My friend, Carmeli cosmology may be slightly more reasonable than the orthodox big bunk one but unfortunately it seems to incorporate the same fallacies. Space may be an abstraction, a relation of things, a concept, a system of coordinates and so on. It is not a relative body in motion. It cannot have a velocity, accelerate, expand, contract and so on. Only objects can do all that. Neither the Universe can. The Universe is an idea signifying all that exists. It's not a pair of washed knickers. It cannot possibly expand, have an age, size, shape and so on. Ascribing such attributes to abstract notions is committing a grave fallacy of reification.
The Universe is an ultimate, all-inclusive, collective idea of all objects that possibly exist, has existed and will have existed. It's an ultimate list of all lists used for reference. Objects that are on that list can have various attributes the list itself cannot exhibit being not an object.
If you pretend that shopping list is the shopping, fine, eat the words on list, babbling moron.
Because an object may have another object or process acting causally upon it. The Universe may possibly not. To be such it may need to have shape and surface. To be finite, bounded and relative in other words. At a stretch you may call the Universe a process or rather the process of all processes yet still no causal action upon it is possible for it to qualify as an object. Even in this case such attributes as expansion, acceleration, contraction, end, size, age, origin and so on could be used in a strictly metaphorical sense only. Not to imply anything measurable and concrete like it is done in the creationist big bunk cosmogony based on the fallacy of reification.
Ideas are part of the Universe as attributes of objects and processes. They are what the objects or processes do, though process is also an idea of many objects interacting. They cannot physically accelerate or expand. Lovers can accelerate into each other's arms and you can measure the velocity and the rest of physical parameters. Love like the universe is an idea so it can expand only in poetical speech, not physics. Not to increase its physical volume, etc.
Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Can you read?
I can. Can you grasp unintuitive physics concepts that seem at odds with common experience?
If there is no absolute time in big bunk cosmology what then the figure 13.7 billion years of the universal age means?
When we talk about "age" we are talking about the proper time along an object's world line. Please note this is not in any sense a form of absolute time. It is the coordinate time in the objects rest frame. Similarly, in the case of the universe as a whole, the "rest frame" would be any point at rest with respect to the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric coordinates. An observer moving relative to those coordinates since the beginning of the universe would have aged less than the universe.
In essence this is no different to the twins paradox except we are trying to treat the universe as an object in a way that defies common sense even more than most relativity "paradoxes".
So the big bunk cosmology has got nothing to do with relativity.
Except that it can be directly derived as a logical consequence of general relativity and then corresponding observations made to verify the theory as in accordance with reality. Which is of course how we test a theories accuracy as a descriptions of reality when applying the scientific method.......
Verifiable predictions. The measure of a theory to which no creationist ever has any answer.
It is a pre-copernican geocentric type of cosmogony in pseudo-modern disguise.
Tell us what your alternative hypothesis is and what verifiable predictions you are able to make using your hypothesis.
Tell us what exactly you mean by "universal time" in terms of different frames of reference and the FLRW metric.
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface. Without it no causal action is possible. You can't perform a causal action on a concept. Try to damage justice or love in a literal sense. You can only damage a lover or unjust to the accused.
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface.
So, drilling down a little, we know from some very superficial physics that physical objects are made up of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms. Looking at one of the most basic molecules, oxygen, there are countless numbers of pairs of oxygen atoms floating around us at the moment. Do those atoms have a surface ?