Philosophy Discussion Forums

We seem to have settled on a consensus that the universe (as we perceive it) is about 13.75 billion years old. But Relativity theory tells us that time may pass at a different rate, in the vicinity of a concentration of mass or energy. When the universe was only half its present age, we may assume that the average concentration of mass was correspondingly higher, and time may have been passing at a rate different from today. How may this affect our assessment of the age of the universe?

I understand that it depends on one's frame of reference. To someone close to a massive object time will appear to pass at the normal rate. But observers further away from the massive object will see a clock close to the massive object running slower than their own clock, while an observer close to the massive object will see the clock of an observer further out running fast. But when we are talking about the universe as a whole things even out. And even though the universe was smaller way back when, there was no view from outside the universes so there is no problem with our understanding of the age of the universe.

I'm sure this is not entirely accurate but that is the gist of my understanding of relativity, mass, time and the inflationary universe. It's a fascinating subject.

Are there any physicists or cosmologists here who can enlighten us?

Your understanding of the issue, whether right or wrong, is at least superior to my own, LGS; reading your response, I now see that I was instinctively thinking of time in absolute rather than relativistic terms. Thank you.