Re: What is "local time"?

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, 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.

Well, isn't it, poor trash?

See?  He is "crafty and mean.  But not creative, not truly
intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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:

>
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.

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.