My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. I think that there are serious errors in special and general relativity. That paradigm is holy.
I think in general relativity that the theory of gravity is wrong. I think that space time is wrong In special relativity. I think much is wrong. But do not ask me to defend those views now.

Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different — universeness

Indeed. In relation to each other. But proper time is the time you measure in a rest frame. If course when that frame moves, it's a moving restframe. Coordinate free time is the clock that ticks in a rest frame for an observer in rest. Proper time and coordinate time are different things. Proper time has it's own symbol, $\tau$. Coordinate time is t. A proper time interval is Lorenz invariant

Please define time.

Please define time

Thanks for comment

Please define time — val p miranda

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

also:

the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

Is it made of particles or atoms or anything physical?

Keep trying; your effort is appreciated.

No, my point is that definition of time is about existence rather than just a measurement unit.

My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. I think that there are serious errors in special and general relativity. That paradigm is holy.
I think in general relativity that the theory of gravity is wrong. I think that space time is wrong In special relativity. I think much is wrong. But do not ask me to defend those views now — val p miranda

Would you accept that your viewpoint is very fringe?
How would you explain observational and experimental results that confirm general and special relativity?
I can state that in my opinion, Force = mass x acceleration is wrong but if I can't offer any evidence to back up my claim then I simply inherit the wind.

Indeed. In relation to each other. — Haglund

But this is the vital point. Within their frame of reference, their motions are relative.

But proper time is the time you measure in a rest frame. If course when that frame moves, it's a moving restframe. Coordinate free time is the clock that ticks in a rest frame for an observer in rest. Proper time and coordinate time are different things. Proper time has it's own symbol, ττ. Coordinate time is t. A proper time interval is Lorenz invariant — Haglund

I accept all of this but my first sentence holds. Proper time and Proper length are labels used in special RELATIVITY! So to say the motions involved are NOT relative is wrong.

My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. — val p miranda

I actually agree in part with this viewpoint but for a different reason. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite. The idea that the existence of space is unlimited is for me, more likely to hinge on the correctness of such theories as 'the Penrose bounce' or the 'multiverse.'

I accept all of this but my first sentence holds. Proper time and Proper length are labels used in special RELATIVITY! So to say the motions involved are NOT relative is wrong.
1h — universeness

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation.

Now of course, we could start a discussion about the motions of a (real) clock. All its parts experience another passage of time. But that would be a bridge too far. We could put clocks on the clock. And clocks on them. If they are alarm clocks, would be a hell of an alarm!

. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite — universeness

That not true. Space can be infinite and expanding. That's actually the prevailing view. Which with I disagree.

Baden
Could you delete my account? Thanks. — kierkegoord

@Baden For your attention & necessary action.

↪chiknsld Please define time — val p miranda

Time is movement.

But of course that would go against Physics which coincides with your view that it is a measurement.

Time is movement. — chiknsld

I think you're basically right here. I knew a wizard's daughter, Kika (she was the daughter of Ti-Ta-wizard whose objective in life was to change strawberries into camels, but never succeeded), who could stop time. If she clapped her hands, everything stood still.

I think you're basically right here. I knew a wizard's daughter, Kika (she was the daughter of Ti-Ta-wizard whose objective in life was to change strawberries into camels, but never succeeded), who could stop time. If she clapped her hands, everything stood still. — Haglund

Indeed. :)

Earlier, you posted:

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length — Haglund

Now you say:

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation. — Haglund

So the notion of proper time and proper length are used is special RELATIVITY and are 'relative notions.'
So do you withdraw the words 'proper time though is no relative notion?' Proper time is a notion of special relativity where you have an object that is at rest (relative to outside frames) and the object moving away from it, is only being RELATED to the object at rest.

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation — Haglund

Yes, I know.

. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite
— universeness

That not true. Space can be infinite and expanding. That's actually the prevailing view. Which with I disagree. — Haglund

There are different viewpoints. Here are some points from the astronomy stack exchange:

An argument for:
As an illustration, take the infinite 'universe' of the natural numbers i=0…∞. Now consider the sets 2i and 2i+1, each equally infinite as the natural numbers, but stretched. Now combine those two sets to get an expanded 'universe' and you obtain the natural numbers again.

Some counter viewpoints against the mathematical posit above:
a) If we make an analogy, this is equivalent to a Ponzi scheme. It works in theory. But considering nature's limitations it seems quite dubious. See Kant's first antinomy. The infinite attribute of the universe would just be a fallacy of perception.
b) Extrapolating rules at different scales seems naive. What you are stating here is that galaxies are expanding, not the universe.
c) AFAIK universe expansion implies "creating new space". Quite far from this response.
d) This kind of universe expansion is equivalent to measurement contraction.

I have the same viewpoint as c. I think you can expand into something which is infinite but that which IS infinite cannot expand. It makes no sense to me to suggest that it can. The mathematical example above just states that infinity +1, or infinity + infinity = infinity. To me, that just means that you cannot add to infinity. As c suggests you cannot add space to an infinity of space.
Perhaps @jgill would comment on the maths argument used above. As he is a maths prof.

