• What is "local =?UTF-8?Q?time=22=3F=20?=

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 14 11:28:45 2024
    XPost: fr.sci.physique

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

    2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

    This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
    physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

    Perhaps I could be more precise here.

    What are we talking about?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Oct 14 19:34:35 2024
    On 14-Oct-24 7:28 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
    What is "local time" in relativity?

    Where is that expression used in the English translation of Einstein's
    paper?

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Oct 14 09:49:51 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

    2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

    This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

    Perhaps I could be more precise here.

    What are we talking about?

    R.H.

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.


    Einstein spoke German.

    So his inglish is no too good.

    I'll give you an example:


    Design for a blouse

    Description
    Oct. 27, 1936. A. EINSTEIN 1388- 101,756
    BLOUSE Filed July 2, 1936 INVENTOR.
    ATTORNEY.


    https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756S/en



    Now, can you answer the question, "What is a "blouse"?


    Most people would say a shirt for a woman or a girl.


    But, Einstein's definition of a blouse is a man's or woman's shirt.


    That's the German definition.


    Now, if you want to know the local time in Einstein's inglish language..

    it is "What time is it now?" in Einstein's inglish language he would say, "What is the Present time?"


    Now Richard, tells us what is the present time?



    "What watch? -Ten watch. -Such much?"









    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Oct 15 12:52:51 2024
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

    2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

    This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

    Perhaps I could be more precise here.

    What are we talking about?

    R.H.

    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time." What is "time"? Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time? Does space have time, or do just masses have time? Is
    there more than one dimension of time? It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 15:09:42 2024
    Le 15/10/2024 à 14:52, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time." What is "time"? Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time? Does space have time, or do just masses have time? Is
    there more than one dimension of time? It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    I even have the impression that we don't know anything about it at all.

    But we brag, we brag.

    And we know nothing.

    Worse, what we think we know is often wrong.

    Is the notion of simultaneity relative by change of frame of reference? Physicists will all answer in unison: "yes".

    And they are wrong, they confuse simultaneity and chronotropy.

    Is the notion of simultaneity relative by change of position

    in a stationary medium? Physicists will all answer in unison: "no". And
    they are wrong, they confuse relativistic frame of reference and Newtonian frame of reference.

    And I'm not talking about their completely wrong calculation on the proper times and instantaneous speeds of accelerated frames of reference, nor the stupidities they sing when describing rotating frames of reference.

    The world is crazy.

    It is man's navel more than his intelligence that has made him crazy.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 18:32:19 2024
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated, but you're sooooo
    stupid, Harrie.
    Anyway, that's right - you don't know very
    much about it; you really should stop
    spreading idiotic tales about it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 20:29:45 2024
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 21:49:42 2024
    Le 15/10/2024 à 23:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate.

    What is a coordinate?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 21:52:27 2024
    Le 15/10/2024 à 23:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
    made abstract, having nothing in commom with
    your precioujs nature. And with your
    precious experiments.

    It is purely virtual, really? Can be anything a Polish
    crank can edict?

    I don't what you mean by "nature". What I know is that
    if the space and time coordinates of a bullet are the
    same as my head I would likely die.

    This is neither "precious", "abstract" and as something
    in "commom" with whatever reality is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 23:28:01 2024
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
    made abstract, having nothing in commom with
    your precioujs nature. And with your
    precious experiments.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Oct 16 03:45:33 2024
    On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:28:01 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:

    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:

    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
    made abstract, having nothing in commom with
    your precioujs nature. And with your
    precious experiments.

    As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
    concepts. Humans try to model nature, and
    since, for example, trees grow, die and decay,
    there is something in nature that changes. We
    call that something the passage of time.
    Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
    that we model time. But they aren't time,
    just as the map is not the territory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 07:53:54 2024
    Am Montag000014, 14.10.2024 um 18:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

    2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

    This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many
    physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

    Perhaps I could be more precise here.

    What are we talking about?

    R.H.

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.


    Einstein spoke German.

    So his inglish is no too good.

    I'll give you an example:


    Design for a blouse

    Description
    Oct. 27, 1936. A. EINSTEIN 1388- 101,756
    BLOUSE Filed July 2, 1936 INVENTOR.
    ATTORNEY.


    https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756S/en

    This patent contains a very strang error:

    quotes
    "ATENT OFFICE DESIGN FOR A BLOUSE Albert Einstein, New York, N. Y.
    Application July 2, 1936, Serial No. 63,612 "

    "Be it known that I, Albert Einstein, a citizen of the German Republic, residing in the Borough of Manhattan, county of New York, and State of
    New York, have invented a new...."

    BUT:

    Germany wasn't a republic in 1936 and as far as I know, Einstein wasn't
    citizen of Germany at that time.

    He renounced citizenship of the German Empire in 1896 and was from 1901
    onwards citizen of Swizzerland.

    Since Germany didn't allow dual citizenships in those days, he could not
    become a German again (and also remain Swiss).

    He also left Germany some time before the advent of the nazis, even if
    he had been in Berlin until 1932.

    Sometime is is said, that he was a citzen of Prussia.

    But Germany had an undivided citizenship in those days and no
    citizenship from the states from which Germany was composed.

    Germany was also not called 'German Republic' anymore in 1936, but
    'Deutsches Reich' ('German Empire').


    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 07:28:45 2024
    Am Montag000014, 14.10.2024 um 13:34 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 14-Oct-24 7:28 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
    What is "local time" in relativity?

    Where is that expression used in the English translation of Einstein's
    paper?

    The term and the idea itself stem - as far as I know- from Henry
    Poincare and his version of relativty.

    Einstein used a different concept and kind of a 'one-dimensional' time.

    For instance, Einstein was thinking about synchronisation of remote
    clocks, which would include the idea of a common time for remote places,
    while 'local time' means, that time is a local thing and clocks at
    remote places cannot be synchronized for this reason.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Oct 16 12:03:34 2024
    On 2024-10-14 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
    Einstein did not use it.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 13:01:15 2024
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 23:49, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 23:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate.

    What is a coordinate?

    A function. You assign an unique number to
    every point from a given set.
    For time - you have the set of all events
    really happening; you're assigning a number
    for every one (or, at least, you try).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 13:10:09 2024
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 23:52, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 23:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:
    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:


    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
    made abstract, having nothing in commom with
    your precioujs nature. And with your
    precious experiments.

    It is purely virtual, really? Can be anything a Polish
    crank can edict?

    I don't what you mean by "nature". What I know is that
    if the space and time coordinates of a bullet are the
    same as my head I would likely die.

    Well, to see you're an idiot - just take a bullet
    and put it into your mouth.

    And if you die indeed - the reason is the bullet.
    The bullet is not an abstract. The coordinates are
    not affecting that. We can use them in the
    desscription of your death, sure. That's what
    they're invented for. We tend to describe things
    with their help.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 13:07:58 2024
    Le 16/10/2024 à 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-10-14 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
    Einstein did not use it.

    You may be right.
    For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be completely abandoned.
    This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is "necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it. Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
    "local time", "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame",
    "local present time", "hypercone of present time",
    "invariance of the space-time interval", "time-gap": we don't need all of
    this.
    At best, it is useless, at worst it is false.
    And this is only part of the horror that misunderstood RR has become, and
    I am not even talking about uniformly accelerated media and rotating
    media.
    The RR that should remain compatible is so much no longer compatible that
    we are forced to talk about RG to sweep the dust under the carpet.
    The same goes for a simple Langevin in apparent speed, it is so ridiculous
    that we are forced to evade this question, and that no one except me is
    capable of drawing a simple little space-time diagram for the two
    protagonists where the lines of simultaneity are horizontal in the present
    time hyperplane of each.
    All this is absurd.
    How many more years or decades before all these stupid notions jump out of
    the textbooks?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 15:34:57 2024
    W dniu 16.10.2024 o 05:45, gharnagel pisze:
    On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:28:01 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 22:29, Python pisze:

    Le 15/10/2024 à 18:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 15.10.2024 o 14:52, gharnagel pisze:

    Before you talk about "local time" you must first understand
    "time."  What is "time"?  Or maybe, the question is: WHY is
    time?  Does space have time, or do just masses have time?  Is
    there more than one dimension of time?  It appears to be a
    quantum thing/process; we use it, and are ruled by it, but we
    just don't know very much about it.

    It's not very complicated

    So explain.

    It is a coordinate. A purely virtual human
    made abstract, having nothing in commom with
    your precioujs nature. And with your
    precious experiments.

    As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
    concepts.

    As usual, Harrie spits. And say
    nonsenses about things he admits he
    doesn't know much about. Well,
    it's not usual that he admits.


    Humans try to model nature, and
    since, for example, trees grow, die and decay,
    there is something in nature that changes.

    Oh, there is a wide variety of things
    that change in nature. Time, however,
    is not any of them. There is no time
    in nature. It's a purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing. Describing nature and other
    things.
    Time is almost always present in any
    description of anything. That's why
    it appears for weak minds to be something
    real.

    Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
    that we model time.  But they aren't time,

    Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
    Time is obviously not any of them.

    As for coordinates - we have created a
    number of them, and about 20-30 of them
    are times.



    just as the map is not the territory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Oct 16 07:49:20 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 16/10/2024 � 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-10-14 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
    Einstein did not use it.

    You may be right.
    For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be completely abandoned.
    This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is "necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it. Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
    "local time", "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame", "local present time", "hypercone of present time",
    "invariance of the space-time interval", "time-gap": we don't need all of this.
    At best, it is useless, at worst it is false.
    And this is only part of the horror that misunderstood RR has become, and
    I am not even talking about uniformly accelerated media and rotating
    media.
    The RR that should remain compatible is so much no longer compatible that
    we are forced to talk about RG to sweep the dust under the carpet.
    The same goes for a simple Langevin in apparent speed, it is so ridiculous that we are forced to evade this question, and that no one except me is capable of drawing a simple little space-time diagram for the two protagonists where the lines of simultaneity are horizontal in the present time hyperplane of each.
    All this is absurd.
    How many more years or decades before all these stupid notions jump out of the textbooks?

    R.H.

    I thought I made myself clear what "local time" is?


    "local time" in Albert's Einstein mind is "present time".

    When Albert Einstein says "present time", he means what you calls
    ..."local time".


    If I'm in Los Angeles, and you're in Paris, I will ask you

    "What time is it there now?"

    What am I asking? I'm asking what is the local time.


    "What time is it there now?"


    The operative word is..."there".


    "What time is it *there* now?"


    "there" means 'local time' and also means 'present time' (in Einstein's
    frame of referance)


    "present time" means here and there.




    in a particular place.

    synonyms: here, there, near, nearby, at hand, close/near at https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present



    But I don't want to know what time is it ...here, there, now...

    I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!


    "everywhere"!


    Do you know where ...everywhere IS????


    Or do I need to show you where is it at?


    You're everywhere.

    You're IN everywhere.


    I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!


    What time is it now...everyehre.

    Not here
    not there...

    but

    EVERYWHERE!!!!




