Harry should answer you both yes and no (per the principle of uncertainty), seeing in two different contextual qualifications of time. The light-time-history movement of both the ant's and of the planet's frame (thus, a space and time passed) will always be the same distance. That said, the "relative space and time" movement of the ant and the planet will be a quite different story. Unobservable, and observable: objective and subjective; what-have-you.Harry, I do not find anything difficult in the idea that larger aggregations operate on a larger time frame.
Consider, for example, the some of the smallest entities - atoms (or even electrons) operate on what might be understood as a vibrational level. Small entities move rapidly over small distances. Conversely, large entities - being conglomerates of smaller entities - move (in total) more slowly over larger distances.
Again, it should be remembered that "distances" may not be entirely comparable when measured (estimated ? subjectively) by "instruments" existing (and comprehended) over vastly different orders of magnitude. By this, I am recognising the time element. Can you reliably compare the distance moved by an ant in one minute to the distance moved by a planet in one minute? Can you reliably assert that one distance is accurately x times the other?
Cat
Get to the point, eh. The Schwarzschild radius of the universe, the constant of turn around, or constant of turn over, time is for the time being approximately 13.7 billion light years (app. 13.7 billion years). I see it as a time-figure constant of the universe. We don't just happen to be lucky with that distance from non-local BBPI Horizon to end at local black hole horizon. Once more, accelerated / accelerating vertical universe-wise (stereotypical layer-level universe-wise / Chaos Theory "zoom universe"-wise), we live within the largest Black Hole Vortex, within the largest Black Hole Horizon, of them all. As Stephen Hawking indicated a long time ago, the universe isn't going to close out because it has already closed out: It isn't going to reach 0-point because it has already reached 0-point (always has been, is, and will always be there). Its progression is always 0-point to 0-point via past history (-) thru future history (+) (again 0-point to 0-point, the same infinities of horizon / the same Infinite of Horizon).
It was never "created" and is always, eternally, in paralleling rails of creation and end. The are cogs within cogs within cogs, to a wrap-around constant of always was and always will be. When Hawking agreed with the math picture of close out to 0-point, then disagreed with it at the same time by saying we are there right now and have always been there / always will be there, that applied to the picture of beginning as well. Applied in that when he said that all life has to do to be immortal in the universe is migrate as a constant thru the "life zone" of the universe toward the Horizon of Big Bang Beginning and never reach that Horizon, it always keeping its distance even if life traveled an infinite distance thru space and an eternity of time toward that Horizon. To keep its distance means there being in existence a constant of radius to it from each and every 0-point here and now wherever and whenever (similar to the horizon of Earth being the same distant horizon for you as for me even if you are half a world distant from me: meaning we both exist in it, too, for it to be constant horizon for both of us no matter where or when we are). That Horizon of the universe has the same meaning of radius in the universe from anywhere and any when (the same meaning of radius to infinities of anywhere and any when throughout infinities of universes (of universe horizons)).
I disagree on one point in particular. "Infinite density" is nothing more or less than an infinite hole. Also, "temperature" is relative, not absolute. I learned that a long, long, time ago, oddly enough, from the space fiction of E. E. "Doc" Smith.IMHO beginning and end are just concepts exaggerated by human ignorance. We just cannot imagine anything without these, since it is beyond our usual experience.
Please avoid breaking rule by bringing religion into it. In a cyclic model, no creator is required.
If you must go into endings, send a rocket into space and it will go on until it hits something other than a star. Hit something cold, and it will stay there until it hits something else, other than a star. If it hits a star, its constituent atoms or products will stay on the star until that goes cold. As I understand it, indefinite expansion of the Universe will eventually result in total disintegration of the material Universe into atoms, or smaller. Even then, there would be no end (in our terms). And all this nonsense about infinite density and 'infinite' temperature is clearly founded on ignorance, don't you believe? It is clearly unscientific. Metaphysics at best.
Cat
p
In general, there is no science in "infinite density", as there is no observation or experiment - hence we have either metaphysics or good, old fashioned guesswork.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram