Re: What is "local time"?

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.  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.

that time is a human invention.

But not always.

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.

"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.

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 :-)
And he lies by omission by clipping out this:

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"

>
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.

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

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.