Re: What is "local time"?

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:56:54 +0000, Maciej Wozniak lied again:

>
W dniu 22.10.2024 o 13:55, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:04:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
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

>
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.