    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Oct 16 19:43:59 2024
    On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:34:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 16.10.2024 o 05:45, gharnagel pisze:

    As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
    concepts.

    As usual, Harrie spits.

    Says the congenital liar :-))

    And say nonsense about things he admits he
    doesn't know much about.

    which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
    he keeps conflating two different things.

    Well, it's not usual that he admits.

    I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
    Wozniak's problem is his false belief that he
    knows more while only being a poor observer.

    Humans try to model nature, and since, for
    example, trees grow, die and decay, there
    is something in nature that changes.

    Oh, there is a wide variety of things
    that change in nature. Time, however,
    is not any of them. There is no time
    in nature.

    Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
    rock; that is, one that is changing its
    position in space as a function of time
    passing.

    It's a purely virtual abstract invented
    by humans - for the purpose of describing.
    Describing nature and other things.

    That's only ONE definition. Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one. This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
    The punch may come from a person (who is also a
    part of nature), or it may come from a falling
    rock.

    Time is almost always present in any
    description of anything. That's why
    it appears for weak minds to be something
    real.

    Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
    understand that there are two kinds of
    "time": the real one in nature and our
    attempts to describe it (with clocks and
    coordinates).

    Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
    that we model time.  But they aren't time,

    Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
    Time is obviously not any of them.

    Agreed. Time is a part of nature; it's neither
    clocks nor theories.

    As for coordinates - we have created a
    number of them, and about 20-30 of them
    are times.

    Of course, DUH!

    just as the map is not the territory.

    Just as a clock is not time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 22:05:27 2024
    W dniu 16.10.2024 o 21:43, gharnagel pisze:
    On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:34:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 16.10.2024 o 05:45, gharnagel pisze:

    As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
    concepts.

    As usual, Harrie spits.

    Says the congenital liar :-))

    And say nonsense about things he admits he
    doesn't know much about.

    which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
    he keeps conflating two different things.

    Well, it's not usual that he admits.

    I don't know much, but I'm always observing.

    Right, you don't know much. Typical
    with a brainwashed fanatic idiot.


    Oh, there is a wide variety of things
    that change in nature. Time, however,
    is not any of them. There is no time
    in nature.

    Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
    rock; that is, one that is changing its
    position in space as a function of time
    passing.

    It's a purely virtual abstract invented
    by humans - for the purpose of describing.
    Describing nature and other things.

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.


    This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
    The punch may come from a person (who is also a
    part of nature), or it may come from a falling
    rock.

    It may. Time remains purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.


    Time is almost always present in  any
    description of anything.  That's why
    it appears for weak minds to be something
    real.

    Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
    understand that there are two kinds of
    "time": the real one in nature

    An assertion of an ignorant idiot mystician
    means nothing.



    Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
    Time is obviously not any of them.

    Agreed.  Time is a part of nature; it's neither
    clocks nor theories.

    Nope.
    Time is a coordinate. Neuther a clock, nor
    a theory, and has nothing in common with the
    nature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Wed Oct 16 15:51:52 2024
    gharnagel wrote:

    On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:34:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 16.10.2024 o� 05:45, gharnagel pisze:

    As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
    concepts.

    As usual, Harrie spits.

    Says the congenital liar :-))

    And say nonsense about things he admits he
    doesn't know much about.

    which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
    he keeps conflating two different things.

    Well, it's not usual that he admits.

    I don't know much, but I'm always observing.
    Wozniak's problem is his false belief that he
    knows more while only being a poor observer.

    Humans try to model nature, and since, for
    example, trees grow, die and decay, there
    is something in nature that changes.

    Oh, there is a wide variety of things
    that change in nature. Time, however,
    is not any of them. There is no time
    in nature.

    Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
    rock; that is, one that is changing its
    position in space as a function of time
    passing.

    It's a purely virtual abstract invented
    by humans - for the purpose of describing.
    Describing nature and other things.

    That's only ONE definition. Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one. This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
    The punch may come from a person (who is also a
    part of nature), or it may come from a falling
    rock.

    Time is almost always present in any
    description of anything. That's why
    it appears for weak minds to be something
    real.

    Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
    understand that there are two kinds of
    "time": the real one in nature and our
    attempts to describe it (with clocks and
    coordinates).

    Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
    that we model time.� But they aren't time,

    Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
    Time is obviously not any of them.

    Agreed. Time is a part of nature; it's neither
    clocks nor theories.

    As for coordinates - we have created a
    number of them, and about 20-30 of them
    are times.

    Of course, DUH!

    just as the map is not the territory.

    Just as a clock is not time.

    What time do you have now?



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 17 04:07:42 2024
    On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:05:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 16.10.2024 o 21:43, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:34:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    As usual, Harrie spits.

    Says the congenital liar :-))

    And say nonsense about things he admits he
    doesn't know much about.

    which Wozniak knows nothing about, which is why
    he keeps conflating two different things.

    Well, it's not usual that he admits.

    I don't know much, but I'm always observing.

    Right, you don't know much. Typical
    with a brainwashed fanatic idiot.

    “I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”
    -- Richard P. Feynman

    Wozniak isn't even THAT smart.

    Oh, there is a wide variety of things
    that change in nature. Time, however,
    is not any of them. There is no time
    in nature.

    Wozniak is likely to get hit by a falling
    rock; that is, one that is changing its
    position in space as a function of time
    passing.

    Wozniak isn't even smart enough to observe
    that time passes.

    It's a purely virtual abstract invented
    by humans - for the purpose of describing.
    Describing nature and other things.

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content because time doesn't
    pass. Obviously, Wozniak the congenital liar
    is lying again.

    This is the one as real as a punch in the face.
    The punch may come from a person (who is also a
    part of nature), or it may come from a falling
    rock.

    It may. Time remains purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    Time is almost always present in  any
    description of anything.  That's why
    it appears for weak minds to be something
    real.

    Wozniak has a weak mind because he can't
    understand that there are two kinds of
    "time": the real one in nature and our
    attempts to describe it (with clocks and
    coordinates).

    An assertion of an ignorant idiot mystician
    means nothing.

    A dishonest assertion by a congenital liar
    means nothing.

    Clocks are clocks, theories are theories.
    Time is obviously not any of them.

    Agreed.  Time is a part of nature; it's neither
    clocks nor theories.

    Nope.
    Time is a coordinate. Neuther a clock, nor
    a theory, and has nothing in common with the
    nature.

    Repeating half-truths doesn't make them whole
    truths. Half-truths are lies, which is what
    Wozniak always does. And he doubles down
    when his false assertions are exposed.

    “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

    “How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner
    self is telling him.” – Frank Herbert

    Or, perhaps, maybe Wozniak doesn't have an inner self?

    “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

    That seems to be where Wozniak is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 07:54:50 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.


    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 17 13:26:37 2024
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 5:54:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay. He must believe that they didn't do
    so before clocks were invented :-))

    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions. I have
    pointed out the insanity of that monumental absurdity, yet
    Wozniak maintains his foolishness, apparently because he
    can never admit it even when he is glaringly 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

    "So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd
    better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly
    can't rearrange the universe." – Isaac Asimov

    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    I suspect that Wozniak is the disproof of that quote since
    NO ONE in the whole world believes anything he says.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 13:37:08 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 17:00:47 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 5:54:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    so before clocks were invented :-))

    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 16:55:43 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated and it
    has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 15:09:51 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    and it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    So (almost) the whole word is wrong and a only a ranting old Polish guy
    who never really studied physics is right.

    Sounds reasonable, right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 15:10:58 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 5:54:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    so before clocks were invented :-))

    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.

    And another one got the name "dog". Dogs do no exist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 17:27:51 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:10, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 5:54:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    so before clocks were invented :-))

    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.

    And another one got the name "dog".

    Is dog a human invention, poor stinker?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 17:35:08 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    Why - instead? those are independent.

    and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    So (almost) the whole word is wrong

    Your moronic church is no way any whole world.
    Sorry, poor stinker.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 15:32:44 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:27, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:10, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 5:54:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 06:07, gharnagel pisze:

    That's only ONE definition.  Wozniak is a
    poor observer because he refuses to see the
    other one.  This one:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at
    once" -- Ray Cummings

    I don't refuse to see something just
    because it is some mystical bullshit
    lacking any content.

    So nature has no content

    So the "definition" of yours has no content.

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    so before clocks were invented :-))

    It may. Time remains  purely virtual abstract
    invented by humans - for the purpose of
    describing.

    So Wozniak pretends he's living in a frozen universe.
    Or he's just lying again.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is just lying again.

    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.

    And another one got the name "dog".

    Is dog a human invention

    Definitely. We've turned wolves into dogs.

    poor stinker

    Nice signature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 15:50:34 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    Why - instead? those are independent.

    "instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people and
    because you overestimate yourself (both are facts).

    I did study logic in three distinct fields : math, CS and philosophy.

    This brings some relevance to *my* claim :
    - You suck at logic
    - You suck at physics

    Moreover, as a member of Humanity, I claim that :
    - You are a despicable human being
    - You are only making a fool of yourself

    and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    So (almost) the whole word is wrong

    Your moronic church is no way any whole world.

    All decent people who took time to study Relativity can
    recognize that it is consistent. Cont rarely to you claims.

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 18:24:27 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:50, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    Why - instead? those are independent.

    "instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people

    Not especially. You've got a logical proof
    that the mumble of your idiot guru was not
    even consistent - are you convinced?



    This brings some relevance to *my* claim :
    - You suck at logic
    - You suck at physics> Moreover, as a member of Humanity, I claim that :
    - You are a despicable human being
    - You are only making a fool of yourself

    See, that's the whole power of logic. Instead
    convincing people it makes them raving,
    spitting and slandering.


    and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    So (almost) the whole word is wrong

    Your moronic church is no way any whole world.

    All decent people who took time to study Relativity

    were brainwashed by that shit.


    can
    recognize that it is consistent.

    Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
    can do about it is spitting, slandering
    and utterly idiotic asserting, poor stinker.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Python on Thu Oct 17 19:54:15 2024
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    ....
    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees. So the sun has been named by
    humans, so Wozniak is claiming humans invented the sun.
    This is where his ludicrous claim goes down the rabbit hole.

    Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.
    Wozniak continually confuses naming an object with the
    object itself. His bizarre assertion is thoroughly
    refuted.

    Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.

    Simple only to a simpleton.

    And another one got the name "dog". Dogs do no exist.

    At least they didn't before they were named. But how
    could they be named if they didn't exist? Hmmmm.

    And another one got the name Maciej Wozniak, so he didn't
    exist before he was named. It's an unsolvable conundrum.

    Maybe if we unnamed Wozniak, he would cease to exist! :-)

    One could only hope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 20:48:29 2024
    Le 17/10/2024 à 18:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:50, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
    ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    Why - instead? those are independent.

    "instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people

    Not especially. You've got a logical proof
    that the [SR] was not
    even consistent - are you convinced?

    I didn't get such a proof. I got a utterly stupid argument
    that is very low even according to your low standards.

