum to obey the rules of civilized society
and avoid slandering their opponents.


  The record shows
Post by gharnagel
that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.
Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know relativistic scumbags?
Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer
It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
church is training you.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know The Shit
training them to bark, spit and slander its enemies?
Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering.
It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
church is training you.
gharnagel
2024-11-02 13:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!
I'm not at all.
Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.
I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
scum to obey the rules of civilized society
and avoid slandering their opponents.
Wozniak doesn't understand the first thing about being "civilized."
Civilized people don't call other people scum. Civilized people
man up to their mistakes. Civilized people are civil. They are
courteous, polite, well-mannered. Wozniak is rude, discourteous
and boorish.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
The record shows that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.
Silence implies consent.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know relativistic scumbags?
Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer
It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
trash, and it was not any karma too.
Of course it's karma. Wozniak has been lying, insulting,
and behaving like a drunken sailor for years. He finally
got his just reward when he started babbling about pink and
purple elephants. Connecting those to substance abuse was
obvious and served an uncivilized boor right.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's not just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
church is training you.
Cutting and pasting his boorish nonsense as he goes around
and around in circles of hate speech is proof that Wozniak
is an unprincipled and uncivilized spoiled child that never
grew up.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know The Shit training them to bark, spit
and slander its enemies?
Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering.
It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
church is training you.
Cutting and pasting lies and insults is what uncivilized
boors do. Wozniak should have been treated to a few
episodes of Grandma's lye soap:

Little Herman and Brother Thurman
Had an aversion to washing their ears
Grandma scrubbed them with the LyeSoap
And they haven't heard a word in years.

Little Wozzie prevaricated,
He was quite the holy terror.
Grandma forgot to soap his pie hole,
Now he spits and screams his stupid error.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-11-02 16:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!
I'm not at all.
Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.
I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
scum to obey the rules of civilized society
and avoid slandering their opponents.
Wozniak doesn't understand the first thing about being "civilized."
Civilized people don't call other people scum.
Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
and many other relativistic worshippers.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Don't I know relativistic scumbags?
Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer
It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
trash, and it was not any karma too.
Of course it's karma.
No, it's Harnagel, well known piece of
lying shit. And, of course, some of his
fellow idiots; that's what their moronic
church has been training them for.
gharnagel
2024-11-02 18:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
and many other relativistic worshippers.
So Wozniak admits that he's not civilized. But everyone already
knew that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No, it's Harnagel,
It wouldn't be necessary to treat a civilized person roughly.
Wozniak came on the scene lying, insulting and "slandering,"
so when he gets it back to him, it is karma. What goes
around, comes around. And Wozzie goes around and around and
around.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
well known piece of lying shit.
And Wozzie, the well-known coprophiliac, eats it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
[Excessively repetitive lies deleted for sanitary reasons]
Little Wozzie prevaricated,
He was quite the holy terror.
Grandma failed to soap his mouth,
Now he spits and screams his stupid error.

Mrs. O'Mally, Down in the valley
Suffered from ulcers, I understand
She swallowed a cake, of Grandma's LyeSoap
Now she's got the cleanest ulcers in the land!

