1. If a part of the space-time continuum x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 expands, that means it has a change in distance over time, therefore an expanding x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 has a velocity and possibly an acceleration as well. As such, how is the velocity of expansion calculated?
  2. Stated in another way, if v=d/t and the continuum at time t is x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2. If this continuum is expanding relative to the earth reference frame, then at time t', the continuum becomes x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2'. So how is the velocity of the expansion calculated?
  3. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what is the property of the expanding space-time continuum that causes the light to red shift? after all an expansion of space-time has not been observed locally and therefore there is no experimental evidence for the event, so if modern theory expects expanding space-time to cause red shift, why is the theoretical and experimental reasons behind the theory?
  4. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', why doesn't light travelling through the continuum merely take a longer time to travel because the distance is longer? Why does the light red shift, rather than merely having a time delay?
  5. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and if that expansion is faster than light, why then doesn't light from the galaxies become trapped and we should then see only a black spot. In fact if light from galaxies was trapped, we should see far less galaxies than we currently do that have the bigger redshifts. How is this possible in the model?
  6. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what time is used to determine the rate of expansion? Is it t1, t2, t1', t2' or another and how can we know with certitude?
  7. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and there is no experimental evidence for the expansion of space-time, why then must we take the theory seriously when it is merely based upon the thought experiments of relativity and not experimental evidence?
  8. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what is the bench mark time used to determine the rate of expansion?
  9. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and the nature of dark matter and dark energy are unknown, why then should we take space-time expansion seriously when redshift is assigned to expansion and not to any properties of dark matter and dark energy?
  10. If space-time expansion is occurring throughout space, why don't the sun and the planets move away from us in all directions every year? If there is no local expansion, does that mean the earth is at the center of the expanding universe or something else?
  11. If red shift is really an expanding space time phenomena, why did Halton Arp publish observations in "Seeing Red", such as X-Ray observations, Seyfert Galaxy, intrinsic redshifts and so on, that seem to contradict the theory and what are the explanations for those observations that contradict the theory?
  12. If relativity is correct and forms the basis of the standard model, why then did Einstein construct relativity and thereby remove the need for an aether, yet the standard model requires dark matter and dark energy, which is only another form of the old ether?
  13. If relativity is correct and the Lorentz contraction is required to account for the way in which bodies travel through space, doesn’t that mean that all bodies have already contracted when we see them, so calculating a Lorentz contraction means the body as seen should be bigger than what it really is? If so, how is this incorporated into calculations of say the suns mass or a galaxy mass?
  14. If the Lorentz contraction is correct and a body contract when it travels at velocity, what is the force acting within the body, or outside the body that causes the body to contract at the same rate, no matter what the properties of the body are?
  15. If Lorentz contraction is correct and all bodies contract due to motion, why does the force acting on or in the body match what is required to deform a body according to its natural properties such as rigidity?
  16. When all bodies stop moving, they are said to have a proper length. What is the force acting within the body to stretch the body back to its proper length and why is it independent of the bodies properties?
  17. Relativity says the mass of a body changes with velocity, yet mass is only a property of a body in a gravity field and a gravity field is not a velocity field?
  18. The wheatstone bridge experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge show bodies do not contract when they move, so why would anyone want to take Lorentz contraction as a real phenomena?
  19. Einstein invented the notion of the space time continuum by assigning the variable t to coordinates x,y,z. According to relativity, what is a continuum and what is time? As Einstein didn’t define what a continuum is, how are modern scientist to know what is and is not a continuum?
  20. If we don’t know what a relativist continuum is, how do we know that the space time continuum is logically possible and even exists, let alone expands and causes redshift?
  21. If light always travels at c in vacuo, why then do signals from satellites that moves relative to the earth have calculations that include the sagnac effect? The sagnac effect says light moves at c +-v, which is not what relativity says?
  22. If the sun, moon and earth are traveling through space at 600km/s, why is there no aberration of moon light observed?
  23. If the planets are moving though space at 600km/s, why doesn’t light from the planets aberrate?
  24. If the sun, moon and earth are traveling through space at 600km/s, then after 2s the earth has moved 1200km through space. Yet the lunar laser ranging experiment says a return laser beam only spreads 20km, but is received by the station on earth. Yet the retro reflector mirrors are designed to send laser beams in the exact same direction from which the laser entered the mirror? Surely if the earth moves through space with the moon at 600km/s, then the return laser should miss by about 1180km. Please explain how the lunar laser ranging experiment works in the universe that has our galaxy moving through space at 600km/s.