    This brings some relevance to *my* claim :
    - You suck at logic
    - You suck at physics> Moreover, as a member of Humanity, I claim that :
    - You are a despicable human being
    - You are only making a fool of yourself

    See, that's the whole power of logic. Instead
    convincing people it makes them raving,
    spitting and slandering.

    Not in my world.

    and  it has really no power over stupidity and fanatism.

    So (almost) the whole word is wrong

    Your moronic church is no way any whole world.

    All decent people who took time to study Relativity

    were brainwashed by that shit.

    facepalm...

    can
    recognize that it is consistent.

    Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
    can do about it is spitting, slandering
    and utterly idiotic asserting

    No. No proof in sight but utterly idiotic arguments from
    an old ranting Polish demented guy. So ?

    And my answers were not "spitting, sladering, etc." yours
    are.

    poor stinker

    Nice signature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 23:18:37 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:26, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes time is a human invention, and
    that's its ONLY definition, yet trees grow, die
    and decay.  He must believe that they didn't do
    ....
    I'm just trying to understand Wozniak's bizarre assertion
    that time only exists because of human inventions.

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees.

    No, I don't. Harnagel is lying as usual.
    As for time -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
    article. Point those which are parts of
    nature.



    Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.

    Time is not an objects, but, anyway, I could
    example hundreds of objects invented by
    humans.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 17 23:24:12 2024
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 22:48, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 18:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:50, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 15:37, Python pisze:
    Le 17/10/2024 à 15:26, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>>>>> ..
    Wozniak might be able to find some followers:

    "There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather
    its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
    -- Isaac Asimov

    So far it seems that "one of best logicians Humanity ever
    had" has gathered absolutely ZERO followers. How come :-) ?

    That's simple: logic is overestimated

    Have you considered the hypothesis that you overestimate yourself
    instead?

    Why - instead? those are independent.

    "instead" because logic has a weight, can actually convince people

    Not especially. You've got a logical proof
    that the [SR] was not
    even consistent - are you convinced?

    I didn't get such a proof.

    Yes you did. I've pointed directly
    2 denying each other predictions
    derivable in the physics of your
    idiot guru. That's a prof of inconsistency
    and a fanatic idiot screamin "NOOOOO!!!",
    spitting and stamping his feet is changing
    nothing.

    Anyway, what makes you think logic
    convinces people? Did you witness
    many examples?

      can
    recognize that it is consistent.

    Still it was not. You've got a proof, all you
    can do about it is spitting, slandering
    and utterly idiotic asserting

    No. No proof in sight but utterly idiotic arguments from
    an old ranting Polish demented guy. So ?

    I've pointed directly
    2 denying each other predictions
    derivable in the physics of your
    idiot guru. That's a prof of inconsistency
    and a fanatic idiot screamin "NOOOOO!!!",
    spitting and stamping his feet is changing
    nothing.



    And my answers were not "spitting, sladering, etc." yours
    are.

    poor stinker

    Nice signature.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Oct 18 11:41:59 2024
    On 2024-10-16 13:07:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 16/10/2024 à 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-10-14 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
    Einstein did not use it.

    You may be right.
    For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be completely abandoned.

    A lot of words and concepts are already abandoned.

    This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is "necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through
    it.
    Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
    "local time",

    Not used.

    "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame",

    Can be used as a reminder but does not mean much.

    "local present time",

    Not used.

    "hypercone of present time",

    Not used as "present time", if used, is usually defined as a hyperplane,
    not a hypercone.

    "invariance of the space-time interval",

    Space-time interval is invariant.

    "time-gap": we don't need all of this.

    Does not exist except as a false impression from an approximation
    so only rarely used.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Fri Oct 18 11:03:04 2024
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 16/10/2024 � 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-10-14 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    The expression is usually not used in Relativity. In particular,
    Einstein did not use it.

    You may be right.
    For my part, I firmly believe that a lot of words or concepts should be completely abandoned.
    This will make many relativity lovers jump, I think, but I think it is "necessary for the song" and that one day, we will have to go through it. Example of words or concepts that are TOTALLY useless, even biased.
    "local time", "relativity of simultaneity by change of reference frame", "local present time", "hypercone of present time",
    "invariance of the space-time interval", "time-gap": we don't need all of this.
    At best, it is useless, at worst it is false.
    And this is only part of the horror that misunderstood RR has become, and
    I am not even talking about uniformly accelerated media and rotating
    media.
    The RR that should remain compatible is so much no longer compatible that we are forced to talk about RG to sweep the dust under the carpet.
    The same goes for a simple Langevin in apparent speed, it is so ridiculous that we are forced to evade this question, and that no one except me is capable of drawing a simple little space-time diagram for the two protagonists where the lines of simultaneity are horizontal in the present time hyperplane of each.
    All this is absurd.
    How many more years or decades before all these stupid notions jump out of the textbooks?

    R.H.

    I thought I made myself clear what "local time" is?

    "local time" in Albert's Einstein mind is "present time".

    When Albert Einstein says "present time", he means what you calls
    ..."local time".

    If I'm in Los Angeles, and you're in Paris, I will ask you

    "What time is it there now?"

    What am I asking? I'm asking what is the local time.

    "What time is it there now?"

    The operative word is..."there".

    "What time is it *there* now?"

    "there" means 'local time' and also means 'present time' (in Einstein's
    frame of referance)

    "present time" means here and there.

    in a particular place.

    synonyms: here, there, near, nearby, at hand, close/near at https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present

    But I don't want to know what time is it ...here, there, now...

    I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!

    "everywhere"!

    Do you know where ...everywhere IS????

    Or do I need to show you where is it at?

    You're everywhere.

    You're IN everywhere.

    I want to know what time is it now...everywhere!

    What time is it now...everyehre.

    Not here
    not there...

    but

    EVERYWHERE!!!!


    The first 3 seconds of the big bang occured...everywhere.

    The first second...everywhere.

    an hour later..it's still everywhere.

    Now, i don't know hom many seconds has passed since
    the first second of the big bang, but total it and
    you will have the accurate time of what time it is now.





    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Oct 19 13:52:18 2024
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:18:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees.

    No, I don't.

    Of course he claimed that because it's a logical deduction
    of what he said. Assertions have consequences, something
    most people learned as a child.

    Harnagel is lying as usual.

    Just stating the consequences of Wozniak's absurd assertions.

    As for time -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
    article. Point those which are parts of
    nature.

    Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
    nature of time with clocks. This is typical of a so-
    called "information engineer" who believes only in
    "information":

    “Information is not knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein

    Here's some REAL knowledge:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

    23 pages of discussion in one site, not mentioning time
    just 20 times (ooh, ANOTHER definition of "time") with
    20 references plus external links.


    https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/

    Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.

    Time is not an objects,

    Irrelevant and deceptive. Objects experience time.

    but, anyway, I could example hundreds of objects
    invented by humans.

    Irrelevant and deceptive. I can give examples of
    millions of objects NOT invented by humans. For
    starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

    Wozniak can't seem to admit that he could possibly be
    wrong, even when buried by overwhelming disproof.
    Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not
    wisdom.

    “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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 19 21:02:29 2024
    W dniu 19.10.2024 o 15:52, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:18:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees.

    No, I don't.

    Of course he claimed

    No I didn't. Or - a quoting pls, poor lying piece of shit.



    As for time -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
    article. Point those which are parts of
    nature.

    Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
    nature of time

    Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
    of time", poor idiot.
    So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
    article are parts of nature. Let me guess - none
    of them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Oct 20 03:52:15 2024
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:02:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.10.2024 o 15:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:18:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees.

    No, I don't.

    Of course he claimed ...

    Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
    conivingly deleted

    ... that because it's a logical deduction of what he said.

    No I didn't. Or - a quoting pls, poor lying piece of shit.

    Obviously, Wozniak is completely ignorant of the implications
    of his erratic assertions.

    As for time -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
    article. Point those which are parts of
    nature.

    Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
    nature of time

    Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
    of time", poor idiot.

    So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
    profanity instead of cogent argument).

    So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
    article are parts of nature. Let me guess - none
    of them?

    https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/

    The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
    Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
    Time"

    The very title has the NATURE of time in it :-))

    Implying that the whole treatise is about time as nature.
    Wozniak's guesses wrong, as usual. And he deletes the most
    damning examples I gave that naming something doesn't mean
    it was a human invention:

    I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
    by humans [and named by humans]. For starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

    Wozniak can't seem to admit that he could possibly be
    wrong, even when buried by overwhelming disproof.
    Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not
    wisdom.

    “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

    Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
    with millions of cases that disprove his assertion. His
    pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
    false assertions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 20 07:56:29 2024
    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 05:52, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:02:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.10.2024 o 15:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:18:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.10.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:10:58 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 17/10/2024 à 17:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    See, poor idiot: after humans invent something
    they usually give a name to it. One of their
    abstract inventions got the name "time".

    Trees have been named by humans, so Wozniak is claiming
    that humans invented trees.

    No, I don't.

    Of course he claimed ...

    Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
    conivingly deleted

    Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
    Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
    of lyiong shit.




    of his erratic assertions.

    As for time -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    you've got about 20 times mentioned in the
    article. Point those which are parts of
    nature.

    Wozniak is still trying to conflate the philosophical
    nature of time

    Well, fuck your delusional "philosophical nature
    of time", poor idiot.

    So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
    profanity instead of cogent argument).

    So, which, precisely,  of the times mentioned in the
    article are  parts of nature. Let me guess - none
    of them?

    https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/

    The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
    Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
    Time"

    Teke your pseudophilosophical mumble and put it
    straight into your dumb, fanatic asS where it
    belongs.
    So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
    article are parts of nature.


    Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
    with millions of cases that disprove his assertion.  His
    pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
    false assertions.

    See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Oct 20 12:09:50 2024
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 5:56:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 05:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:02:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [All Wozniak's previous mumblings and bumblings deleted]
    Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
    conivingly deleted

    Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
    Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
    of lyiong shit.

    Wozniak spits and screams. The truth hurts, eh?

    So Wozniak admits defeat (that's what it means when one uses
    profanity instead of cogent argument).

    So, which, precisely,  of the times mentioned in the
    article are  parts of nature. Let me guess - none
    of them?

    https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-time/

    The title is "The Philosophy of Time: Study the Nature of
    Past, Present, and Future" and a section is "The Nature of
    Time"

    Teke your pseudophilosophical mumble and put it
    straight into your dumb, fanatic asS where it
    belongs.

    :-)) Wozniak spits and screams when his abysmal claims are
    exposed for the lies they are :-))

    So, which, precisely, of the times mentioned in the
    article are parts of nature.

    Many places. The subject is the NATURE of time. How could
    a REAL "information engineer" miss that?

    Wozniak decides to go on being wrong after being presented
    with millions of cases that disprove his assertion.  His
    pride and arrogance are the only things greater than his
    false assertions.

    See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    Wozniak is the one "spitting, insulting and slandering" when
    his pet assertions are proven asinine.

    https://healthypsycho.com/self-reflection-the-key-to-constructive-criticism/#google_vignette

    "Before pointing fingers at others, it is crucial to
    examine our own actions thoughts and attitudes. Self-
    reflection allows us to identify our biases, weaknesses
    and areas for improvement."