Ross Finlayson
2024-11-01 19:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Just a slander there.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says. I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response. It is restored here to cover
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."
The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.
But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer', because
in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes, it is important,
that the perpetraitor has or should have knowledge about doing something
wrong.
This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his statements
were wrong and that he used false accusations, to harm somebody.
But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.
It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the perpetraitor
knows whether or not that statement was false.
Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.
If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a bank, this
would certainly harm his reputation.
But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.
But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
wouldn't be slander.
It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not 'slander'.
...
TH
What about unwanted compliments?
Ross Finlayson
2024-10-23 17:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Does everything happen at once? No, it doesn't. Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once? No, it didn't.
Sure, sure - time(i.e. "what clocks indicate")
had nothing in common with that.
Dishonest Wozniak dis-invented the rest :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Did humans invent time so everything doesn't
happen at once? No, they didn't.
Which refutes Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion
that time is strictly a human invention.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
"'Seeing pink elephants' is a euphemism for hallucinations
caused by delirium tremens or alcoholic hallucinosis,
especially the former."
Wozniak needs to lay off the booze.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that
damages their reputation, or the making of
such a statement.
Wolowitz has no proof that it's slander.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
I was a bit mistaken about real elephants never
pink. Time - part of nature is rather like
purple elephants.
Of course there are no pink elephants. They only exist
in Willowwisp's besotted imagination :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid rod".
More irrelevant bool poop. Much of Wozniak's beloved
"information" that he fondles doesn't exist, either.
Apparently, he doesn't believe in maps
What is apparent to an utter relativistic idiot doesn't
matter.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wimponiak is lying and obfuscating
in a sorry attempt to misdirect the discussion.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
An assertion is no way an argument,
Which is all Wallowniak has: an assertion, and a refuted
one at that.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor trash.
Wosnistink signs his name again.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
So Wozniak is wrong that time is ONLY a human invention.
Nope. Harnagel is wrong that it isn't. He admits
himself - he doesn't know much about the subject -
but being a DK idiot he still acts as if he knew
everything.
:-))
Does everything happen at once? No, it doesn't. Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once? No, it didn't. Did humans invent time so
everything doesn't happen at once? No, they didn't.
Wozniak's baloney-filled assertion is refuted.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozniak is full of merde. The question of time is MUCH
older that relativity
And so is the mistake of your moronic church
of physics.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wimponiak is lying and obfuscating
in a sorry attempt to misdirect the discussion.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Yes, they are. UTC doesn't change for a fast
observer, other real times neither. Sorry,
poor trash.
More attempts to redefine the discussion about relativity.
Complete bull merde (pardon my French).
Just pointing some properties of a real time.
Whether or not time is solely a human invention has nothing
to do with relativity. Wozniliar is obfuscating in a sorry
attempt to misdirect the discussion. He does this because
he can't refute the fact that time has a natural existence.
Stupid, ignorant dishonest Woznichicken can't face the
arguments presented in honest treatises so he pretends
they don't exist. But they do, and they are here again
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-time-20240229/
Yes, what is the NATURE of time?
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031022
"Autonomous Quantum Clocks: Does Thermodynamics Limit Our Ability
to Measure Time?"
"our autonomous quantum clock consists of a system out of thermal
equilibrium—a prerequisite for any system to function as a clock—
powered by minimal resources, namely, two thermal baths at different
temperatures. Through a detailed analysis of this specific clock
model, we find that the laws of thermodynamics dictate a trade-off
between the amount of dissipated heat and the clock’s performance
in terms of its accuracy and resolution."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-science-of-clocks-prompts-questions-about-the-nature-of-time-20210831/
"They found that an ideal clock — one that ticks with perfect
periodicity — would burn an infinite amount of energy and produce
infinite entropy, which isn’t possible. Thus, the accuracy of
clocks is fundamentally limited."
Hence, NO real clock can measure the thing called time with
unlimited accuracy. IOW, although clocks may be human inventions,
this thing called time is not.
And since NO clock can measure time with complete accuracy, we
are free to choose natural clocks with lower accuracy, such as
the rotation of the earth, its trip around its yearly orbit,
the half-life of a radioactive nucleus, or any number of natural
processes.
Not all clocks are human inventions and time is NOT what clocks
measure anyway since no clock can measure time with complete
accuracy.
Wozniak won't acknowledge REAL information because he is a
disinformation manipulator: he is "crafty and mean. But not
creative, not truly intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein
The "local time" is a reflection for the "point time"
on the "global time" and the "total time", that,
"the time", for example when Einstein in his Relativity
theory describes his definition that in the theory there's
a continuum of space-time and particularly a "the time",
has that largely it's a matter of aether theory, as with
regards to the local frame, what is the "most local"
fixed point of the inertial moment, for example the
person the Earth the Earth the Sun the Sun the solar
neighborhood and on up as with regards to "the fastest
time" which is current, in the whole universe, according
to space inversion or point inversion that all other times
range in (0,1) exclusive then this way as with regards to
that "local clocks" are always correct "local times".
The Starmaker
2024-10-16 22:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts.
As usual, Harrie spits.
Says the congenital liar :-))
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And say nonsense about things he admits he
doesn't know much about.
which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
he keeps conflating two different things.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well, it's not usual that he admits.
I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
Wozniak's problem is his false belief that he
knows more while only being a poor observer.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Humans try to model nature, and since, for
example, trees grow, die and decay, there
is something in nature that changes.
Oh, there is a wide variety of things
that change in nature. Time, however,
is not any of them. There is no time
in nature.
Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
rock; that is, one that is changing its
position in space as a function of time
passing.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It's a purely virtual abstract invented
by humans - for the purpose of describing.
Describing nature and other things.
That's only ONE definition. Wozniak is a
poor observer because he refuses to see the
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at
once" -- Ray Cummings
This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
The punch may come from a person (who is also a
part of nature), or it may come from a falling
rock.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Time is almost always present in any
description of anything. That's why
it appears for weak minds to be something
real.
Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
understand that there are two kinds of
"time": the real one in nature and our
attempts to describe it (with clocks and
coordinates).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
that we model time. But they aren't time,
Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
Time is obviously not any of them.
Agreed. Time is a part of nature; it's neither
clocks nor theories.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
As for coordinates - we have created a
number of them, and about 20-30 of them
are times.
Of course, DUH!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
just as the map is not the territory.
Just as a clock is not time.
What time do you have now?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Mikko
2024-10-16 09:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
Einstein did not use it.
--
Mikko
Richard Hachel
2024-10-16 13:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
Einstein did not use it.
You may be right.
For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be
completely abandoned.
This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is
"necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it.
Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
"local time", "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame",
"local present time", "hypercone of present time",
"invariance of the space-time interval", "time-gap": we don't need all of
this.
At best, it is useless, at worst it is false.
And this is only part of the horror that misunderstood RR has become, and
I am not even talking about uniformly accelerated media and rotating
media.
The RR that should remain compatible is so much no longer compatible that
we are forced to talk about RG to sweep the dust under the carpet.
The same goes for a simple Langevin in apparent speed, it is so ridiculous
that we are forced to evade this question, and that no one except me is
capable of drawing a simple little space-time diagram for the two
protagonists where the lines of simultaneity are horizontal in the present
time hyperplane of each.
All this is absurd.
How many more years or decades before all these stupid notions jump out of
the textbooks?

