Question Isn't expansion just a lorentz transformation through time?

[Greenlight]

the universe was 10^-35 meters a fraction of a second after the big bang, but isn't that a relative size? Relative to our current space/time reference frame? Time ran slower back then but if you were there you wouldn't know it, isn't it the same for space as well? isn't space static but we see it through a changing lorentz factor?

 

[Greenlight]

z = γ (1 + v/c) -1
we don't really know the velocity, its inferred by the redshift observation.
we do have the cosmic ladder so we have a better grasp on distance.
if redshift is proportional to distance can we not substitute distance for velocity?
we can do away with the inferred velocity its not necessary nor accurate, because it's not really a velocity.
A velocity infers a direction of movement. but with expansion no two locations will agree on its vector direction.

 

[Gibsense]

z = γ (1 + v/c) -1
we don't really know the velocity, its inferred by the redshift observation.
we do have the cosmic ladder so we have a better grasp on distance.
if redshift is proportional to distance can we not substitute distance for velocity?
we can do away with the inferred velocity its not necessary nor accurate, because it's not really a velocity.
A velocity infers a direction of movement. but with expansion no two locations will agree on its vector direction.

You seem to be differentiating between recessional speed due to expansion and a velocity through space in the context of 'Lorentz' i.e. for example, the reference to energy required. It would seem that, as no energy is involved in travelling through space to achieve the recessional speed of a galaxy (as a result of the expansion of the universe), the relevance of Lorentz is in doubt.

Your point about substituting distance for velocity is IMO appropriate depending on the context. I don't see why the direction of movement is important nor understand your comment that time ran slower 'back then'

But anyway maybe someone with more competence mathematically than I might comment
Also where are you going with this?

 

[Greenlight]

the Lorentz transformation coefficient is the ratio of the energies of "now" and the past.
neither speed nor velocity are a requirement.

 

[Greenlight]

a random fluctuation created a gravity wave
the wave carried away energy
Therefor energy of the past was greater than the energy now.
a lorentz transformation is required to scale the past to the present or else we get this distorted view that looks like expansion.

 

[Classical Motion]

Would expanding space be an inertial frame or a non inertial frame?

 

[Greenlight]

Would expanding space be an inertial frame or a non inertial frame?

inertial. space doesn't expand, space/time does.

 

[billslugg]

Space expands equally everywhere, thus no one feels any acceleration due to it, thus it is an inertial reference frame. The amount of expansion is very small. On the scale of the Solar System, the Sun gets about 1 meter further away from us every year due to it.

 

[Atlan0001]

An infinitely dense holography of SPACETIME photonic photo-frame holograms equals infinite zero. The grand total of mass matter and mass energy of the cosmopolis then equals zero (((+1) (-1)) = 1/0)). Always inertialessly freely dynamic rather than inert . . . yet, still, always being inertially inert in one dimension of it.