Re: What is "local time"?

On 10/23/2024 05:28 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 5:56:19 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.10.2024 o 05:57, gharnagel pisze:

>
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 :-)
>

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.
>

"'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.
>

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.

>
Of course there are no pink elephants.  They only exist
in Willowwisp's besotted imagination :-)
>

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.
>

An assertion is no way an argument,

>
Which is all Wallowniak has: an assertion, and a refuted
one at that.
>

poor trash.

>
Wosnistink signs his name again.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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

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".