🤔🤥😇

I disagree... Things were just more boring in the past. As a kid, I played with mud pies, kids today have Iphones....

sabine whats your views on the supernova caused by kendrick lamar

The speed of light (relative time) depends on density of the medium. Therefore, it is not a true time dilation.

@@smlanka4u Due to expansion of the universe, you will observe cosmological redshift regardless of medium. If there are differences in medium densities between observer and observed object, it's just gonna get tricky to unwind properly, probably implying some form of integration over whole observed distance to get precise answer.

I knew we weren’t crazy 😅

That's because there's not enough novelty in your life. Do new things you've never done before, have new experiences you've never had before.

"felt time' is inverse proportional to the total time you have experienced already.

Like a toilet roll.. the closer you get to the end the faster it goes.

That's because you've slowed down, so everything else appears to be going faster.

...why do scientists make everything overly complicated? Time, for us humans, has always been dictated roughly by the natural cycles of the sun. Theoretically.. if you left earth and exited our galaxy, there would be no sun over you, to dictate time and day. So what is a day at that point? Answer: nothing. So what is time at that point? Answer: we may never know because of our finite human brains. Doesn't matter because earth is a closed system! The truth is coming out. There is no space travel lol😂 feel sorry for you guys. Who believe in Star Trek lol

And I agree with you, the repetitive lives we live (sleep, work. Eat, repeat) causes our brains to basically ignore our day to day "normalcy" when as kids... The world was brand new to us and time was better cherished😢

When you're younger, you experience more moments. Probably because of your metabolism or maybe because everything is new, and you're paying more attention, so you're experiencing more per unit of time....I don't know, just an idea.

Our Prophet spoke about this ~1400 years ago also

I need another beer😅

​@4363HASHMI the only thing your profit did was topping a 9 year old. Get out.

​@@4363HASHMI Exactly! The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (1036) from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until knowledge is taken away, earthquakes increase, time passes quickly, tribulations appear, and there is a lot of haraj, which is killing, killing, and until there will be a lot of wealth among you and it will become abundant.” And Ahmad narrated (10560) that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until time passes quickly, so a year will be like a month, and a month will be like a week, and a week will be like a day, and a day will be like an hour, and an hour will be like the burning of a braid of palm leaves.”

@@4363HASHMIdid he really?

Scott Adams is into the simulation theory. It's another label for "god" A.K.A. waves.

Too bad KSP2’s publisher shut down

But can he run Crysis?

@@Antilli Can he run anything BUT Crysis?

Or it can't and they need stuff like this so they can continue to be right. Take dark matter and energy. There's some stuff that compromises over 90% of the universe but we can't detect it. Or maybe they are wrong.

​@@Spectre-wd9dl Time dilation has been proved to be real decades ago experimentally (Put 1 cesium atomic clock on earth and send 1 to space on a satellite and compare) actually required to be calculated for GPS to function

From the clock's perspective, it still does track the passage of time precisely, no matter what. And both perspectives are equally valid.

@@Spectre-wd9dl no, this effect, unlike dark energy and dark matter, is rigorously tested and observed. The GPS on your phone wouldn’t work if it wasn’t compensated for by the software.

Its entirely predictable. Areas of increased gravity experience time more slowly compared to areas of lesser gravity. The universe is expanding away from a state of being more dense (more gravity) in the past to less dense in the future. 2+2=4= Time is speeding up.

I agree that wasn't adequately addressed.

I saw this on Anton's channel the other day and asked myself exactly the same thing! Couldn't answer myself, though.

The narrative in this particular video is flawed and the title is unfortunate, I guess Sabine is just having a bad day

Your right. She actually states it in the video. The red shift is due to light losing energy to a gravitational field. The farther it travels the more energy lost. Its got feck all to with 'the doppler effect' and an 'expanding universe'. These grifters are full of it.

@@simesaid Well put, we are much better askers than we are answerers 😆

Sabine needs to do an AMSR whispering physics talk for us that need to sleep

Sadly, this video ended far too quickly. But, rather than adjusting the playback controls, I think I'll just wait a few billion years to watch it again.

Hot for teacher.

That was the red shift, getting hotter.

@@tonysheerness2427 I am not sure about that, when ever I saw someone hot, did the time go way too fast and the red skirts did not make it go slower.

@@friedmule5403 When I get hot and flustered time drags.

Planking, while stationary, for some reason experiences the largest time dilation. At least by a factor of 5 I would say.

That is strange, for me the math class did that. When I was playing sport and having fun the time moved faster!

Watching the wall clock click off the last 10 minutes of the school day, I swear it moved backwards!

the light will be blue-shifted. though what they see depends on how they fall (straight, spiral, accelerated etc)

Good. If I recall, subjectivity( see also the twin paradox, why are people/physicist picking on twins?) the falling observer would also see the outside world slow down and grind to a halt. As I do not have an inate hatred of twins nor a star ship, I can not test this. Yet. :)

Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the person who falls into the blackhole would see the universe speed up more and more until the heat death of the universe?

@@keithgarrett4155 They see each other slow down in flat space (just flying around in empty space). I can say with certainty that if you hover near a black hole, the outside is blue-shifted. I'm not sure what it looks like if you free fall, a quick thought experiment tells me there's a small red shift (equal to the amount of spaghettification) but not really sure on this.

@@SabineHossenfelder - So you'll get a nasty sunburn? Bummer.

yeah, it's called "religion." Everything fits into the theories of most religious figures and justifies their belief, but spacetime curvature has overtaken traditional religion. That includes Marxism, CRT, LGTBQIA+ and any other ruling class scam. Everything justifies those things too. It's how crazy works. There's a sucker born every second.

​@@rupertchappelle5303 It's called a smart idea cause it's supported by observable evidence even a hundred years after it was first thought of.

@@stuartl7761 So you think Joe Biden is competent and has no cognitive issues.. These curvature quacks are saying that the fabric of spacetime is "water falling" into the earth. - WHERE DOES ALL THAT SPACETIME GO??? If spacetime curvature curves or bends the path of a falling object why doesn't it also curve or bend the object falling? Toss a yardstick into the air and see if it curves to follow its path through CURVED SPACETIME. This Einstein crap makes talking snakes seem plausible. BTW the Big Bang - what exploded??? Nothing was there. You know, TIME curvature explains it better than SPACE curvature. One is demonstrable and one is not.

Oh geeze, slow down the clock! I'm not ready for a two decade fast forward!

@@MNbenMN I wish I could, I'll be a billionaire AND still have ample time to enjoy it!..

I think you need to retire from school now

We love Sabine ..

Maybe there is no expansion.

Good question. I can imagine two sources to the redshift. One is simply the speed that the distant object travels away from us, and the other is the expanding universe elongates the waves. Are these two different things?

No, same thing. And there are different explanations to the perceived redshift than actual expansion (which no one knows how it works anyway).

@@dodatroda No, it's very different. Expansion of space means, the other galaxy moves slowly, or not at all, taking lightspeed as reference. If it was moving away, it would be at a considerable part of lightspeed, so that relativistic time dilation became significant (like near the event horizon of a black hole).

The cosmic expansion is a RESULT of time slowing down. So you always get both together. Space and time are intertwined, you cannot separate them. Some say they are the same thing but I don't quite agree. When you start the clock, then it will take some time to cross a distance. Speed up the clock and distances, (and therefore space), gets "bigger", relative to before the time rate increased. This is what general relativity states, although most, if not all physicists don't see it that way. Special relativity also agrees with this view. Slow down time, (inertial time dilation), and lengths get shorter, they contract, (Inertial length contraction). You can never separate the two, time and space, because time "creates" space. With no time there IS no space. With the fastest time rate possible, you get a whole universe.

wouldn't a "drag" make the light come later, not shifted?

@@ix12 I don't know, would it? If one could compare the light coming through a gravitational lens (bending around a galaxy) compared to it not bending around a galaxy, would it be more redshifted?

Unfortunately a bot stole your comment and got a lot more answers than you did (because it has a sexy avatar). Anyway, I think the effect from gravity is so miniscule that it's drowned out by the effect from the expansion. And gravity on large scales should more or less cancel out since the universe is more or less uniform.

@@oaksnice Oh I see... so it's a fake science channel with the purpose of keeping people chasing falsehoods to prevent the masses from making any progress.

​@@ix12 It does both, and you likely already know why. the length of the wave itself is fixed. Think of the peek to peek distance of the wave function that she points out as being the nose and tail of a kayak with the body of the kayak being the dip between them. Now lets make this a self propelled kayak that does 7 knots at all times. The color we perceive the boat to be is the result of how long it takes for the peeks to go past the end of our dock. If the river is moving at three knots, we THINK that the boat has a color value of 10 when it is moving DOWN river past our dock and a color value of 4 when moving up river when in reality it has an unchanged value of 7 the whole time. All that has changed is the length of time it takes for the thing to pass making it SEEM like longer or shorter boat than it really is.

nope as one gets older novel situations are decreasing therefore less conscious attention involvement is needed therefore less experience happens that would serve as a marker of time which makes one percieve time speeding up

Time's going faster but only slowly. It's entropy that's going at a hell of a rate.

Time flies when you are having fun( or so I have told), therefore you must be having lots of fun! ;)

The process must be universal!

This explains Sabine's previous dilemma of Germans getting less done nowadays. They used to have more time.

Exactly, Sabine reported about that a year ago in the "weekly science news": "Time Ran Slower In Early Universe, New Study Finds".

Yes, that's right. I talked about this back then. I thought it'd be worth revisiting both because a lot of people might have missed it, and also, because I missed the opportunity back then to point out the relation to the slow-down of time near black holes, which tends to confuse a lot of people.

How, if at all, does this affect our use of the Type 1A(?) supernova as a "standard candle" for measuring speeds and distances? I hope I got those terms right. I'm working from memory which sometimes has dubious outcomes....

@@MoreLifePlease A good question. I wondered about that myself but only for a moment (I am a physicist). Obviously time dilation must mean less energy emitted towards us every (our) second. But the redshift itself takes care of that. Red-shifted photons carry less energy. PS. Correction. The angular distribution of emitted energy looks different in different inertial frames. The energy per angular degree gets "boosted" forwards and "deboosted" (not my terminology) backward, that is towards us. So time dilation decreases the luminosity by 1/(1+z) while deboosting by another 1/(1+z) making the supernova luminosity as a function of z (redshift) proportional to (1+z)^-2 (to the power of -2).

@@arctic_haze Exactly! 🤪😁

Interesting description,the prophet peace be upon him closely described it the same way you did: Ahmad narrated (10560) that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until time passes quickly, so a year will be like a month, and a month will be like a week, and a week will be like a day, and a day will be like an hour, and an hour will be like the burning of a braid of palm leaves.” Ibn Katheer said: Its isnaad is (saheeh) (authentic) according to the conditions of Muslim. And it was classed as saheeh (authentic) by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 7422.

@@fadate7292 It's old hip slang.

Thanks from the entire team!

The short answer is no, but... it depends on where the observer is actually located. When you reason things out with a Newtonian gravitational model rather than a General Relativity model, you'll find that in the Newtonian analysis, it would be possible to see past the event horizon if you were located outside, but near it. It would also be possible to escape from the region of space inside the event horizon by using constant proper acceleration. In General Relativity this is not possible because for a distant observer, time has stopped at the event horizon, and so nothing there *_can start_* doing anything to escape. In General Relativity, an observer at the event horizon *_can_* see beyond it, but can't tell anyone about it. I still need to analyze the case of whether a train of radio relay satellites, dropped into a black hole, would allow a message to be transmitted from the first (lowest, closest to black hole's center) satellite, up out of the black hole, even when the first satellite is beyond the event horizon. My gut feeling is that, no, even with the satellites buffering and amplifying the signal, it will never be relayed all the way out.

No, you'd never observe it actually passing through -- but after eons it would red shift and then just fade away. There's also some differences between a rotating and non-rotating black hole.

There would be a difference of relative time passing in a void versus inside a massive galaxy but that difference is only a tiny fraction, probably amounting to only a few years over the 13.8 billion years or so of the age of the universe if I remember correctly. Does not solve dark energy.

@@tonywells6990,Of course it isn't in line with our current mathematics for calculating time in relation to gravitational wells. What I'm suggesting is that instead of MOND they should be looking at a modified formula for Time. I'm suggesting that there's a threshold for gravitational interaction with time and that just like time dilation kicks in hard deep in extreme gravitational wells (or time dilations have a very low value until an object's velocity passes beyond 2/3 of locally measured c) the inverse might be happening when the gravitational effect becomes low enough. My suggestion is that the closest marginally measurable effect would be where our solar system ends. It would be much more measurable at the edge of a galaxy as you start coming out of the galaxy's gravitational well and go into fulle effect in the depths of an inter-cluster void. I'm suggesting that there must be new math, so proof of existing math doesn't counter that. It is my deep sorrow that I do not posses the skill to try to evolve this math.

