Corollaries are extensions of theorems. I think you may mean initial assumptions or postulates?-1- wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 amguys. Space does not expand. Matter expands in space. When it is said "the universe expands" they mean the MATTER in the KNOWN (OBSERVABLE) UNIVERSE.

Keep this in mind, please.

Some corollaries follow:

1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.

2. Space is infinitely large.

3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.

4. Matter seems to escape the KNOWABLE BOUNDARY (which is not a real boundary or a "magical" boundary; it is just our farthest distance we can see and look at) of our observed universe at the Event Horizon.

Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.

As to "Space does not expand. Matter expands in space," this is problematic without treating space as a type of program treating space similar to random access memory while the program simply assigns a virtual space datum that links the arbitrary memory spaces. In other words, you are treating space as 'virtual' while matter as 'real'. Does some piece of matter have some formula on one side of it that says, now count to 50 to get to the next piece of matter?

Given this might be the first you've heard challenging this, you may be initially confused. But the point is that if space is itself not anything, information about distances themselves between matter would be indifferent to assigning matter to memory spaces randomly but then require some program that creates a virtual space. To me, if space is treated virtual, this can only work when you also treat matter as equally virtual to some program. This is because, as I have expressed in other threads, you could reverse the interpretation to see how odd the constructed theory looks by treating space as what is 'fixed' and matter as being the virtual data that shrinks IN space: Take the distinctly different sized spaces at different times and make them one size. This would treat the space as fixed and each successive image would then have smaller galaxies.

I made this drawing elsewhere to show this: I think you CAN create a computer-like model that makes all reality virtual. But that would be distinctly a whole theory on its own. What the assumption of space as being a literal nothing came from the original confusion about whether space had substance to it (an ether-ial medium). While Einstein originally assumed this for his Special theory, he dropped it for his General theory as it treats space (and time) as real, not virtual.

I just quickly edited the first image to try to mimic what I mean of the second one in context for clarity.