Re: What is "local time"?

W dniu 29.10.2024 o 13:42, gharnagel pisze:

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:29:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 18:49, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:37:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:24, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:05:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
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.

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

an argument merely for the sake of argument.  He's getting
to be soporifically boring.
 

"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.

 

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.
 

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?

 

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.

dead wrong:

>
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.