On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:29:28 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon
time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes
longer than our reference second of today.

Such effects would likely have been significant during the first
microsecond or so after the big bang. It was a very big bang, apparently.

This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only
appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an
amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini.

Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm:
"Vodka or Gin?"
Amoeba:
"Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?"
Bartender:
"You can't bruise Vodka."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only
appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an
amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini.

Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm:
"Vodka or Gin?"
Amoeba:
"Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?"
Bartender:
"You can't bruise Vodka."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Personally, I liken it to debating whether or not the fairies on the
head of the pin are actually dancing.

73 (singular), ac6xg

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:41:06 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Personally, I liken it to debating whether or not the fairies on the
head of the pin are actually dancing.

That could only lead to debates of: 4-4 time, or in a triple minor?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC