Could Time Dilation Explain the Huge Redshifts Observed in Distant Stars?

[NewImage]

I was just wondering if that when we look at those starts billions of light years away, not only are they far away, but we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago. If time was moving at a different rate durring the beginning of the universe ( very slow), could that account for the huge redsifts?

 

[kleinwolf]

Well, according to the equivalence principle, gravitation makes

1) space-time curvature
2) space expansion, and time-expansion too...so that space-time accelerates...

Is that what you mean ?

 

[NewImage]

I guess i was thinking, if right after the big bang the quick expansion of space caused time to move at a slower rate then what it does now. So universaly time would move slower. The closer you got to the big bang the slower time moved until it stopes right at the instance of the big bang.

 

[kleinwolf]

Well... I don't know but it should in some sense disappear there (whenever there is no "there" at that "time" that does anyhow no more exist...)...Why couldn't it go always faster and reach a kind of singularity where it goes to -infinity "instantaneously" ?

I'm sorry but I'm not qualified for that kind of questions.

 

[NewImage]

Well... I don't know but it should in some sense disappear there (whenever there is no "there" at that "time" that does anyhow no more exist...)...Why couldn't it go always faster and reach a kind of singularity where it goes to -infinity "instantaneously" ?

I'm sorry but I'm not qualified for that kind of questions.

well I am guessing its like a line that goes off to infinity, just because there is an infiniti doesn't mean there is no points along, and no start of the line. That point where time would go into infinit speed would be the point where there was no more expansion of space, or movement of anything and all mater was turned to energy. If that point could ever happen.

 

[1123581321]

the faster you go, the slower time goes (or so i was told). mostly, red shifts are caused when things move away at very high rates of speed, so for those objects moving away from us, time would seem to be slow. the 'rate of time' differs from place to place if what i first said is true (which i am 99 % sure of), so time for us as planet Earth may be slowing down or speeding up, but we can't really tell what the whole universe is doing.

Did you understand that, because i don't think i did.

Fibonacci

 

[Chronos]

I was just wondering if that when we look at those starts billions of light years away, not only are they far away, but we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago. If time was moving at a different rate durring the beginning of the universe ( very slow), could that account for the huge redsifts?

Time only moves with respect to the observers reference frame. It is affected by the relative velocity of objects observed. The age of the universe has no bearing on this. There is no universal clock to compare current watches against ancient watches.

 

[moving finger]

I guess i was thinking, if right after the big bang the quick expansion of space caused time to move at a slower rate then what it does now. So universaly time would move slower. The closer you got to the big bang the slower time moved until it stopes right at the instance of the big bang.

Move slower relative to what?
There is no "absolute timescale" against which events can be measured. We measure time by comparing one event with another. If all events in the universe (including the biochemical processes in our brains) are "speeded up" by a factor of 1000, we would notice no difference (and there would BE no difference).

Another way of looking at this is to say that "time" is a human construct, it does not exist as a physical or any other kind of entity. What we call time is simply the comparison of different events.

MF