I'm not pompus. I just wanted to help the guy to understand the difference between real "translation through time" and figure of speech expressed with the same words which he was using all the time but I didn't realize this first, and I thought he is using it in a literal sense. That's why I was puzzled. It often happens between various fields of science when each has its own vocabulary. I'm accustomed to physics maybe he's accustomed to some other branch in which they use different language. I suspect he's a retired science teacher.

A good example of using the same word in two meanings might be "mass". In physics it is always so called "invariant mass" (a mathematical abstraction equal to the "rest energy of the object") and in every other branch of science it means "total energy of the object". The most difference there is in "mass" of a photon which is zero for a physicist and something else for everybody else. And most physicists even don't know about it, So when a physicists starts talking with any non physicists it is bound soon to call him an idiot and v.v. before both realize that they are talking about different things just using the same word. It is not even funny.

"Translated through time" means very often the same as "motionless". It refers to fourth axis of 4 dimenssional system of spacetime coordinates where fourth dimenssion is time and it is denoted most often by zero to be more interesting. So x^0 is temporal dimenssion of spacetime and if something is "translated through time" it means that it moves along this axis without any rotations. In other words it does not move at all, just let the time "to flow" through it. When expanding space moves through it it produces an interesting affect of more and more space contained in the same spatial (motionless) structure, e.g. in a cube. Then the cube has more and more volume without doing a thing. Just being "translated through time". Of course if the cube has various charges at its eight corners it might gain energy without any effort, just sitting pretty. That's the whole mystery of being "translated through time".

I don't have any theory of my own. It is Einstein's. I just want to popularize it since I think that Einstein's was shortchanged by mathematicians who highjacked his theory and converted it into a monster whom now even they don't understand. Being not physicists they don't even realize how Einstein's theory works. What is generating gravitational force. They say "curvature of spacetime" but try to ask them what they mean by this. Then they say: "imagine it as an attractive force between two objects because it is too complicated for you to understand without studying it for 15 years, as we all had to, and only now we are beginning to understand it". I explain gravitational force in 15 minutes (during a break between two lectures), and no physicists wants to believe that it might be so simple and nobody yet told him that. So naturally they suspect that I want to cheat them and promis to find an error in the explanation when they have time. No on ever did. Apparently all are too busy.

The idea behind Einstein universe is that the same Hubble redshift that is observed in our universe can be obtained by letting photons have dynamical friction in a static universe of approximately the same density as ours due to the conservation of energy. So far ca. 57% of the mass of the universe is missing but the character of this readshift is the same as in our universe, i.e. it simmulates an accelerating expanssion with approximately the same acceleration that is observed in our universe. So I assume that our universe is just Einstein's static universe and the cosmologists screwed up badly. However those results can't be published since "there is no new physics in them". Boring stuff. So I stop boring everybody and try to get some sleep.