On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:34:25 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 February 2014 17:16, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big >> bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately >> nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By >> whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in >> terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' >> right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we >> allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? >> > > I don't think so. Massive objects will have experienced gravitational time > dilation relative to gas-filled voids, for example. A neutron star formed > early in the history of the universe will be rather younger (in terms of > time since the big bang) than the Earth, for example. > Hi Liz - ok fair enough. So then can we turn that on its head by saying those objects are either physically real at the count of moments equating with 13.7B years or not? Assuming we can all agree that your point is totally legitimate, but that it doesn't make sense to say that these objects do not exist relative to some imaginery nearby object with an idealized standard count back to the big bang at 13.7B years? Then the issue you raise splits two ways. The sense it isn't true the object shares the same counts back to the big bang in terms of its subjective experience. And the sense it is true the object nevertheless is fully existent at 13.7B years. I mean, in this sense, it seems to follow (maybe daftly) that the big bang itself is still at the stage it hasn't happened yet, while somehow equally much at 13.7B years? What would it take for that to be true, assuming my intuition isn't bent? If we extended that to all densities, such that the centre of a proton experiences a time line differently relative to the edge of a proton, then does that say that the centre of all protons share a common tick of moments to the big bang, wherever they are? And their edge (i.e. out at the radius of a proton) also share a common tick of moments right back? Then the dense objects like neutron stars would also be sharing a common tick back between them, different at different densities. And so on. And all of this really just for the sense of illustration that what we are talking about might be made more intuitive. Such that we can return to Edgar's insight at its strongest, by asking, does all this make some sense of a resolved common moment more or less a hard physical requirement, that is independent of relativity?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