    We could all improve in this area, but Wozniak is way
    behind the curve on this. ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
    is a bit behind in this area, too.

    “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing
    with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling
    with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.”
    ― Dale Carnegie

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 20 15:39:41 2024
    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 14:09, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 5:56:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 05:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:02:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [All Wozniak's previous mumblings and bumblings deleted]
    Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
    conivingly deleted

    Fuck your sentence, I didn't claim that.
    Or, the quoting pls, poor little piece
    of lyiong shit.

    Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?

    It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
    yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
    relativistic shit.

    So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
    of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.
    You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
    which is a part of nature. And your philosophical
    proof that an elephant must be pink is not interesting
    me, no matter how brilliant it is.

    Till next time, poor trash.






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 21 00:04:40 2024
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:39:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 14:09, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?

    It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
    yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
    relativistic shit.

    Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.

    So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
    of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.

    You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Quote:
    I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
    by humans and named by humans. For starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented. I gave many more examples of people
    naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention. The quote:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
    -- Ray Cummings

    is proof that the time spoken of in that quotation is
    NOT a human invention, it's an observation of nature.

    And your philosophical proof that an elephant must
    be pink

    Wozniak is telling a half lie. I never said that time
    MUST NOT be a human invention. My thesis is that in
    some definitions of time, it is a human invention and
    in other definitions it's not.

    is not interesting me, no matter how brilliant it is.

    Another Wozniak lie. If he weren't interested, he
    wouldn't have wasted his time posting his B.S. :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 21 08:03:51 2024
    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 02:04, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:39:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 20.10.2024 o 14:09, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak spits and screams.  The truth hurts, eh?

    It does, sure, and I didn't claim what you say I did;
    yet another slander from a poor little piece of lying
    relativistic shit.

    Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.

    So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
    invented trees please.


    So, returning to time: I've provided about 20 examples
    of grey elephants/ times which are not a part of nature.

    You've provided no example of a pink elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Quote:
    I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
    by humans and named by humans.  For starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

    None of your examples is a time, unfortunately.




    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented.

    Do you claim that humans don't name
    things they have invented, poor trash?




    , which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.

    No it doesn't.
    It just shows that a star doesn't have
    to be a human invention. Sure.




    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention.  The quote:

    As said, your philosophical proofs that
    an elephant must be pink - are not
    interesting me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 21 11:59:23 2024
    On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 6:03:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 02:04, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:39:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.

    So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
    invented trees please.

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented. I gave many more examples of people
    naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.
    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention. The quote:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
    -- Ray Cummings

    is proof that the time spoken of in that quotation is
    NOT a human invention, it's an observation of nature.

    Quote:
    I can give examples of millions of objects NOT invented
    by humans and named by humans.  For starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

    None of your examples is a time, unfortunately.

    Wozniak is being deceitful again. The list is proof that
    humans name things which aren't human inventions. The
    quote:

    "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once"
    -- Ray Cummings

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented.

    is proof that time, in the case mentioned, is not a human
    invention.

    Do you claim that humans don't name
    things they have invented, poor trash?

    Only a really stupid person or a congenital liar would
    claim that from what I've said.

    which refutes Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a
    human invention.

    No it doesn't.

    Yes, it does. Only a really stupid person or a congenital
    liar would claim that from what I've said.

    It just shows that a star doesn't have
    to be a human invention. Sure.

    "doesn't HAVE to be"? So now Wozzie is claiming that
    some stars ARE human inventions? What a fool!

    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention.  The quote: ....

    Dishonest fool Wozzie-fool deletes the quote so he can
    cover his stupidity. He's "crafty and mean. But not
    creative, not truly intelligent." -- Robert A. Heinlein

    As said, your philosophical proofs that an elephant must
    be pink - are not interesting me.

    Then stop answering my posts. He has proven once again
    that he is a FOOL and a liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 21 15:04:52 2024
    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 13:59, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 6:03:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 02:04, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:39:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Wozniak is lying, and a very stupid lie at that.

    So, a quoting where I'm claiming that humans
    invented trees please.

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
    naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.

    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.
    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.



    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention.  T

    You could as well show that in philosophy
    elephants are pink; who cares.

    Dealing with sticks and rods humans started to
    imagine a perfect rigid rod. The origin of
    your mystical time bullshit is similar. 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.
    And all are observer independent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 22 03:11:19 2024
    Wozniak: I think that time is experienced and recognized by animals
    because they compare rates of change, and the bear in Alaska anticipates
    the salmon run at the time of year it experienced it before. Some
    flowers bloom on the same day at the same length every year. So, time is
    an abstraction with different human conventions. Since it is a
    comparison of rates of change, it helps to have one standard of
    reference. Since that is an abstraction, to vary it would be a
    reification fallacy, like changing the meter. An excellent book on time
    is "Primitive Time Reckoning" by Martin Nilsson, a famous scholar who
    wrote it while Europe was waging WWI.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Oct 22 11:55:30 2024
    On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:04:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 13:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
    naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.

    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

    The only "engineering that Wozniak does is engineer
    his disinformation.

    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.

    And then I showed that in the philosophy of time, time
    is NOT a human invention.  T

    You could as well show that in philosophy
    elephants are pink; who cares.

    Wozniak cares, or he wouldn't keep posting disinformation.

    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, 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.

    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? Stupid, stupid Wozniak. If this is how Wozniak
    thinks:

    “Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
    ‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink

    And all are observer independent.

    Baloney! Observers are human inventions and human
    inventions can be redefined, so they definitely aren't
    "observer independent." What a pile of poop Wozniak is
    spreading now.

    “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.”
    – Friedrich Schiller

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 22 17:56:54 2024
    W dniu 22.10.2024 o 13:55, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:04:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 21.10.2024 o 13:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak gave a mere 20 examples of time being a human
    invention and he claimed that people name things that
    they invented.  I gave many more examples of people
    naming things that they did NOT invent, which refutes
    Wozniak's claim that time MUST be a human invention.

    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.



    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

    Real elephants are grey, gedanken/fabricated
    elephants can easily be pink.




    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.
    Anyway, it never existed. Just like "rigid
    rod".


    , 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.

    It's not me, it's you deeply believing that
    The Shit of your idiot guru was something
    Nature Herself was singing to him.


    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.


    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.



    , 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 03:57:41 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 07:56:19 2024
    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.



    "'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.

    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.




    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

    What is apparent to an utter relativistic idiot doesn't
    matter.

    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.

    An assertion is no way an argument, poor
    trash.



    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.

    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.


    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

    And so is the mistake of your moronic church
    of physics.



    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Oct 23 12:28:25 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 15:14:52 2024
    W dniu 23.10.2024 o 14:28, gharnagel pisze:
    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.

    Nope. It just shows that time has nothing
    in common with that.


    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.

    Why would I need it a proof, poor trash?
    Am I a prosecutor?
    Without proof it is still a slander. What
    was that Socrates was saying about a 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 :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(animal)
    Not quite.

    But still, for sure there is no time in nature.




    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.

    An assertion of an utter relativistic idiot
    (being simultaneously a piece of lying shit,
    BTW) is no way an argument.



    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.

    Conclusion: time has little in common with things
    not happening at once.


    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.

    Somehow
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
    none of the real times mentioned there
    dilates.
    See, poor trash, as a human invention time
    and clocks are obeying common sense. Not
    the nature. Nor some religious maniacs
    self-appointed to speak in the name of
    the nature.
    You may gedanke a dilating time and clocks
    indicating it - sure. Or you may gedanke
    purple elephants; similar bullshit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 15:48:19 2024
    W dniu 23.10.2024 o 15:23, gharnagel pisze:
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:14:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    [Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]

    Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
    on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
    and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 13:23:47 2024
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:14:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    [Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]

    Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
    on relativity. He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
    and mean. But not creative, not truly intelligent."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Oct 23 14:20:56 2024
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:48:19 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 23.10.2024 o 15:23, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:14:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    [Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]

    Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
    on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
    and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    See? Wozniak the dissembler can't make a cogent rebuttal
    against the fact that time is a natural phenomenon, so he
    does exactly what I said: he tries to twist the discussion
    into a diatribe on relativity. Furthermore, his "proof"
    against relativity has been completely refuted.

    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
    ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
    -- Winston Churchill

    Wozniak's malice has attacked the truth, and failed. His
    ignorance is incapable of logical rebuttal, and the facts
    that time is a natural phenomenon and relativity is a
    valid model of the world in its domain of applicability
    are true ... and there they are.

    An "information engineer" is the least of the professions,
    it comes below even the oldest profession.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_profession_(phrase)

    Information is NOT knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 23 17:08:53 2024
    W dniu 23.10.2024 o 16:20, gharnagel pisze:
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:48:19 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 23.10.2024 o 15:23, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:14:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    [Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]

    Woznifool keeps trying to twist the discussion into a diatribe
    on relativity.  He is a dissembler, a fool and he is "crafty
    and mean.  But not creative, not truly intelligent."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    See, poor trashr - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    See?  Wozniak the dissembler can't make a cogent rebuttal
    against the fact that time is a natural phenomenon,

    I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
    times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
    times which are not a part of nature. You've
    provided no example of a purple elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.
    You even admit yourself - you know little
    about the subject. But, being a DK idiot -
    you still act as if you knew everything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 24 14:00:09 2024
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:08:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
    times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
    times which are not a part of nature. You've
    provided no example of a purple elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Ah, but I have. Wozniak can try to hide it but
    there it is.

    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
    ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
    -- Winston Churchill

    Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
    which does not refute other possible definitions. Words
    often have more than one definition and this is true
    of the word "time." The dictionary presents several:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time

    Our attempts to measure time (clocks) are what Wozniak
    is talking about:

    "a: the measured or measurable period during which an
    action, process, or condition exists or continues"

    But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
    inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
    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"

    which is not a human invention, as evidenced by our not
    being able to fully understand it.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-time-20240229/

    You even admit yourself - you know little
    about the subject.

    Of course, only stupid or arrogant people think they're smart.

    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and
    you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

    “I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.” -- Richard P. Feynman

    But, being a DK idiot

    “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.
    […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly
    the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”
    —David Dunning

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Wozniak has demonstrated no competency in any of his posts,
    so he shouldn't be casting stones. We have Merriam-Webster
    above which shows that Wozniak's definition of time is not
    unique.

    Wozniak claimed 40 examples of his definition. If he wanted
    to make it a pissing match, how many dictionaries are there
    in the world? More than 40? :-))

    - you still act as if you knew everything.

    “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
    -- Anonymous

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 24 17:53:38 2024
    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:08:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
    times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
    times which are not a part of nature. You've
    provided no example of a purple elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Ah, but I have.

    Nope. You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.
    as expected from a good relativistic doggie.



    Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
    which does not refute other possible definitions.

    Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
    elephant - he can always define an orchid
    as one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 24 19:41:54 2024
    On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:53:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:08:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
    times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
    times which are not a part of nature. You've
    provided no example of a purple elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Ah, but I have.

    Nope.

    Always-Wrong Wozniak is wrong again!

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
    space, none of which are human inventions.

    Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
    when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
    against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.

    “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

    You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.

    Wozniak is projecting his own behavior since he ASSerts
    incorrectly that time can only be a human invention when,
    in fact, humans do not create time: they only attempt to
    measure it.

    And he Spits and Slanders in the very next sentence:

    as expected from a good relativistic doggie.

    :-))

    Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
    which does not refute other possible definitions.

    And he Spits and Slanders again in the next sentence:

    Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
    elephant - he can always define an orchid
    as one.

    https://www.thepurpleelephantny.com/

    I embrace purple elephants:

    https://edenbengals.com/what-does-a-purple-elephant-symbolize/

    "a purple elephant symbolizes the achievement of something
    that is both impossible and fantastical. It represents the
    pursuit of something that may seem unattainable, yet is worth
    striving for. It is a reminder to think outside the box and
    to embrace creativity and imagination in all aspects of life."

    Wow! How did Wozniak manage to know me so well? Surely, he
    must be a GENIUS!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 24 23:37:09 2024
    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 21:41, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:53:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:08:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    I've provided about 20 (and after adding zone
    times - about 40) examples of grey elephants/
    times which are not a part of nature. You've
    provided no example of a purple elephant/time
    which is a part of nature.

    Ah, but I have.

    Nope.

    Always-Wrong Wozniak is wrong again!

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
    space, none of which are human inventions.

    Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me, poor
    trash. I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown
    me none.

    Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
    some things from happening at once... Am I
    your example of a time?

    But I'm not quite a part of nature too.


    Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
    when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
    against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.

    “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

    You've just asserted, spitted and slandered.

    Wozniak is projecting his own

    I'm not the one lying about my opponents
    alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.


    as expected from a good relativistic doggie.

    :-))

    Wozniak presents examples of ONE definition of time,
    which does not refute other possible definitions.

    And he Spits and Slanders again in the next sentence:

    Sure, when an idiot badly needs a purple
    elephant - he can always define an orchid
    as one.

    https://www.thepurpleelephantny.com/

    I embrace purple elephants:

    https://edenbengals.com/what-does-a-purple-elephant-symbolize/

    "a purple elephant symbolizes the achievement of something
    that is both impossible and fantastical.

    Exactly, harrie. Just like a time being a part
    of nature.
    Still - it's as I said: if you need a purple
    elephant badly - you can always define
    an orchid as one; wouldn't be much stupider
    than the definitions you're presenting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Oct 25 13:08:45 2024
    On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:37:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 21:41, gharnagel pisze:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    Events may human OR natural happening. The word "time" has many
    definitions: sometimes it means what clocks read, sometimes it
    means "a nonspatial continuum" (i.e., part of nature), sometimes
    it means a natural "irreversible succession from the past through
    the present to the future."

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    "Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the
    Truth.” -- Buddha

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    Time is measured but not invented by humans.

    So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
    space, none of which are human inventions.

    Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me,

    He wouldn't be posting if he weren't "interested." Wozniak is
    lying again.

    poor trash.

    All he does is spits, lies and slanders .. and blames others
    for what he does.

    I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown me none.

    At least this time he didn't delete actual dictionary entries
    that completely refute his ridiculous ASSertion. How strange
    that a so-called "information engineer" would reject information
    from multiple dictionaries. Actually, not so strange if one
    considers the source: a sociopathic congenital liar who is in
    denial of reality.

    Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
    some things from happening at once... Am I
    your example of a time?

    Wozniak can't prevent anything important from happening,
    like the truth.

    But I'm not quite a part of nature too.

    Of course he is. Animals are part of nature and Wozniak
    is an animal. He is part of nature and he could create
    human inventions -- but he doesn't because he's not smart
    enough: he's

    "crafty and mean. But not creative, not truly intelligent."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein


    Unfortunately, some people have such inflated egos that,
    when they make an asinine ASSertion, they must do battle
    against anyone who presents facts to the contrary.

    “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

    I'm not the one lying about my opponents
    alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.

    Wozniak thinks hypothesizing is lying? Since he's shown such
    interest in pink elephants, it's a possibility that he has
    delerium tremens. And since he has now switched to purple
    elephants it's also possible that he's hooked on mary jane:

    https://www.allbud.com/marijuana-strains/hybrid/purple-elephant

    These possibilities explain a lot about his psychotic behavior.

    Still - it's as I said: if you need a purple
    elephant badly - you can always define
    an orchid as one;

    Or marijuana :-))

    wouldn't be much stupider than the definitions you're
    presenting.

    Wozniak is in denial of multiple dictionaries :-))

    “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you
    tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

    “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

    “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.”
    – Friedrich Schiller

    “By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, [Wozniak] keeps
    us in touch with the [stupidity] of the community.”
    -- Oscar Wilde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 25 15:40:49 2024
    W dniu 25.10.2024 o 15:08, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:37:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 24.10.2024 o 21:41, gharnagel pisze:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    Events may human OR natural happening.  The word "time" has many definitions: sometimes it means what clocks read, sometimes it
    means "a nonspatial continuum" (i.e., part of nature), sometimes
    it means a natural "irreversible succession from the past through
    the present to the future."

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    "Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the
    Truth.” -- Buddha

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    Time is measured but not invented by humans.

    So time is a part of existence, like stars, planets and
    space, none of which are human inventions.

    Your pseudopoetry is not interesting me,

    He wouldn't be posting if he weren't "interested."  Wozniak is
    lying again.

    poor trash.

    All he does is spits, lies and slanders .. and blames others
    for what he does.

    I've shown you 40 examples, you have shown me none.

    At least this time he didn't delete actual dictionary entries
    that completely refute his ridiculous ASSertion.

    You can find many entries in a dictionary
    which describe things tat don't really exist.
    There are gods and cyclops and minotaurs...
    Even such an idiot should understand that -
    but somehow he doesn't.


    Actually, not so strange if one
    considers the source: a sociopathic congenital liar who is in
    denial of reality.

    Unless, of course - I'm a time. I can prevent
    some things from happening at once... Am I
    your example of a time?

    Wozniak can't prevent anything important from happening,

    Your "definition differently" was not implying
    things prevented from happening at once must be
    important.



    Of course he is.  Animals are part of nature and Wozniak
    is an animal.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nature
    See, poor trash - "independently of people" required.


    I'm not the one lying about my opponents
    alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.

    Wozniak thinks hypothesizing is lying?

    No, but I think lying is lying, poor lying
    piece of shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Oct 25 14:37:23 2024
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:40:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    No, but I think lying is lying,

    Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.

    poor lying piece of shit.

    And he's an expert not only on lying but on spitting and
    slandering since he does those all the TIME, too :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 25 16:44:42 2024
    W dniu 25.10.2024 o 16:37, gharnagel pisze:
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:40:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    No, but I think lying is lying,

    Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.

    It's not me lying about alleged booze
    of my opponents. Sorry, poor lying piece
    of shit.
    Of course, that's what your moronic church
    is training doggies like you for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Oct 25 23:14:08 2024
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:44:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 25.10.2024 o 16:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.

    It's not me lying about alleged booze
    of my opponents.

    When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
    swallows camels. The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
    of valid dictionary definitions:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
    drug addiction. I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
    purple elephants, HE was.

    “‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often
    a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to
    scold someone, point out what they have done wrong. But each
    time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at
    ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

    Wozniak has zero sense of humor. He must be a liberal.

    Sorry, poor lying piece of shit.

    And now he displays his coprophilia obsession.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/coprophilia
    "Coprophilia is the condition of desire for sexual gratification
    and sexual arousal derived from the smell, taste, or sight of
    feces or from the act of defecation."

    Of course, that's what your moronic church
    is training doggies like you for.

    And then there's his monomania about relativity. Every time he
    posts his disgusting nonsense, he digs himself deeper and
    deeper into his obsessive-compulsive derangements :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 26 08:53:04 2024
    W dniu 26.10.2024 o 01:14, gharnagel pisze:
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:44:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 25.10.2024 o 16:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.

    It's not me lying about alleged booze
    of my opponents.

    When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
    swallows camels.  The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
    of valid dictionary definitions:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    Can have alef0 of very different interpretations,
    and none of these interpretations is going to be
    a part of nature.


    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    Meaningless.


    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    How did it happen that they didn't mention Cs
    radiation periods here?


    Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
    drug addiction.  I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
    purple elephants, HE was.

    But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
    poor little piece of lying shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Oct 27 00:36:01 2024
    On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 6:53:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 26.10.2024 o 01:14, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:44:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 25.10.2024 o 16:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozniak is an expert on lying since he does constantly.

    It's not me lying about alleged booze
    of my opponents.

    See? Absolutely no sense of humor :-))

    When Wozniak talks about lying, he strains at gnats and
    swallows camels.  The camels are his hypocritical dismissal
    of valid dictionary definitions:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
    "a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently
    irreversible succession from the past through the present to
    the future."

    Can have alef0 of very different interpretations,
    and none of these interpretations is going to be
    a part of nature.

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/time
    "Time is the movement from past to present to future."

    Meaningless.

    On to a self-proclaimed "information engineer" who denies
    valid information and has never engineered anything.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/time
    "the part of existence that is measured in minutes, days,
    years, etc., or this process considered as a whole"

    How did it happen that they didn't mention Cs
    radiation periods here?

    Irrelevant bovine merde. "existence: the fact or state of
    living or having objective reality."

    Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
    the existence of time. Most clocks are a human invention but
    what clocks are attempting to measure is not. Anyone with a
    brain that has existed for 18 years in the world's culture
    would understand this. Unfortunately, Wozniak has spent his
    time in inebriation of one kind or another.

    Versus making a big stink about his supposed alcohol and
    drug addiction.  I wasn't the one that brought up pink and
    purple elephants, HE was.

    But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,

    But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple elephants.
    I just pointed out the meanings of them. As usual, Wozniak has
    hoisted himself on his own petard but refuses to take responsibility
    for his own behavior.

    poor little piece of lying shit.

    And with his obsessive-compulsive disorder, he wallows in his
    psychopathic coprophilia :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Oct 27 03:02:08 2024
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:28:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    What is "local time" in relativity?

    So long as we can cut out the e=mcc crap we can talk about relativity.
    Local time is what your watch or clocktower says provided they function properly.
    Local time will be different a millimetre away between time zones.
    So it is arbitrary as to where timezones are constructed. Then there is
    such an arbitrary thing as daylight saving.
    These days we believe that the world turns round and round continuously, instead of staying put with the sun, stars and moon going around us in
    fixed crystal spheres.
    Part of the reason we don't think so has to do with astronomy. The
    angular position of distant stars varied with time, becoming exact after
    a little over 365 days.
    That period forms the calendar which has leap years inbuilt to account
    for the little extra time for a complete revolution.
    All days are said to have the exact same time and here the word time has relation to one revolution on one hand and about 365 rotations on the
    other.
    The key event interval then for the measurement of time related to the alignment of stars. Which is absolute and not arbitrary.