R.H.
The Starmaker
2024-10-16 14:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
Einstein did not use it.
You may be right.
For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be
completely abandoned.
This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is
"necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it.
Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
"local time", "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame",
"local present time", "hypercone of present time",
"invariance of the space-time interval", "time-gap": we don't need all of
this.
At best, it is useless, at worst it is false.
And this is only part of the horror that misunderstood RR has become, and
I am not even talking about uniformly accelerated media and rotating
media.
The RR that should remain compatible is so much no longer compatible that
we are forced to talk about RG to sweep the dust under the carpet.
The same goes for a simple Langevin in apparent speed, it is so ridiculous
that we are forced to evade this question, and that no one except me is
capable of drawing a simple little space-time diagram for the two
protagonists where the lines of simultaneity are horizontal in the present
time hyperplane of each.
All this is absurd.
How many more years or decades before all these stupid notions jump out of
the textbooks?
R.H.
I thought I made myself clear what "local time" is?


"local time" in Albert's Einstein mind is "present time".

When Albert Einstein says "present time", he means what you calls
..."local time".


If I'm in Los Angeles, and you're in Paris, I will ask you

"What time is it there now?"

What am I asking? I'm asking what is the local time.


"What time is it there now?"


The operative word is..."there".


"What time is it *there* now?"


"there" means 'local time' and also means 'present time' (in Einstein's
frame of referance)


"present time" means here and there.




in a particular place.

synonyms: here, there, near, nearby, at hand, close/near at
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present



But I don't want to know what time is it ...here, there, now...

I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!


"everywhere"!


Do you know where ...everywhere IS????


Or do I need to show you where is it at?


You're everywhere.

You're IN everywhere.


I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!


What time is it now...everyehre.

Not here
not there...

but

EVERYWHERE!!!!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Mikko
2024-10-18 08:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
Einstein did not use it.
You may be right.
For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be
completely abandoned.
A lot of words and concepts are already abandoned.
Post by Richard Hachel
This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is
"necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it.
Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
"local time",
Not used.
Post by Richard Hachel
"relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame",
Can be used as a reminder but does not mean much.
Post by Richard Hachel
"local present time",
Not used.
Post by Richard Hachel
"hypercone of present time",
Not used as "present time", if used, is usually defined as a hyperplane,
not a hypercone.
Post by Richard Hachel
"invariance of the space-time interval",
Space-time interval is invariant.
Post by Richard Hachel
"time-gap": we don't need all of this.
Does not exist except as a false impression from an approximation
so only rarely used.
--
Mikko
Bertietaylor
2024-10-27 03:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
What is "local time" in relativity?
So long as we can cut out the e=mcc crap we can talk about relativity.
Local time is what your watch or clocktower says provided they function
properly.
Local time will be different a millimetre away between time zones.
So it is arbitrary as to where timezones are constructed. Then there is
such an arbitrary thing as daylight saving.
These days we believe that the world turns round and round continuously,
instead of staying put with the sun, stars and moon going around us in
fixed crystal spheres.
Part of the reason we don't think so has to do with astronomy. The
angular position of distant stars varied with time, becoming exact after
a little over 365 days.
That period forms the calendar which has leap years inbuilt to account
for the little extra time for a complete revolution.
All days are said to have the exact same time and here the word time has
relation to one revolution on one hand and about 365 rotations on the
other.
The key event interval then for the measurement of time related to the
alignment of stars. Which is absolute and not arbitrary.

Time as seen by the watch varies from place to place. That is because we
want it so. We could in theory have one standard time everywhere, never
put our clocks front or back. That is confusing from the practical point
of view when people travel. So timezones have to exist.
Post by Richard Hachel
1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?
2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?
This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.
Perhaps I could be more precise here.
What are we talking about?
R.H.
Loading...