Another stupid science question!

[Razgovory]

I do know about time dilation with large bodies, but what I was thinking about was that since time is a function of space, if space was a different size wouldn't time also change?   If the whole universe was functioning under some time dilation of the first billion years wouldn't that throw our understanding off?

It would throw our understanding off how?  The calculated age of the universe is based on several different types of measurements.  Any time dilation would have to effect them all equally, in which case it probably isn't observable from within our universe.  There is no "external to the universe" clock that we have access to, in order to see the extent of time dilation.  All time measurements are based on being in the universe and are therefore based on "universe" time, all time dilation measurements are relative to a different frame that is not experiencing the dilation.  If everything is experiencing the dilation there's nothing to compare it to.

Would it affect them equally?  Let us say we that measure the half-life of some long lived radioactive isotope that was hanging around shortly after the big bang.  Time dilation affects this isotope for the first billion years of the universe's history.  Let's say we measure it in years (despite the fact there is no sun or earth).  The years the isotope "experienced" are a different length then the ones that it experiences now.  So it's age would be different then what we would expect then if the effect of time was constant over that period.

[Razgovory]

Raz, the answer is "time appears to behave differently". Time isn't an absolute thing, it is a product of our observations about things changing. There isn't some big "T" time that is affected by a big "S" space, they are the same thing.

Astronomers don't use any kind of standard for time?

[Viking]

Raz, the answer is "time appears to behave differently". Time isn't an absolute thing, it is a product of our observations about things changing. There isn't some big "T" time that is affected by a big "S" space, they are the same thing.

Astronomers don't use any kind of standard for time?

No, they just use the normal definition, this is why time dilation appears to happen. The standard "thought experiment" is the traveller with clock travelling at near light speed returning to his origin point. Both have travelled the identical distance in space time, but have done so in different observed time.

Time isn't really a thing, it's just a really really convenient way to explain stuff. Time as we know it was invented by newton in calculus to explain the motion of planets (and in the process resolving xeno's paradox).

Like everything newton did it perfectly explain's what dawkins calls "middle world" (the stuff that is larger than electrons and smaller than stars moving at non-relativistic speeds), it just doesn't explain the world outside that. Stop thinking of time as a thing, start thinking of it as the observers perception of change. Outside "middle world" time isn't really a thing. This is why scientists talk about space-time, its the thing that what we in "middle world" call space and what we call time, it's the same thing.

[Razgovory]

Are you sure that "time" isn't a thing?  That's sort of an odd statement.  I mean it can be altered by movement through space that seems to suggest that it is in fact something (even if it is just the same thing as space).  The existence of time seems somewhat important for cause and effect.  Otherwise everything would be happening at once.  Now I understand that time for one person is not the same for another and that there is no preferential frame of reference for time.

I'm trying to remember something, maybe you remember it.  I think it had to do with natural fission reactors in Africa.  The evidence of the reactors was quite old (a couple of billion years), and scientists had found that isotopes were decaying at an unexpected rate in the distant past suggesting that scientific constants may have been different in the past.  Unfortunately it's 4 in the morning here, and I don't think I'm remembering the story right.

I'd like to appreciate you guys not looking down your nose at me on this.  I suppose you guys have noticed that I wonder about many odd scientific things and sadly do not understand them very well.

[frunk]

Would it affect them equally?  Let us say we that measure the half-life of some long lived radioactive isotope that was hanging around shortly after the big bang.  Time dilation affects this isotope for the first billion years of the universe's history.  Let's say we measure it in years (despite the fact there is no sun or earth).  The years the isotope "experienced" are a different length then the ones that it experiences now.  So it's age would be different then what we would expect then if the effect of time was constant over that period.

Time isn't constant anywhere.  There's always small fluctuations due to gravity and velocity.  Aggregate time in the past likely was slower due to the higher density of the universe.  If we could compare time to some outside reference point this would matter (and for some calculations I'm sure it does matter), but since all points of reference for time are inside the universe it doesn't make much of a difference.  If there were strong local time dilation effects for a significant part of the universe not experienced by the rest in the distant past it would show up in the background radiation.  Its uniformity points to that not happening.

Look at it this way.  What if all of a sudden the rate of time slowed in the whole universe by some constant factor, one that wouldn't change the results of any relativistic comparisons, but everything was just slower.  Nobody would notice, there wouldn't be perceptible difference anywhere, and it wouldn't make a single change to anything except to a theoretical observer outside the universe. 

[alfred russel]

Are you sure that "time" isn't a thing?  That's sort of an odd statement.  I mean it can be altered by movement through space that seems to suggest that it is in fact something (even if it is just the same thing as space).  The existence of time seems somewhat important for cause and effect.  Otherwise everything would be happening at once.  Now I understand that time for one person is not the same for another and that there is no preferential frame of reference for time.

I'm trying to remember something, maybe you remember it.  I think it had to do with natural fission reactors in Africa.  The evidence of the reactors was quite old (a couple of billion years), and scientists had found that isotopes were decaying at an unexpected rate in the distant past suggesting that scientific constants may have been different in the past.  Unfortunately it's 4 in the morning here, and I don't think I'm remembering the story right.

I'd like to appreciate you guys not looking down your nose at me on this.  I suppose you guys have noticed that I wonder about many odd scientific things and sadly do not understand them very well.

Raz, I'm not the expert on this, but as I and others have mentioned in so many words, I don't think you can reference relativistic concepts like time dilation if your reference point is the whole universe.

[DontSayBanana]

Man, where's Hamilcar when you need him?  He might have been a twat, but this would have been right up his alley.

[Siege]

I used to think time was the enemy, but I realize now is not.

Time is a measure of technological development.
The more time you have the less technologically developed your environment is.
The less time you have the more technology, until you pass the knee of the curve of technological exponential growth, and then time is infinite.

[CountDeMoney]

I used to think time was the enemy, but I realize now is not.

When you decide it's Miller Time, it is for us.