@@janak132 Dead end, just like MOND.

Personally I think it's an illusory sensation caused by a general shortening of many people's attention spans.

Ah. So I have still 2 years ... months ... days ... minutes .. damn, got there too.

Then don't blink to make it last longer.

I think the cepheid measurement works only some hundred million lightyears away, so the effect is smaller like 1A supernovae, that are much brighter and therefore visable in longer distances.

In principle, yes, in practice, the effect is too small to measure because they are much closer than the supernovae.

@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you for explaining this, I appreciate that you took the time to respond.

It would appear random. Any signal will be lost in the chaos of the exploding black hole and is technically unretrievable.

I think you meant to say: "misinformation"

I see what you mean, I think, but it's as correct -- or not correct -- as saying that time runs slower near a black hole. And yes, indeed you can read the paper to say that redshift alone does not adequately predict the brightness curve. That said, it's a small effect and if you only look at the spectrum shift, it doesn't matter. Indeed you can see in the figures that I show in the video that by eye the difference is basically not visible.

@@SabineHossenfelderOk I see what you mean about the black hole comparison. I guess comes down to the fact that we can never directly compare proper times in non-comoving frames, we only have observations across the frames.

@@SabineHossenfelder As presented, it really does seem that saying 'time ran slower back then' is the same as saying the light emitted was 'redder back then'. "The redshift alone does not adequately predict the brightness curve" would be the key finding here. I'll keep trying to wrap my head around this.

@@SabineHossenfelder Still, a black hole and its local effect is a bit different than suggesting that time in the whole universe ran slower. From the explanation and a quick (mostly incomprehending) scan of the actual paper, the result seems to be that we see events taking longer because they're at the other end of an expanding universe rather than any idea that time ran slower at the time the events happened.

@Audio_noodle, I don't believe that is a correct description - the red-shift is because of relative motion rather than a gravitational well: the Universe was even flatter then than now on a large scale. According to present understanding, individual remote objects have very slowly growing redshifts now because of dark energy (which increases relative speed). You can think of redshift as kind of like a measurement of relative speed - it has an identical effect on energy per particle (photon) to that on a massive particle that is moving very close to the speed of light (whose energy changes with relative speed in a different way to in a Newtonian universe). Likewise gravitational redshift is like when a similar massive particle at near the speed of light loses some speed and thus energy after it leaves the gravitational field. The point is that what we see is the former rather than the latter.

@@liamroche1473 didn't dark energy start to have an effect only much later on? According to nasa only at around 9 billion years from big bang

@@Audio_noodle Yes. This is still not fully understood.

Time dilation due to matter, eg. in the early universe or within a galaxy, is a tiny fraction compared to cosmological expansion.

Simple fact is that the time dilation is not gravitational, it's essentially special relativistic, mainly about relative velocity. The relative velocities have changed a bit, but not very much, so the redshift has been there all the time. To put it another way, if you imagine a 13 billion year movie of a very remote region of the universe, it starts very red-shifted (due to relative velocity) and it continues to be very red-shifted to the present day. There is a correction to older cosmologies that would have had the red-shift being constant, but it is not a huge correction.

Thanks for continuing updates I'd rather trade the crypto market as it's more profitable. I make a good amount of money per week even though I barely trade myself.

A lot of people still make massive profit from the crypto market, all you really need is a relevant information and some ‹professional advice. ‹it's totally inappropriate for investors to hang on while suffering from dip during significant

You trade also?, I

No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance

From my personal financial advisor ..

That’s because you don’t do anything unique or memorable comparatively to when you were a kid. As a kid everything is new and everything is compared to only a few years of experience. Now when we are old we’ve done most things and everything is compared to facades of experience.

@@ButConsiderThis I'm (still) doing unique and memorable things quite often. I suspect it being due to the resources of the Internet, being exposed to so many different interesting things, that I now feel time is flying by so fast. 'Back then' the Internet wasn't available, I had read all interesting books at the library and it was either too cold or dark to be playing outside for long in December (I'm living in Denmark, north of Germany).

