[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

*The referred thread is titled : How does the expansion of space work ?
_______________________
Petty-petty-petty as usual !
Relativistic time-contraction , Emergent-Gravity , and the Big-Rip , are NOT new theories , nor are they my creations . This thread , as with most threads , is full of projections , extensions , and guesses . It's also full of personal crap , IF you haven't noticed .
The problem here is NOT me participating in this thread , it's you attacking my participation , based on some ridiculous standard of : ...it must be an exact quote from an encyclopedia , or what I find acceptable , not you . I mean , cut me a break with the pathetic excuses , it's because you can't actually hang with me at this analytical level , let alone create , so you spout orthodoxy , irrelevant formulas , and your misbegotten position . To bad for NSF , definitely a black-eye . Also , this thread died years ago , and I-I-I brought it back to life , not a poor sport knocking the chess pieces off of the board !
Uggh , unbelievable !

[Kryptid]

Petty-petty-petty as usual !
Relativistic time-contraction , Emergent-Gravity , and the Big-Rip , are NOT new theories , nor are they my creations . This thread , as with most threads , is full of projections , extensions , and guesses . It's also full of personal crap , IF you haven't noticed .
The problem here is NOT me participating in this thread , it's you attacking my participation , based on some ridiculous standard of : ...it must be an exact quote from an encyclopedia , or what I find acceptable , not you . I mean , cut me a break with the pathetic excuses , it's because you can't actually hang with me at this analytical level , let alone create , so you spout orthodoxy , irrelevant formulas , and your misbegotten position . To bad for NSF , definitely a black-eye . Also , this thread died years ago , and I-I-I brought it back to life , not a poor sport knocking the chess pieces off of the board !
Uggh , unbelievable !

You're free to challenge my decision. Send a message to another moderator or administrator if you want to complain. If they side with you, I'll revert the changes that I've made.

[puppypower]

To answer the topic question one needs to first look any time.

Time moves in one direction; to the future. Time can slow or time can speed up, as demonstrate by relativity. However, time only moves in one direction. Yet, time is measured throughout science and culture using clocks that cycle and repeat like waves. The tool; clock, used to measure and define time does not behave like time. This creates a huge conceptual problem that is woven throughout science, including our understanding of space.

I have pointed this out on many occasions, but nobody is addressing the problem. A good place to begin is for all science, that uses wave time, needs to be demoted to  alternate theory, since it has been proven that time moves in one direction and does not cycle. Perpetuation of that cycle time myth makes science look bad. The religious concept of reincarnation, used the same type of clock two thousand yeas before science.

Since it is easer to destroy than create, after peeing on the parade, I will show a better alternative for modeling time and space, that is consistent with the unidirectional nature of time. Entropy is a better way to model time, compared to waves, which cycle. Entropy, like time, moves in one direction, which is the direction of increasing entropy; 2nd law. The universe gets more complex with time, as the entropy of the universe increases via the second law. The vector of entropy does not allow time to cycle, since the beginning had less entropy than the end. 

Time is often viewed as a change between states. Even the second hand on the wave clock ticks between states. However, the linear and mono-directional nature of time implies that the change cannot occur between just any states.

Entropy is a state variable based on specific conditions such as pressure, temperature, etc.This means for any give state of matter, each state has a fixed value of entropy. Since entropy is driven by the second law, movement between states; as expressed by what we call time, needs to occur between two states of net increasing entropy. This limits the direction of time to the future, since previous states, from the past, would imply lower entropy. Entropy precludes cycling time.

If time slows, the rate of change in the entropy between two states is slower, and therefore the rate of entropy increase is less. Entropy drives what we perceive as time, with time speeding up or slowing based on the rate of entropy increase. Cyclic clocks create a conceptual problem since and entropy and time do not cycle. 

In terms of space, more space allows more room for more states of increasing complexity. Or entropy can increase easier, if we have more space for more possible states. Less space will alter the possible phase characteristics; states of matter, thereby excluding entropy options. Entropy  can account for our perception of what we call time and space since all three are related by the second law.

An entropy increase, will absorb free energy. Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, the net affect is energy, after being absorbed into entropy, is made net unavailable to the universe. If entropy is net increasing; 2nd law, energy is being net absorbed and is being made unavailable of future work. This prevents time from cycling as a wave, since although the energy is conserved in entropy, it is made unavailable, for going backwards toward lowered entropy states. Energy get tied up in the facade of matter, as complexity, that needs space to increase, to create even more states consistent with the direction of the second law.

A better clock would be the dead fish clock. We buy a dead fish and place it on the kitchen counter on a fancy clock base. When the dead fish starts to stink, that is our unit of time. With this clock one tell time with you nose, and not even have to be in the same room. Although time will appear to be slightly faster if we get closer to the clock.

Like time, which does not cycle, each dead fish clock will reflect a slightly different time increment. Also, we cannot un-stink the sed and decaying fish and reuse it, which is consistent with time moving in one direction. If we heat or cool the dead fish clock, it will measure time faster or slower similar to relativity. Both are based on how fast entropy can absorb energy and make it unavailable as an entropy increase.

If we take one dead fish clock, and compare this to a bushel of dead fish clocks, all pressed together; gravity analogy, the single dead fish clock can rot faster, due to more available exposed surface area per dead fish. Time speeds up, if we allow more space between dead fish clocks, which is what is observed, with gravity.

[Bored chemist]

Yet, time is measured throughout science and culture using clocks that cycle and repeat like waves. The tool; clock, used to measure and define time does not behave like time.

If the hands on your clock go backwards, get a new one.

proven that time moves in one direction and does not cycle.

Nobody said it did.
We don't have to rewrite science just because you won't understand it.

A better clock would be the dead fish clock. We buy a dead fish and place it on the kitchen counter on a fancy clock base. When the dead fish starts to stink, that is our unit of time.

Well, if you like...
Another less stupid idea would be the time it takes the world to spin on its axis.
But that's not the point.

What if I want to boil an egg?
Your fish clock and my transit telescope both have the same problem.
They are both fine for measuring something like building a house which takes about 70 days  or 70 stinky dead fish (I'm assuming that the fish stink after a day or so, just to make the arithmetic easy.

But how do you measure something that takes less than 1 day?
The answer is to divide up your dead fish day or solar transit day into slices.
By convention we use hours minutes and seconds, but that's pretty arbitrary.
My egg take about 1/500 of a day (by either definition) to boil.
But, in order to measure that I need a shorter time interval.
And the practical way of dividing a day into equal slices is to have something that "ticks" regularly and then count how often it clicks in a day.
I guess you could use something else- like chirps of crickets or even heartbeats (as Galileo did).
But, whatever it is that you use, if you want to chop your hour into equal intervals, you need to compare it against something that ticks regularly.
Your idea of dispensing with clocks, because they tick regularly, makes no sense.

How else are you going to boil an egg?

Both are based on how fast entropy can absorb energy and make it unavailable as an entropy increase.

Not even wrong.