What is "local time" in relativity?
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
What is "local time" in relativity?
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?
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.
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.
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.
since, for example, trees grow, die and decay,
there is something in nature that changes.
Clocks and coordinates and theories are ways
that we model time. But they aren't time,
just as the map is not the territory.
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.
W dniu 16.10.2024 o 05:45, gharnagel pisze:
As usual, Wozniak is conflating two different
concepts.
As usual, Harrie spits.
And say nonsense 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 and our
attempts to describe it (with clocks and
coordinates).
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 :-) ?
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.
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.
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".
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
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
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.
poor stinker.
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
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
recognize that it is consistent.
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".
Can't be that simple? Oh, yes, it can.
And another one got the name "dog". Dogs do no exist.
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?
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
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.
Humans have invented only the name, not the objects.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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 ...
... that because it's a logical deduction of what he said.
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?
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
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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:
Inserting the rest of the sentence that dishonest Wozniak
[All Wozniak's previous mumblings and bumblings deleted]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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. T
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
And all are observer independent.
Baloney! Observers are human inventions and human
inventions can be redefined
"observer independent."
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Does everything happen at once? No, it doesn't. Did
the invention of clocks keep everything from happening
at once? No, it didn't.
"'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
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.
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
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).
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.
Did humans invent time so everything doesn't
happen at once? No, they didn't.
"'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.
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.
An assertion is no way an argument,
poor trash.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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
[Nothing but absurd lies and trash-talk]
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.
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
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 presents examples of ONE definition of time,
which does not refute other possible definitions.
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.
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
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.
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."
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
I'm not the one lying about my opponents
alleged booze, poor lying piece of shit.
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.
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.
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,
Of course he is. Animals are part of nature and Wozniak
is an animal.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, poor lying piece of shit.
Of course, that's what your moronic church
is training doggies like you for.
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.
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.
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.
So Wozniak believes that space and time are human inventions :-)
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.
But you're the one that brought my alleged booze,
But Wozniak is the one that brought up pink and purple elephants.
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?
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.
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
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 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.
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
You've presented no example of the opposite.
Hmmm. I've presented several examples that refute Wozniak's
"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
"b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of
events which succeed one another from past through present
to future"
Oh, a cornered idiot will go for slanders;
even Socrates 2500 years ago has already
known that.
:-) Wozniak still misunderstands the definition of "slander"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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, 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.
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
dead wrong:
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
And Harnagel go for slandering in such case.
What I said is a perfectly logical conclusion from Wozniak's
words and behavior.
Nope. What yoiu said is an obvious, wild,
baseless slander;
that's what The Shit
is training its doggies for, of course.
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
A measurement is done by humans. Wozniak deceitfully ignores> WHAT is being measured. Distance is a measurement of space.
Humans didn't create space
Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.
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?
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:
First of all, it can't be slander because I didn't speak it.
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.
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".
Harrie, poor trash?
Proof that Wozniak is the one who libels.
Just a wild, baseless assertion,
as expected from a poor little Shit
knight.
So humans created the universe?
No. If Harnagel really believes this, he has
a very unstable mind.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
like when poor lying
piece of shit
Harnagel is talking about my alleged booze,
for the ethernal glory of his idiot guru.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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."
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
Don't I know The Shit
training them to bark, spit and slander its enemies?
Wozniak is the one barking, spitting and slandering.
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.
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.
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.
Civilized people don't slander, like Harnagel
and many other relativistic worshippers.
No, it's Harnagel,
well known piece of lying shit.
[Excessively repetitive lies deleted for sanitary reasons]
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.
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,"
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Woziliar doesn't know what slander is and lies about it
continually. A written false statement cannot be slander,
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
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;
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.
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.
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
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 475 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 33:55:10 |
Calls: | 9,490 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,617 |
Messages: | 6,121,166 |