@@EgonSorensen right, but literally everything is new and fun as a kid. So it makes sense to me as the overall number of unique experiences decrease and our repertoire of memories increase, our perception of time would also accelerate. Not literally, but in the fact that we can endure boredom and mundane things with much more ease. An 8hr workday as a 15 year old and as a 45 year old sure don’t feel like the same amount of time haha.

@@EgonSorensen "I'm (still) doing unique and memorable things quite often." Relatively? No, you can't be. As a kid when you first play any new sport, you're experiencing new ways to move your body. As an adult, even if you've never played a particular sport, you've likely had experience moving your body in similar ways and understand the win conditions as relative to another. e.g. basketball scoring a hoop is just like shooting a ball in a new in soccer but for a kid that's a new concept entirely. Even the idea of a game is unique, that we make up imaginary rules and compete against eachother, you can never get the experience of learning about a game for the first time and every subsequent learning will be less new. As a kid when play a video game everything in that game is new. As an adult you can recognize how similar the patterns in that new game is to all the past games, same with books, movies, tv and every other form of media. As a kid when you go to a new country, the culture, architecture, political systems, climate etc. are all new. As an adult you've at least heard of most of these things, have watched things with those things presents and understand the functions of different types of systems. Even for education there's only so much you can tap into life, math-programming-logic-philosophy all have massive overlap in how functionally those things play out in your mind. Art, design, music, poetry, writing all have overlap. etc etc. Don't get me wrong, you can experience new things, enjoy them and experience a euphoria that can be just as rich and enjoyable as that of a kid... but there's nothing that will compare to the novelty of your first endeavours into new sensations, experiences and learning. I'm strictly talking about the underlying processes of how your mind works, functionally, your brain won't experience novelty as often because you can relate any new experience to so many other experiences and draw on that knowledge.

@@TheInfectous - '"I'm (still) doing unique and memorable things quite often." Relatively? No, you can't be.' I was an exchange student a loong time ago, and at 'welcome/integration' camp we were asked to draw a tree. Roots, Stem, Branches, etc, etc. Some did a rudimentary job - others went all-in. The purpose of the lesson was to learn that life is like a tree, it branches - it leaves, and once left - right, more to go. In other words, we were told (taught) that there's always more to do, experience, learn, teach, etc - and the only one responsible for ones doing is oneself. You take the easy path, you get a lousy looking tree. You go all-in, you're never bored unless you want to do and experience that ;ø) It took me a while to see the full picture, but the roots of that understanding were planted back then. A healthy tree needs nourishment, time, love and room to grow. I heard peoples brains are always changing, and in my experience my experiences change. Playing games, sure I recognize patterns and know how my body usually responds - doing Yoga, I experience how my body strengthens (and weakens) when I'm mindful about my every-day experience. In a way, back when I was a kid, I had lots of new things to do and experience - I do now too as an adult. Talking to my parents, they're also quite active, and I'm sure that when I say they're NOT experiencing time as they used to either - neither their bodies, which also aren't as they used to be (I haven't asked directly, but I have observed it through their behavior) Btw, Eg is Oak in Danish, and I'm still growing and going. Egon

What part of this video did you simplify?

@@aaronjennings8385 I am just trying to determine what I missed. I didn't see this discussion in the video. No offense. I just don't understand what you are addressing from the video.

@chrisknepper5153 oh. I'm not sure either. It's just a random comment

Photons can't stand still!

@SabineHossenfelder ok, it's moving slower than the other... very slowly. Lol.

Yes, and imagine that 150 years ago, no one knew any of that!

That's a brilliant question with a not at all trivial answer. Basically, the classical idea that energy is conserved doesn't hold when you've got a curved spacetime. There are equivalent energy conservation equations in general relativity, and they kinda shift energy from material particles into the fabric of spacetime itself. Though those equations are rather abstract and hard to interpret. A more conceptual understanding is that if you picture a particle getting shot out at 100 km/s from a galaxy travelling 50 km/s away from us, it would reach us and appear to be travelling at 50 km/s. Even in classical mechanics this particle is seen by us to have less energy than it's host galaxy would say it had because energy isn't conserved between different velocity reference frames. One way to look at an expanding universe is to say each galaxy has a different reference frame that's a bit faster than the previous one. So the further you fly, the faster the galaxies you come across, and the slower the galaxy says they see you flying. Light doesn't change velocity cause relativity, but it does change momentum, and thus energy, in the same way as the particle above. Travelling around and back to your home galaxy while the universe expands around you effectively means that your home galaxy accelerates into a new reference frame with respect to you, in which they would see you as having less energy upon your return.

