Update: I think there are mathematical concepts that do what I think
you really want to do. There is some confusion about terminology, however.
Suppose we have a function from one set (the domain) to another set
(the codomain); for example, let's consider the function
$f: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$
such that for any $x \in \mathbb R$, we define $f(x) = x + 2$.
This function "maps" any point on the real number line to a point
$2$ units away in the positive direction.
We may want to use this function $f$ to define a transformation that takes
arbitrary subsets of $\mathbb R$ to subsets of $\mathbb R$, rather than only acting on one member of $\mathbb R$ at a time.
With a slight abuse of notation, we can write
$f(A) = \{ x \mid x = f(y), y \in A \}.$
(I call this an "abuse of notation" because we are really using the same
name, $f$, for two objects; the "$f$" on the right side of the equation
is a function that we are using in order to define a new object,
also called $f$, on the left side of the equation.)
The effect of this definition is that $f(A)$ is the set of numbers that you would get if you could move the entire set of numbers, $A$, exactly $2$ units in the positive direction (assuming the original function $f$ is defined as above). The resulting set, $f(A)$, is a function of the set $A$ to which we apply the transformation.
If this is what you're looking for, we have merely a difference in terminology. For the transformation that takes arbitrary sets of real numbers ($A$) to other sets of real numbers ($f(A)$), I would probably call each set $A$ simply a "set" or possibly a "preimage" (rather than a "domain") and I would call $f(A)$ the "image of $A$" rather than the "range of a function".
So a simple function $f : \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ does indeed give rise to a transformation such that the image, $f(A)$, of any set of real numbers, $A$, under this transformation is a function of the preimage, $A$.
I think that is the function you are looking for.
If I were looking for a domain and range, I would take the power set of $\mathbb R$
(the set of all subsets of $\mathbb R$) as both the domain and codomain
of the transformation; and if you use the word "range" to mean "codomain",
as many people do, I would call the power set of $\mathbb R$ the range of the transformation as well. I do not think this is what you wanted.
If we must consider the question exactly as written, using standard meanings of the words "domain" and "range", my previous answer (below) may throw some light on the difficulty of trying to do this.
Why is it not generally acceptable to replace the word "measurement" with range and the word "time" with domain, and say that the range is a function of the domain?
Why shouldn't we replace the word "grass" with "museum" and the word "green" with "early", so we can say, "The museum is always earlier on the other side of the fence"?
Rather than ask why we cannot just replace one word with another in
any way we choose, you might want to think about how to justify that we could replace the word "measurement" with "range" and the word "time" with "domain" and still write things that make sense.
The domain of a function consists of all possible values of the function's parameter(s), sometimes called the independent variable(s), each of which could be a "time" but very often is not. The range of a function consists of all possible values (which you might call measurements) of the function. (The "possible" values are either the members of the set we said the function values could come from, or just the set containing each value the function actually takes on when we apply it to some member of the domain,
depending on whether you really mean codomain or image when you write "range".)
In what way does one "measurement" replace all the values in the entire range of the function, and in what way does one "time" replace the entire set of parameter values in the domain of the function?
Part of the definition of a function is its domain. If you change the domain, you have a different function.
There is a legitimate way to write something that looks like what you tried to write, but it requires thinking about functions that are very different from any function you would encounter in high school or even most college math courses. The secret is that a function is just a relation between sets, and functions themselves are objects that can be organized into sets,
so it is possible to have a function that either acts on functions
in its domain, or produces functions in its range, or both.
But I suspect that this is not at all the sort of thing you wanted to do.