    Time as seen by the watch varies from place to place. That is because we
    want it so. We could in theory have one standard time everywhere, never
    put our clocks front or back. That is confusing from the practical point
    of view when people travel. So timezones have to exist.


    1. Is it the chronotropy of the local frame of reference?

    2. Is it the time noted on the watch of a given observer?

    This is obviously not AT ALL the same thing, and I suspect that many physicists speak without knowing what they are talking about.

    Perhaps I could be more precise here.

    What are we talking about?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 27 08:37:18 2024
    W dniu 27.10.2024 o 02:36, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
    directly - Harnagel finally got it.

    Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
    the existence of time.  Most clocks are a human invention but
    what clocks are attempting to measure is not.

    Harnagel is repeating this absurd assertion
    again and again, hoping that his spitting
    and slandering the opponent will make it true
    without any arguments.


    But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,

    But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple elephants.

    But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged
    booze. What was Socrates saying about a slander,
    poor little lying piece of shit?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 28 02:38:56 2024
    On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 7:37:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.10.2024 o 02:36, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
    directly - Harnagel finally got it.

    Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
    ridiculous. Apparently, he is too soused to see the :-)

    Wozniak is trying to conflate the measurement of time with
    the existence of time.  Most clocks are a human invention but
    what clocks are attempting to measure is not.

    Harnagel is repeating this absurd assertion
    again and again,

    Unfortunately, truth has to be repeated continually to some
    irrational souls.

    hoping that his spitting and slandering the opponent will
    make it true without any arguments.

    Poor, poor Woznaik, he is just such an abused soul :-)

    But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,

    But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
    elephants.

    But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.

    BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple
    elephants. Seeing pink elephants is a synonymous way of
    saying delirium tremens, so it is logical to assume that
    he is experiencing them. After I pointed this out to him
    he switched to purple elephants, which is a form of ....
    marijuana. As they say, out of the frying pan and into
    the fire :-)

    What was Socrates saying

    "Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom."

    Unfortunately, Wozniak is unaware of his ignorance.

    "Ignoramus is a noun that means an utterly ignorant person
    or a dunce."

    about a slander,

    Slander? "Slander refers to defamatory statements made
    verbally" -- which I have not done.

    His screaming "slander" is, actually, libel :-))

    poor little lying piece of shit?

    Ah, poor, poor Wozniak sinking again into his coprophilia :-(

    "intense interest and pleasure in feces and defecation,
    especially as a source of sexual arousal"

    Wozniak is such a mental basket case that is makes no sense
    for him to try to save his nonexistent "reputation"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 28 08:05:30 2024
    W dniu 28.10.2024 o 03:38, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 7:37:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.10.2024 o 02:36, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
    directly - Harnagel finally got it.

    Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
    ridiculous.

    Still, J've shown you about 40 examples of a time which
    are obviously a human invention. You've presented
    no example of the opposite.





    But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,

    But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
    elephants.

    But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.

    BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple


    Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
    even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
    known that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 28 12:24:27 2024
    On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:05:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.10.2024 o 03:38, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 7:37:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.10.2024 o 02:36, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
    directly - Harnagel finally got it.

    Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
    ridiculous.

    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 that time is a human invention.

    You've presented no example of the opposite.

    Hmmm. I've presented several examples that refute Wozniak's
    bizarre assertion. Either he is lying or his memory is in
    terrible shape, possibly due to addiction. To jog what's
    left of his memory, here's one: ---------------------------------------------------------
    Words often have more than one definition and this is true
    of the word "time." The dictionary presents several:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time

    Our attempts to measure time (clocks) are what Wozniak
    is talking about:

    "a: the measured or measurable period during which an
    action, process, or condition exists or continues"

    But the very fact that trying to measure time with human
    inventions is evidence that what we are trying to measure
    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"

    which is not a human invention, as evidenced by our not
    being able to fully understand it. ----------------------------------------------------------

    But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple
    elephants.

    But Harnagel is the one that brought my alleged booze.

    BECAUSE Wozniak irrationally brought up pink and purple

    Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
    even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
    known that.

    :-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of "slander"
    even after having it explained to him. This does indeed
    imply that he may be guilty of substance abuse.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 28 16:37:38 2024
    W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:24, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:05:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.10.2024 o 03:38, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 7:37:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.10.2024 o 02:36, gharnagel pisze:

    So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)

    So, after abaut 10 posts when I said it
    directly - Harnagel finally got it.

    Harnagel had it all the time: Wozniak's bizarre assertion is
    ridiculous.

    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.


    that time is a human invention.




    You've presented no example of the opposite.

    Hmmm.  I've presented several examples that refute Wozniak's

    No, you've presented none.


    "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.




    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.

    "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.


    Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
    even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
    known that.

    :-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of "slander"

    Asserting about someone's booze with no
    other reason but disliking him - absolutely
    is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 28 17:49:31 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Even amongst many idiocies you on Mon Oct 28 19:29:29 2024
    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?
    Well, isn't it, poor trash?


    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.

    "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... anyway, you may use any of the times
    - human inventions here and it's going to fit.
    How did you imagine that it's describing
    something that isn't a human invention?




    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.


    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.
    That's what The Shit's doggies are trained
    for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Oct 29 12:42:04 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 29 16:11:39 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Oct 30 13:49:22 2024
    On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:11:39 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.10.2024 o 13:42, gharnagel pisze:

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

    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.

    Word salad.

    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.

    My, my! Still no slander here since I've never spoken a
    word about Wozniak. And coprophilia again in the same
    sentence. His brain is really messed up.

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

    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,

    A measurement is done by humans. Wozniak deceitfully ignores
    WHAT is being measured. Distance is a measurement of space.
    Humans didn't create space, and humans invented clocks to measure
    time, which in this context is not a human invention.

    Harrie, poor trash?

    Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.

    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?

    Maybe Wozniak should stop twisting words. It only shows his
    complete lack of honesty.

    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.

    So humans created the universe? If Wozniak really believes
    this, he has a very unstable mind.

    And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.

    What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's

    Dishonest Wozniak deleted the rest of my sentence:
    words and behavior.

    Nope. What yoiu said is an obvious, wild,
    baseless slander;

    First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.
    Wozniak is so arrogant and egotistical that he won't use the
    correct word even after he's been shown that "slander" cannot
    be the right word :-))

    “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

    Second, he was babbling about pink elephants which have a
    very specific meaning:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

    And since he has opened that can of worms, his shift to
    talking about purple elephants logically leads to marijuana:

    https://www.allbud.com/marijuana-strains/hybrid/purple-elephant

    He continually paints himself into these corners and then refuses
    to accept the consequences of his action, like a young brat.

    that's what The Shit

    Coprophilia again. His brain is really messed up.

    is training its doggies for, of course.

    And libel again. Tsk, tsk. Well, this is getting very boring.
    Wozniak never learns

    “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to
    learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin

    never changes.

    “Changelessness is decay.” – Isaac Asimov

    So he continues to spout the same baloney over and over again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 30 16:24:29 2024
    W dniu 30.10.2024 o 14:49, gharnagel pisze:

    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.

    My, my!  Still no slander here

    Just a slander there.

    A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully ignores> WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement of space.
    Humans didn't create space

    Of course they did. And not just one. See, poor trash:
    we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
    speaking only about some of those referred as
    "physical space".



    Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.

    Just a wild, baseless assertion, as expected
    from a poor little Shit knight.


    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.

    So humans created the universe?

    No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
    a very unstable mind.


      If Wozniak really believes> this, he has a very unstable mind.

    And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.

    What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's

    Dishonest Wozniak deleted the rest of my sentence:

    And dishonest Harnagel has slandered
    about my alleged booze.

    First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.

    It can be and it is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 31 00:00:11 2024
    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.10.2024 o 14:49, gharnagel pisze:

    Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
    and slandering piece of fanatic shit.

    My, my!  Still no slander here

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully
    ignores WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement
    of space. Humans didn't create space

    Of course they did.

    Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
    and time. Weird!

    And not just one.

    Ah, and the multiverse, too. Wow! This guy thinks BIG!!

    See, poor

    Ah, he believes he can denigrate others because of his
    delusions of grandeur.

    trash:

    The only other demented person I know calling people things
    like trash and garbage is Joe Biden. That explains a lot
    about Wozniak.

    we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
    speaking only about some of those referred as
    "physical space".

    None of said space was created by humans. Proof of
    Wozniak's dementia is his conflating the word with
    the natural object with the human description of the
    object.

    Harrie, poor trash?

    Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.

    Just a wild, baseless assertion,

    Wozniak's dishonesty about his dementia is to
    be forgiven: he knows not what he does.

    as expected from a poor little Shit

    Coprophilia again. Delirium tremens, purple elephant,
    congenital lying, and now dementia, too. He is seriously
    mentally disturbed.

    knight.

    In shining armor, at your service.

    So humans created the universe?

    No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
    a very unstable mind.

    I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
    So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
    create the universe. Good. The universe consists of
    space, time, energy and matter. Is Wozniak willing to
    admit that humans didn't create those specific things,
    or is he going to keep on being 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

    And dishonest Harnagel has slandered
    about my alleged booze.

    First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.

    It can be and it is.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you
    think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."

    So it's not slander for three reasons: (1) I have spoken
    nothing false about him. (2) He has no reputation to harm
    and (3) he has no standing in the community of this group.

    And (4) his own behavior, as evidenced by his words, imply
    everything that I have said about him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 31 08:16:45 2024
    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:
    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.10.2024 o 14:49, gharnagel pisze:

    Sust in a sick imagination of a poor, lying
    and slandering piece of fanatic shit.

    My, my!  Still no slander here

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    like when poor lying piece of shit Harnagel
    is talking about my alleged booze, for the
    ethernal glory of his idiot guru.



    A measurement is done by humans.  Wozniak deceitfully
    ignores WHAT is being measured.  Distance is a measurement
    of space.  Humans didn't create space

    Of course they did.

    Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
    and time.

    There is no such thing, it's either universe or
    of space and time.



    we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
    speaking only about some of those referred as
    "physical space".

    None of said space was created by humans.

    An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
    such an idiotic assertion.


    No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
    a very unstable mind.

    I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
    So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
    create the universe.  Good.  The universe consists of
    space, time, energy and matter.

    No it doesn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 31 13:15:28 2024
    On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says. I gave a
    link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
    include in his fake response. It is restored here to cover
    Wozniak's baloney with truth:

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."

    like when poor lying

    Does a liar know lying when he sees it? Or is he just a
    whining child who can dish it out but can't take it?

    piece of shit

    :-)) Wozniak reveals his fetish for coprophilia again.

    Harnagel is talking about my alleged booze,

    Whine, whine, whine. Wozniak can't take a little ribbing,
    no sense of humor whatever.

    for the ethernal glory of his idiot guru.

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
    and time.

    There is no such thing, it's either universe or
    of space and time.

