This is still wrong.

And I'd love to see a reference explaining how "expansion of time" works. Surely you can find one?

Grant Hutchison

''but each is not the other.''

Is where this went very wrong because each is.

This is why we say ''ONE'' continuum,

What is confusing me about the argument is when we consider time as a reference coordinate then it is measured separately to spacial ones but when we introduce Sr & GR then space time are interwoven and are considered a space-time continuum so the expansion of time is relative to 2 observers in different frame references but not to one in his own? I'm confusing myself now!

Tell me then why physicists say spactime is expanding?

The problem, I believe, is that under SR and GR we have these coordinate transformations that allow one observer to disagree with another observer's choice of space and time axes.
But when you're writing down an equation for the whole universe, there's no "other observer" to disagree with. As Occams Ghost has already been told:(The "FLRW metric" referred to here is a mathematical description of the behaviour of a whole, dynamic, self-gravitating universe.)

Grant Hutchison

Yes, it's become a trend now to speak about this metric.

Pitty it doesn't seem to get into anyones head that it doesn't change that spacetime are one thing.

Any equations describing a spatial coordinate and not a time are incomplete, due to Minkowski spacetime matrix and coordinated Cartesian products and Lorentz Boosts.

Have you considered just coming up with the requested reference? If the "expansion of time" is such a commonplace notion, surely it can't be that difficult a task.
At BAUT, we're often asked to defend our position by providing a reference. If we come up with the goods, the matter is resolved in our favour. If instead we choose to use insults and inference as our defence, then suspicion grows.

Grant Hutchison

I must admit I'm a bit torn between Grant & Occams. I can see both sides of their arguments and i think they are both correct dependent on your perspective! the point i was trying to make earlier is that space & time are interwoven as a continuum and are relative to each other, but they can be still considered separate entities when dealing with the expansion of space relative to us as the observers. I.e we can measure space expansion due to the relative motion of the galaxies but we have nothing relative to measure time expansion against

Grant

Not at all. In fact, you are being blindely ignorant to how commonplace it is to say in general

''spacetime is expanding.''

If this means

''space is expanding,'' only, then nearly the greater population of all phsyicists and the general knowledge of the public is wrong then.

You couldn't have demonstrated my phrase "insults and inference" more clearly.

Grant Hutchison

That wasn't an insult. It was the truth.

The only way to measure the passage of time is by movement through distance (space).
Even the crystal in your watch moves (oscillates) a distance in a certain time.
The numbers on the watch face are this oscillation frequency divided down to a human scale.
No space ,no time.
They are as strongly linked as electricity and magnetism.

I think you should take a look at this paper.

Matt, but as i have explained, any equation describing space alone are incomplete according to relativity. The above poster is very correct.

Interesting paper is there anymore information about this?

To move in space, is to move in time. To exist in space, even standing still, the imaginary time dimension is moving through you at the speed of light.

This has been disscussed on other posts and i agree. For me time is a fundemental requirement for any sort of existance. To exist at all you are moving in time!

Your primary argument seems to be that cosmologists say "spacetime expands". This is simply not true. Read the paper. I'm done with you.

Oh no. That is not my primary arguement at all. In fact, i presented math on another thread which proved that time and space are a single invariant system. To treat time and space seperate, violates relativity, and what is understood of the term,

''SPACETIME.''

I'm done with you.

New question. So while space is expanding, what is time doing. Is it static?

Anyone who knows relativity will know you cannot have a static time dimension alone.

Yes, but does time expand with the expansion of the universe?

I asked this earlier - "But this doesn't mean that seconds used to be smaller, does it?" and used the SI definition of seconds. (I asked before the thread was moved here).

The only answers I have so far received are:

Let's look at Planck clocks. Planck units are derived from five fundamental physical constants. Do these expand with space-time too?