[andreasva (OP)]

Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?

You asked a question , which I answered .

Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?

The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.

Yes, you did.

I still don't understand the response.

inflation of observation

What does this mean?

Objectively, inflating spacetime vs deflating mass would appear identical in observation.  The only gauge of motion is the redshift.  Increased density and slowing light also causes a redshift, so you have no way of determining which way you're headed conclusively, unless you pick a direction subjectively.  There's nothing proven beyond doubt at this point, to my knowledge.  Either perspective could be correct, giving us a 50% chance of error in drawing any conclusion.  I am well aware of the general consensus on the subject, but a consensus isn't confirmation in this case.  It's just a bunch of people that think they're right.  And they could very well be.  I don't know.  Based on the evidence and our current level of understanding, it's inconclusive.  It's really the best anyone can say at this point objectively.  We'd have to prove beyond all doubt, that space-time is truly homogeneous.  I'm not even convinced space-time is real let alone homogeneous.  No one else knows either.  Admittedly there's a lot of strong evidence supporting standing inflation theory, but that's only because we created the theory to begin with.  Had it been deflation theory, then we'd probably be arguing about inflation.  They would yield nearly identical predictions.       

[Colin2B]

The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.

I still don't understand the response.

inflation of observation

What does this mean?

It doesn’t mean anything. There are a few people here who delight in making obscure, obtuse comments. Maybe they think it makes them look clever, but it doesn’t. I believe in as much clarity as possible.