And to add to stuart's answer, if the universe does collapse again (although unlikely) then all of that lost energy will be gained again which will reheat the universe.

@@stuartl7761 Thank you and Tony for your reply. I do appreciate the classical two references frames example, and somehow the "lost" energy (at least in my mind) gets interwoven into space (time?). Yet I am still grappling with this. Maybe, probably won't come to full terms with it, and that is ok. Very good point. So if you sent light from a moving train, it gets red (or blue shifted depending on the direction) in an outside reference, and if it were redirected after leaving the train (the reference frame) back to the train carriage, it would get further red shifted. As it is true similarly with an expanding (or contracting as Tony points out). But this is not the case if the light always stayed in the reference frame, the train carriage or earth moving through space, and was bent back to the source. It is a can of worms for me. Because I can understand how mass, even light moves through space, the physical mass of the train and the light inside of the carriage whipping through space, yet what about the space inside of the carriage? Is the space inside the carriage, the space in which the light travels, the emptiness of space, the fabric of space, the higgs field, ... also moving with the reference frame? If the space is not moving, then I have trouble understanding the discrepancy between the red shifting of the light when leaving or staying entirely inside the reference frame. Yet if the space is moving, something that is hard for me to imagine, I can visualize the difference. If you sent a photon from a train carriage and bent it back to its origin, it would not be red shifted. Energy conserved. Yet if you sent a photon from a train carriage, and it exited the carriage for even the tiniest amount of space and time, and bent it back to the origin, then it will be red shifted. Maybe I am missing something? Obviously I am missing something. It is all pretty amazing though. Thanks you two. Sorry if I didn't articulate my inability to grasp this that well.

​@raphaelrossi6339 I think an idea that might help is that reflection is relative. A stationary mirror will reflect the light with the same colour back to where it came, but a moving mirror with shift it's colour. If someone on the train shines light backwards and a mirror on the train reflects it back, then the light will be unchanged. What someone outside the train would see is the light shone backwards will be redshifted, but then it gets boosted by a moving mirror and becomes blueshifted the same amount as if the passenger had shone their light forward. In terms of galaxies this is equivilant to the light bouncing off a high velocity star or being energised in some other artificial manner. If the train passenger shone a light at a receding mirror on the ground then they would see the light return to them doubly redshifted.

@@stuartl7761 Thank you Stuart. That helped. I guess this is exactly the strangeness of special and general relativity and the whole point about the reference frames, and the collapsing or compressed space.

Not in my device. I can play it in the background.

Not sure what you mean, but I haven't changed any settings.

There is no such setting

The free KZfaq for Android app doesn't play anything while the app isn't in foreground. I imagine that's also true for the free KZfaq for iPhone app. You should specify the hardware & software you're using, instead of assuming it behaves the same for everyone.

@@brothermine2292 its very obvious that he has a premium account

Oh really? Tell me more! Always interested in hearing stories of successes.

This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.

After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.

I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...

Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.

When you do the calculations you find the slowdown of time is by a very very tiny fraction and can be ignored. It only becomes large in the first fractions of a second after the big bang.

Your confusing time with light. Light is affected by distance and time. Time is not affected by light or distance.

Curvature, within galaxies, is a tiny fraction so the majority is due to cosmological expansion.

The further back we look, the further away we see. And for any expansion history, more distant objects will be travelling away faster, so redshift would increase with distance as long as the universe is generally expanding to even a slight deceleration. You'd be correct if that's what we saw, but what we do see is that distant galaxies are travelling slower away from us than expected if we extrapolate from nearby galaxies.

The rate of passage of time over the history of the universe has not changed. This is an observer effect, what we perceive is events seem to have run slower in the past but it is only due to expansion of the universe red shifting light from the event. If we study a distant supernova it appears to last for a longer time than it should (maybe 6 weeks instead of 3 weeks at a redshift of z=1) due to cosmological time dilation, effectively appearing in slow motion and this is good because it can help astronomers study distant events and also prove that universal expansion is real. In reality the supernova lasted for the usual 3 weeks or so in its local spacetime.

@@tonywells6990 Ty for the explanation.