I love science although I've never actually read a book .gif thread

There is no absolute reference frame where you can say 'relative to the universe as a whole'.

It's supposedly not adding new points, it's just expanding its already existing points.

Then there is no motion, location, or direction. There are no spatial dimensions either.

ITT: Opie tries to hand-wave a century of physics (relativity) away.

>The universe as a whole is the whole thing, whole universe included.
OP, your "whole thing" can be described/observed in an infinite number of frames of reference.

There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.

What are you even trying to say here? "points" as in the geometrical definition?
Either way, we get additional space through expansion. If you call it adding or expanding boils down to semantics. I'm not talking about mass/energy within space, btw

Points as in potential locations. Space is quantized, and there are not infinite positions excitations in an underlying quantum field can occupy. For something to exist in a location, something must allow it to be there. The universe does not afford infinite precision, or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.

>There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.
>All of GR is completely wrong. source? because I said so.

Opie please.
You might consider switching to philosophy where there are no objective truths, and anyone can declare themselves a genius.

wew fucking lad

p.s.: Infinite frames of reference does NOT imply infinite states.
You really don't seem to get GR at all.