JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
> On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> > end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> > and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> > from the beginning to the end of an event.
If end and beginning of the event have the same space coordinates,
and if these are kept constant also during the event,
then there is no motion.
Motion is by definition related to change of space coordinates.
> The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> side or on the event side.
> > In terms of measurement, I
> > could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> > talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> > to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> > paragraph.
> There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
> either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> > -y
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.