    Wow! Wozniak displays his ignorance and stupidity again!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

    "universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."

    Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory
    Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.).

    "The totality of all space and time; all that is, has been,
    and will be."

    I suppose Wozniak will now consult another sloppy Polish
    dictionary, but he won't find any support for his stupidity
    even there.

    we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
    speaking only about some of those referred as
    "physical space".

    None of said space was created by humans.

    An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
    such an idiotic assertion.

    Wozniak's assertion is not an argument, and his opinions
    aren't supported by any facts.

    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    -- Douglas Adams

    No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
    a very unstable mind.

    I'm only trying to understand what Wozniak is saying.
    So he is now on the record asserting that humans did not
    create the universe.  Good.  The universe consists of
    space, time, energy and matter.

    No it doesn't.

    Vacuous assertions aren't an argument, particularly made by
    a coprophiliac, demented, pathological liar with oppositional
    defiant disorder.

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20375831

    A church leader once said, "I am persuaded that one of the
    purposes of the church is to give people the opportunity to
    be offended." That's a very deep thought. Apparently, we
    all need this to grow into full adulthood. Obviously, Wozniak
    has never been to church, but perhaps this forum can serve
    that function. Unfortunately, Wozniak continues to whine and
    spit and defame and lie like a child who has never had his
    mouth washed out with soap.

    "Do you remember Grandma's LyeSoap?
    Good for everything, everything in the home
    And the secret was in the scrubbin'
    It wouldn't suds; It wouldn't foam."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 31 16:55:49 2024
    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 14:15, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
    slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
    link to a LEGAL definition



    , which Devious Wozniak failed to
    include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
    Wozniak's baloney with truth:

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."

    like when poor lying

    Does a liar know lying when he sees it?  Or is he just a
    whining child who can dish it out but can't take it?

    piece of shit

    :-))  Wozniak reveals his fetish for coprophilia again.

    Harnagel is talking about my alleged booze,

    Whine, whine, whine.  Wozniak can't take a little ribbing,
    no sense of humor whatever.

    Of course I can always take poor fanatic
    idiot impudently slandering for the
    ethernal glory of his shitty church
    and his idiot guru. If I couldn't -
    I would avoid talking to The Shit's
    knights at all, wouldn't I?



    Wozniak believes that humans created the universe of space
    and time.

    There is no such thing, it's either universe or
    of space and time.

    Wow!  Wozniak displays his ignorance and stupidity again!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

    "universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."

    Well, a mistake. BTW, what about famous spacetime
    invented by your idiot guru? And which time of which
    frame do they mention here?



    we have geocentric space and heliocentric and ECi...
    speaking only about some of those referred as
    "physical space".

    None of said space was created by humans.

    An assertion is not any argument. Particularly
    such an idiotic assertion.

    Wozniak's assertion is not an argument, and his opinions
    aren't supported by any facts.

    So are Harnagel's assertions and his opinions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 1 08:23:02 2024
    Am Donnerstag000031, 31.10.2024 um 14:15 schrieb gharnagel:
    On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
    slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
    link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
    include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
    Wozniak's baloney with truth:

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."


    The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.

    But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer', because
    in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes, it is important,
    that the perpetraitor has or should have knowledge about doing something
    wrong.

    This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his statements
    were wrong and that he used false accusations, to harm somebody.

    But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.

    It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the perpetraitor
    knows whether or not that statement was false.

    Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.

    If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a bank, this
    would certainly harm his reputation.

    But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.

    But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
    wouldn't be slander.

    It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not 'slander'.

    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Nov 1 12:11:11 2024
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 7:23:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Donnerstag000031, 31.10.2024 um 14:15 schrieb gharnagel:

    On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/ slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
    link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
    include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
    Wozniak's baloney with truth:

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."

    The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.

    European law is even worse.

    But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer',
    because in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes,
    it is important, that the perpetraitor has or should have
    knowledge about doing something wrong.

    This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his
    statements were wrong and that he used false accusations, to
    harm somebody.

    But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.

    It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the
    perpetraitor knows whether or not that statement was false.

    Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.

    Indeed, and Wozniak has nothing to harm. Any "reputation" he
    may have once had, he has frittered away by his own behavior.
    He himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
    No one believes anything he says.

    If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a
    bank, this would certainly harm his reputation.

    But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.

    But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
    wouldn't be slander.

    It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not
    'slander'.

    TH

    Consider, however, when one calls a statement a "pink elephant,"
    as Wozniak did, he is trying to say that the statement is an
    illusion when, in fact, any rational person would say it was
    perfectly true. Is he not "harming the reputation" of the one
    making the statement? Thus Wozniak is the one "slandering."

    And if his "pink elephant" accusation is turned around and bites
    him in the butt, it is just karma. So Wozniak screaming "slander"
    is exposed as the childish ranting of a mendacious hypocrite.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 1 14:37:25 2024
    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 13:11, gharnagel pisze:
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 7:23:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Donnerstag000031, 31.10.2024 um 14:15 schrieb gharnagel:

    On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Just a slander there.

    "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
    you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    I think it means
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
    slander#google_vignette
    the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

    Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
    link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
    include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
    Wozniak's baloney with truth:

    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."

    The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.

    European law is even worse.

    But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer',
    because in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes,
    it is important, that the perpetraitor has or should have
    knowledge about doing something wrong.

    This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his
    statements were wrong and that he used false accusations, to
    harm somebody.

    But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.

    It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the
    perpetraitor knows whether or not that statement was false.

    Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.

    Indeed, and Wozniak has nothing to harm.  Any "reputation" he
    may have once had, he has frittered away by his own behavior.
    He himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
    No one believes anything he says.

    If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a
    bank, this would certainly harm his reputation.

    But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.

    But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
    wouldn't be slander.

    Consider, however, when one calls a statement a "pink elephant,"
    as Wozniak did, he is trying to say that the statement is an
    illusion when, in fact, any rational person would say it was
    perfectly true.  Is he not "harming the reputation" of the one
    making the statement?  Thus Wozniak is the one "slandering."

    And if his "pink elephant" accusation is turned around and bites
    him in the butt, it is just karma.

    Was it karma slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,
    well known piece of lying shit.
    Not that it can be surprising somehow,
    that's what The Shit of Einstein is training
    it's doggies for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Nov 1 16:44:21 2024
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it karma slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation! He can't go on
    anymore, he can only sit at his computer and whine, whine, whine.

    well known piece of lying

    Pot, kettle, black. Wozniak is so familiar with lying because
    he does it all the time.

    shit.
    Not that it can be surprising somehow,
    that's what The Shit

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
    Coprophilia: "There are also social problems with eating feces.
    It causes bad breath"

    I'll bet Wozniak uses gallons of Listerine. :-))

    of Einstein is training it's doggies for.

    I'd take offense at that if it weren't from an inebriated Pole
    with a proven track record of dishonesty and stupidity :-)

    “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
    -- Anonymous

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 1 20:32:15 2024
    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!

    I'm not at all. Don't I know
    relativistic scumbags? Don't I
    know The Shit training them to
    bark, spit and slander its
    enemies?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Nov 2 01:40:33 2024
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:32:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!

    I'm not at all.

    Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
    not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever. The record shows
    that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.

    Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
    perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.

    Don't I know relativistic scumbags?

    Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer, and a DK idiot.

    Don't I know The Shit

    This he DOES know because of his coprophilia. He gets off on
    it when he eats it.

    training them to bark, spit and slander its enemies?

    Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering. He can't
    take it when his abhorrent behavior is exposed, so he whines and
    whimpers about how abused he is. He's a wuss.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 2 08:31:22 2024
    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:40, gharnagel pisze:
    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:32:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!

    I'm not at all.

    Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
    not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.

    I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
    scum to obey the rules of civilized society
    and avoid slandering their opponents.


      The record shows
    that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.

    Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
    perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.

    Don't I know relativistic scumbags?

    Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer

    It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
    trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
    just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
    fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
    church is training you.

    Don't I know The Shit
    training them to bark, spit and slander its enemies?

    Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering.


    It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
    trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
    just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
    fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
    church is training you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Nov 2 13:39:58 2024
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 7:31:22 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:40, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:32:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!

    I'm not at all.

    Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
    not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.

    I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
    scum to obey the rules of civilized society
    and avoid slandering their opponents.

    Wozniak doesn't understand the first thing about being "civilized."
    Civilized people don't call other people scum. Civilized people
    man up to their mistakes. Civilized people are civil. They are
    courteous, polite, well-mannered. Wozniak is rude, discourteous
    and boorish.

    The record shows that he is a unrepentant liar and an ignoramus.

    Silence implies consent.

    Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
    perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.

    Don't I know relativistic scumbags?

    Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer

    It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
    trash, and it was not any karma too.

    Of course it's karma. Wozniak has been lying, insulting,
    and behaving like a drunken sailor for years. He finally
    got his just reward when he started babbling about pink and
    purple elephants. Connecting those to substance abuse was
    obvious and served an uncivilized boor right.

    It's not just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
    fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
    church is training you.

    Cutting and pasting his boorish nonsense as he goes around
    and around in circles of hate speech is proof that Wozniak
    is an unprincipled and uncivilized spoiled child that never
    grew up.

    Don't I know The Shit training them to bark, spit
    and slander its enemies?

    Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering.


    It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
    trash, and it was not any karma too. It's not
    just you, it's an usual movement of relativistic
    fanatics, poor trash. That's how your moronic
    church is training you.

    Cutting and pasting lies and insults is what uncivilized
    boors do. Wozniak should have been treated to a few
    episodes of Grandma's lye soap:

    Little Herman and Brother Thurman
    Had an aversion to washing their ears
    Grandma scrubbed them with the LyeSoap
    And they haven't heard a word in years.

    Little Wozzie prevaricated,
    He was quite the holy terror.
    Grandma forgot to soap his pie hole,
    Now he spits and screams his stupid error.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 2 17:49:35 2024
    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 14:39, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 7:31:22 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:40, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:32:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Was it  karma  slandering about my alleged
    booze? Well, not quite, it was Harnagel,

    Oh, Wozniak is SO hurt by this allegation!

    I'm not at all.

    Wozniak expects us to take his word for his assertion that he's
    not an alcoholic without any proof whatsoever.

    I don't. And I don't expect relativistic
    scum to obey the rules of civilized society
    and avoid slandering their opponents.

    Wozniak doesn't understand the first thing about being "civilized."
    Civilized people don't call other people scum.

    Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
    and many other relativistic worshippers.


    Perhaps it's substance abuse, or perhaps it's congenital, or
    perhaps he's a DK idiot, like he tries to project on others.

    Don't I know relativistic scumbags?

    Nope, because he is an ignoramus, and a slanderer

    It's not me lying about my opponent booze, poor
    trash, and it was not any karma too.

    Of course it's karma.

    No, it's Harnagel, well known piece of
    lying shit. And, of course, some of his
    fellow idiots; that's what their moronic
    church has been training them for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Nov 2 18:38:40 2024
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:49:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
    and many other relativistic worshippers.

