Steve,
While space provides neither impulse or inertia, its unbounded neutral state seems assumed.
"Objects exchange their matter with other objects over time and that is what causes all action."
What is it which separates these objects in the first place?
A point I keep making about the premise of space originating at a singularity is that those distant galaxies appear to be moving directly away from us and at rates increasing proportional to distance. This creates the impression we are at the center of the universe. The solution to this has been to argue it is relative and all points move away from all other points, rather than it being a conventional expansion in stable space. The logical flaw in this is that in order for it to be relativistic, it is not just space which expands, but spacetime! Which means that if space were to expand, the speed of light would have to increase at a proportional rate, in order for it to remain constant to that increasing distance. Remember C?
The problem with this is that we wouldn't be able to explain the redshift using doppler effect, because it would always take light the same amount of time to cross this expanding space, so that two galaxies x lightyears apart, would remain x lightyears apart, as the speed of light increased in order to remain constant to the increased distance.
If two galaxies were to move apart, such that they started x lightyears apart and grew to x lightyears apart, that is not relativistic, but simply an increased amount of stable space. The frame, as defined and measured by the speed of light, our universal ruler, is not being expanded. The galaxies can only be moving apart within this stable frame.
Therefore we really are at the center of the universe, or else redshift is an optical effect, since we are at the center of our view of the universe.
Now if it is an optical effect, then it would also compound on itself and this would explain why it appears to increase with distance.
One problem with Big Bang Theory is that it was assumed this redshift would decline linearly, as the universe expanded from that initial singularity and the expansion slowed, but it was discovered, in 1999 by Perlmutter et all, that it dropped off rapidly, but then slowed to a steady rate of decline. Given the premise was this expansion had been powered by that initial singularity, an additional force was required to explain this further steady rate of redshift, now called Dark Energy.
Yet if we looked at it as an optical effect, compounding on itself, then it would go parabolic and it is that effect which would explain that increasing rate of increase, the further out you observe.
Eventually it would appear that the universe was expanding at the speed of light and this would create a horizon effect, but if the redshift is an optical effect, it would simply mean light from further out would be shifted down off the visible spectrum, to black body radiation and that is what we see as cosmic background radiation, coming from the edges of the visible universe.
Which would be the solution to Olber's Paradox.
Regards,
John M
