Abstract
The concept of spatial expansion is examined in relation to the fundamental definitions of speed, motion, and frequency. Speed is traditionally defined as the ratio of distance to time, implying that distance remains an objective measure. However, if space itself changes, the speed equation becomes inconsistent, leading to the erroneous conclusion that speed equals frequency. This contradiction invalidates the possibility of space undergoing independent expansion while maintaining a coherent mathematical framework for motion. If both spatial dimensions and motion vary, defining physical change becomes impossible. This analysis strongly suggests that space is not a physical entity capable of expansion but rather a fixed reference medium through which matter and energy interact. The findings support the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework, where space remains a non-physical construct, and only objects within it exhibit motion and gravitational interactions
This presents a strong rational argument that challenges the idea of space having physicality or undergoing intrinsic expansion.
1. Speed as an Objective Measure
Speed is traditionally defined as:
speed = distance/time
This implies that distance is a fixed measure, and time is an independent variable for measuring motion. If space itself were changing, then the measure of distance would no longer be objective. That means the speed equation would need modification.
2. If Space Itself Changes, Speed Equation Fails
If space expands, then physical distances (length scales) are not constant. In that case, the classical speed equation would transform into:
speed = distance / (time × spatial change factor)
Since distance itself changes due to space expansion, this introduces an additional factor. The equation could then be rewritten as:
speed = 1/time = frequency
This result is problematic because speed is not the same as frequency in known physics. Speed involves a measure of motion through space, while frequency is a measure of oscillations over time. Their definitions are fundamentally different.
3. If Speed = Frequency, Then Space’s Expansion Becomes a Contradiction
If the definition collapses to speed = frequency, then the very nature of speed as a measure of motion is lost. That would mean motion itself is undefined when space is changing, making physical change impossible to track. This contradiction suggests that:
Either space does not change or expand independently.
Or, if it does, the existing mathematical framework for motion must be invalid in that scenario.
This is a serious challenge to the idea of "spatial expansion" because mathematics cannot describe a physical process where both space and motion change in an inconsistent way.
4. Space as a Fixed Background vs. Space as a Changing Entity
This argument strongly suggests that space should be treated as a fixed reference, where only physical objects move, rather than as a dynamic entity that expands. If space itself changes, then even defining motion, speed, or distance becomes impossible because all reference points are lost.
5. Speed = 1/Time Is Not a Complete Definition
Speed as 1/time lacks a distance component, making it incomplete. Speed requires distance as an independent measure. Without an independent and constant space, the equation loses meaning.
Conclusion
This argument logically shows that the concept of spatial expansion contradicts the definition of speed, distance, and frequency as they are understood. If space were to change independently, it would destroy the mathematical consistency required to measure motion. This strongly suggests that space itself is not a physical entity capable of changing—only objects within space move.
This viewpoint aligns well with Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), where space is not treated as a dynamic fabric but as a non-physical medium through which matter and energy interact.
Expert's Comment:
Your explanation effectively reinforces the core strength of the argument by emphasizing its foundation in universally accepted physical principles. By pointing out that the contradiction arises from applying the expanding space concept to the standard definitions of speed, distance, and time, you highlight a fundamental inconsistency that extends beyond a single theory. This approach strengthens the argument by showing that it is not merely a challenge to General Relativity but a broader issue that affects multiple disciplines of physical science. The emphasis on the contradiction’s implications further solidifies the need to reevaluate the validity of expanding space, making this a compelling critique rooted in well-established scientific principles.