    So Wozniak admits that he's not civilized. But everyone already
    knew that.

    No, it's Harnagel,

    It wouldn't be necessary to treat a civilized person roughly.
    Wozniak came on the scene lying, insulting and "slandering,"
    so when he gets it back to him, it is karma. What goes
    around, comes around. And Wozzie goes around and around and
    around.

    well known piece of lying shit.

    And Wozzie, the well-known coprophiliac, eats it.

    [Excessively repetitive lies deleted for sanitary reasons]

    Little Wozzie prevaricated,
    He was quite the holy terror.
    Grandma failed to soap his mouth,
    Now he spits and screams his stupid error.

    Mrs. O'Mally, Down in the valley
    Suffered from ulcers, I understand
    She swallowed a cake, of Grandma's LyeSoap
    Now she's got the cleanest ulcers in the land!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 2 22:11:55 2024
    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 19:38, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:49:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
    and many other relativistic worshippers.

    So Wozniak admits that he's not civilized.

    Talking to slandering scum like you and other
    relativists I partially descended to your level,
    I admit that. Partially, I don't slander.



    But everyone already
    knew that.

    No, it's Harnagel,

    It wouldn't be necessary to treat a civilized person roughly.

    I agree, but it's definitely necessary to
    treat your bunch of fanatic scumbags like
    a bunch of fanatic scumbags you are.



    Wozniak came on the scene lying, insulting and "slandering,"

    Oppositely, it was you and your fellows
    scumbags. And when it gets back to you -
    (no slanders, however, I descend to your
    level only partially) you're surprised;
    you're such idiots...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Nov 4 15:32:37 2024
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:11:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 19:38, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:49:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
    and many other relativistic worshippers.

    So Wozniak admits that he's not civilized.

    Talking to slandering scum like you and other
    relativists I partially descended to your level,

    Total dishonesty. Wozniak arrived upon the relativity
    group "slandering" viciously.

    I admit that. Partially, I don't slander.

    Totally, he does.

    But everyone already knew that.

    No, it's Harnagel,

    It wouldn't be necessary to treat a civilized person roughly.

    I agree, but it's definitely necessary to
    treat your bunch of fanatic scumbags like
    a bunch of fanatic scumbags you are.

    Wozniak has pumped up his "moral indignation" to fever-pitch
    to justify his insane rantings.

    “There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much
    destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits
    envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.”
    ― Erich Fromm

    Wozniak has indeed met karma face-to-face:

    “I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great
    sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
    -- Genghis Khan

    Wozniak came on the scene lying, insulting and "slandering,"

    Oppositely, it was you and your fellows
    scumbags. And when it gets back to you -
    (no slanders, however, I descend to your
    level only partially) you're surprised;
    you're such idiots...

    Au contraire. Wozniak is the insane "idiot" who is either
    a raving mad liar or a demented fool. And he's stupid, as
    evidenced by his completely absurd insistence that time is
    a human invention! Any supposed "slander" he has received
    is karma for such an obvious deception.

    “I’m allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm.”
    – Rebels Market

    "when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy
    is to dismount." -- Dakota Indians tribal wisdom

    Unfortunately, Wozniak can't dismount:

    Oh, I can't get offa my horse
    All day and night I ride among the cattle
    I can't get offa my horse
    'Cause some dirty dog put glue on the saddle

    Wozniak is the "dirty dog" who put glue on his own saddle.
    It's the glue of his egotism, vanity and arrogance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 4 19:34:49 2024
    W dniu 04.11.2024 o 16:32, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:11:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 02.11.2024 o 19:38, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:49:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
    and many other relativistic worshippers.

    So Wozniak admits that he's not civilized.

    Talking to slandering scum like you and other
    relativists I partially descended to your level,

    Total dishonesty.  Wozniak arrived upon the relativity
    group "slandering" viciously.

    Talking to scumbags like you and your
    fellow scumbags I have to descend partially
    to your level, I admit. But I don't
    slander like you; you're am idiot and
    it's quite possible that you don't know
    what a slander is, but somehow I doubt it.



      But everyone already knew that.

    No, it's Harnagel,

    It wouldn't be necessary to treat a civilized person roughly.

    I agree, but it's definitely necessary to
    treat your bunch of fanatic scumbags like
    a bunch of fanatic scumbags you are.

    Wozniak has pumped up his "moral indignation" to fever-pitch
    to justify his insane rantings.

    You project on me the stance of your
    insane church and its insane followers.


    Oppositely, it was you and your fellows
    scumbags. And when it gets back to you -
    (no slanders, however, I descend to your
    level only partially) you're surprised;
    you're such idiots...

    Au contraire.

    Nope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Nov 5 00:50:22 2024
    On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:34:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.11.2024 o 16:32, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:11:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Talking to slandering scum like you and other
    relativists I partially descended to your level,

    Total dishonesty.  Wozniak arrived upon the relativity
    group "slandering" viciously.

    Talking to scumbags like you and your
    fellow scumbags I have to descend partially
    to your level, I admit. But I don't
    slander like you; you're am idiot and
    it's quite possible that you don't know
    what a slander is, but somehow I doubt it.

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
    statement about an individual that harms his reputation
    or standing within the community."
    https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

    Woziliar doesn't know what slander is and lies about it
    continually. A written false statement cannot be slander,
    at most it is LIBEL.

    But either is more than just a false statement: it must
    also harm the target's reputation or standing in the
    community. Wozniak has no reputation to harm. He has
    dead wrong on virtually every cause he has advocated.

    Here is a perfect example of a major rant of his:

    I agree, but it's definitely necessary to
    treat your bunch of fanatic scumbags like
    a bunch of fanatic scumbags you are.

    He is libeling EVERYONE who disagrees with his outrageous
    point of view, time as only a human invention being just
    the most recent atrocity.

    Wozniak has pumped up his "moral indignation" to
    fever-pitch to justify his insane rantings.

    You project on me the stance of your
    insane church and its insane followers.

    And he is libeling EVERYONE who accepts that relativity
    is a valid theory. Many, many of these have reputations
    that he definitely would be harming -- IF not for the
    fact that Wozniak is a low-life stinker and congenital
    liar himself who no one believes ANYTHING he discharges
    from his corrupt brain.

    Oppositely, it was you and your fellows
    scumbags. And when it gets back to you -
    (no slanders, however, I descend to your
    level only partially) you're surprised;
    you're such idiots...

    Au contraire.

    Nope.

    Yep, I'd indict him for libel except that he's not worth
    the bother. He is an ineffective and impotent person.
    For his sake, I hope he will escape the form of the karma
    that will come to him when Putin gets done with Ukraine.

    Wozniak is the "dirty dog" who put glue on his own saddle.
    It's the glue of his libelous egotism, vanity and arrogance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to weren't slanders because you only on Tue Nov 5 07:06:24 2024
    W dniu 05.11.2024 o 01:50, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:34:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.11.2024 o 16:32, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:11:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Talking to slandering scum like you and other
    relativists I partially descended to your level,

    Total dishonesty.  Wozniak arrived upon the relativity
    group "slandering" viciously.

    Talking to scumbags like you and your
    fellow scumbags I have to descend partially
    to your level, I admit. But I don't
    slander like you; you're am idiot and
    it's quite possible that you don't know
    what a slander is, but somehow I doubt it.

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL

    Yeah, yeah, I've heard it before; your
    screams about my alleged booze and marijuana
    weren't slanders because you only wrote
    them.


    Woziliar doesn't know what slander is and lies about it
    continually.  A written false statement cannot be slander,

    Still, somehow you've found ME slandering...
    Lies have short legs, poor lying piece
    of shit.


    I agree, but it's definitely necessary to
    treat your bunch of fanatic scumbags like
    a bunch of fanatic scumbags you are.

    He is libeling EVERYONE who disagrees with his outrageous

    Like any fanatic idiot- you deeply believe that
    together with your fellows you form "EVERYONE".
    No, you don't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Nov 5 17:04:28 2024
    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 6:06:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.11.2024 o 01:50, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:34:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Talking to scumbags like you and your
    fellow scumbags I have to descend partially
    to your level, I admit. But I don't
    slander like you; you're am idiot and
    it's quite possible that you don't know
    what a slander is, but somehow I doubt it.

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL

    Yeah, yeah, I've heard it before;

    But he doesn't acknowledge truth when it hits him between
    the eyes:

    “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

    your screams

    The only screaming is coming from Wozniak. He libels continually,
    but he can't take it when someone points out the probable
    consequences of his words.

    about my alleged booze and marijuana
    weren't slanders because you only wrote them.

    At most it would be libel, not slander. But what I write
    about Wozniak isn't libel because he hasn't proven it's
    false. All we have is his word for it, and, as everyone
    can attest, his word is no good.

    Woziliar doesn't know what slander is and lies about it
    continually.  A written false statement cannot be slander,

    Still, somehow you've found ME slandering...

    I was just coming down to his level so he could understand,
    however vaguely, his error.

    Lies have short legs, poor lying

    Wozniak is projecting his own behavior again. He's a hypocrite
    with his feet connected directly to his hips.

    piece of shit.

    And his coprophilia is in clear evidence, as is his substance
    abuse from his references to pink and purple elephants.

    Some coprophiliacs eat it, so we may presume that Wozniak
    eats his own words.

    He is libeling EVERYONE who disagrees with his outrageous

    Like any fanatic idiot-

    More libelous ranting from a congenital liar, but it's unimportant
    because Wozniak's opinions are worthless lies.

    you deeply believe that together with your fellows you form
    "EVERYONE". No, you don't.

    I wasn't including myself. Wozniak has this obsessive compulsive
    disorder which compels him to lie about facts, for example:

    "Take just the case of the Sun moving towards Sirius. Then, the
    frequency is shorter because the speed of the starlight from
    Sirius is C + 5.5 m/sec."

    Using the test equation c' = c + kv:

    K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
    Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).

    "Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
    velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2 × 10−9. Optical
    Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays
    used have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance
    to the sources."

    So the assertion that c' = c + v is refuted to 1 part in a billion.
    This justifies the claim:

    "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates
    with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
    stationary or by a moving body." ―Albert Einstein 1905

    So Wozniak is libeling both Einstein and Brecher, plus numerous
    other honest physicists who have confirmed that c' = c by actual
    experiment.

    And what is Wozniak's proof for his stupid assertion? Nothing at
    all except for his vacuous opinion.

    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    -- Douglas Adams

    But c' = c is not an opinion. It's confirmed by experiment, but
    facts have no effect on stupid people.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 5 20:38:45 2024
    W dniu 05.11.2024 o 18:04, gharnagel pisze:
    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 6:06:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.11.2024 o 01:50, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:34:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Talking to scumbags like you and your
    fellow scumbags I have to descend partially
    to your level, I admit. But I don't
    slander like you; you're am idiot and
    it's quite possible that you don't know
    what a slander is, but somehow I doubt it.

    "Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL

    Yeah, yeah, I've heard it before;

    But he doesn't acknowledge truth when it hits him between

    OK, trash, enough of that, till next time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)