So the notion of proper time and proper length are used is special RELATIVITY and are 'relative notions — universeness

Proper time is just an infinite small interval of time which is independent on the frame used. It's different from coordinate time, which is frame dependent, and which is used in Lorenz transformations. and does not exist for a photon, which follows lightlike paths.

The prevailing view is that the universe is infinite. This is based on observed flatness. But just as for a flat Earth, if you look beyond the horizon, the Earth is pretty much sphere! So basically, flat spacers are the same as flat Earthers...

AFAIK universe expansion implies "creating new space". Quite far from this response.
d) This kind of universe expansion is equivalent to measurement contraction.

I have the same viewpoint as c. I think you can expand into something which is infinite but that which IS infinite cannot expand. — universeness

Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand?

So the notion of proper time and proper length are used is special RELATIVITY and are 'relative notions.' — universeness

How can the proper lifetime of a muon be relative if it's the same for all? It's just defined as the time as measured in the restframe of the muon. Of course, if you look at the muon as it travels fast, the proper time seems to slow down, but its the same still.

Proper time is just an infinite small interval of time which is independent on the frame used. It's different from coordinate time, which is frame dependent, and which is used in Lorenz transformations. and does not exist for a photon, which follows lightlike paths. — Haglund

Yes, I know.

The prevailing view is that the universe is infinite. This is based on observed flatness. But just as for a flat Earth, if you look beyond the horizon, the Earth is pretty much sphere! So basically, flat spacers are the same as flat Earthers.. — Haglund

I disagree, I think the prevailing view is that the Universe MAY BE infinite.
Another view is that it may be infinite but not boundless.

Wikipedia has:
Several potential topological or geometric attributes of the universe are:
Boundedness (whether the universe is finite or infinite)
Flat (zero curvature), hyperbolic (negative curvature), or spherical (positive curvature)
Connectivity: how the universe is put together, i.e., simply connected space or multiply connected space.
There are certain logical connections among these properties. For example, a universe with positive curvature is necessarily finite. Although it is usually assumed in the literature that a flat or negatively curved universe is infinite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the trivial one: for example, a three-torus is flat but finite.

Also from wikipedia is:
The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fits with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data is also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice.

Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand? — Haglund

In science, infinite means boundless. That which is boundless cannot expand or else boundless does not mean boundless.

How can the proper lifetime of a muon be relative if it's the same for all? It's just defined as the time as measured in the restframe of the muon. Of course, if you look at the muon as it travels fast, the proper time seems to slow down, but its the same still — Haglund

In 'reality,' muons don't have a restframe. So your 'proper lifetime,' label is notional.

Another view is that it may be infinite but not boundless. — universeness

Infinite with bounds? I don't understand.

In science, infinite means boundless. That which is boundless cannot expand or else boundless does not mean boundless. — universeness

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating.

In 'reality,' muons don't have a restframe. So your 'proper lifetime,' label is notional. — universeness

Muons have a restframe like electrons have.

Infinite with bounds? I don't understand — Haglund

Infinite but not boundless simply means that the Universe may have parts that we will never be able to even 'detect,' so in that sense it has very real boundaries for lifeforms such as us.

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. — Haglund

Yes it does if the infinite can expand then it was not infinite.

Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating. — Haglund

I understand eternal inflation to be referring to the limits/edges of the Universe.
An eternal 'faster than light speed,' inflation which creates a 'multiverse.'
This would make the Universe infinite but bounded for us by our 'light cone' of existence in all directions.

Muons have a restframe like electrons have. — Haglund

Again from wikipedia:
In special relativity, the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest.

In reality, when is a sub-atomic particle not moving?
We can only refer to a rest frame as a mathematical notion of 3D spacial coordinates in special relativity.
Can we actually bring a photon, an electron, a muon to rest? Has this ever been actually achieved?
No!

Infinite but not boundless simply means that the Universe may have parts that we will never be able to even 'detect,' so in that sense it has very real boundaries for lifeforms such as us. — universeness

Which means an infinite space with infinite observable universes.

Yes it does if the infinite can expand then it was not infinite. — universeness

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand. Infinity can become twice it's size and stay the same.

I understand eternal inflation to be referring to the limits/edges of the Universe. — universeness

Eternal inflation posits an eternally inflating infinite space with pockets.

Can we actually bring a photon, an electron, a muon to rest? Has this ever been actually achieved? — universeness

A phiton, eeeh, photon no. An electron or muon yes.

infinite observable universes — Haglund

No, they are not observable!

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand. Infinity can become twice it's size and stay the same — Haglund

It's like the cookie dough example. The TOTALITY of the dough cannot expand if it is infinite but individual regions within the dough may be able to 'distort.'

An electron or muon yes. — Haglund

evidence?