Matt, as I amateurishly understand it, a gravitational field is an
accelerational field, so a distant observer outside of it and at rest
with respect to it will see the clocks there ticking more slowly (time
dilation) than the observer's own. On the other hand, if you were
orbiting a planet fast enough, the speed of your orbit might result
(relativistically, not mechanically) in your clock's ticking slower than
the planet-based ones, in the view of the aforementioned distant
observer. Indeed, on return to earth, your clock, placed side by side
with an earthbound twin, would be seen to be behind the time.
- Best, Ben
On 6/15/2014 1:05 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Isn't the big bang now considered a slow birth? If so, since General
Relativity says clocks in a stronger gravitational field move faster
than clocks in weaker fields, and since everything was in such close
proximity right after the big bang and thus was in stronger gravity,
and since we should count the years back to the date of the big bang
making sure to adjust for the contraction of time, isn't it plausible
that this places the big event an infinite number of years ago?
I doubt this is right since I've never heard it before. Nonetheless it
shows what shaky ground I'm on when I talk about the extremities of time.
Matt
On Jun 15, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
