For those that would like a source, other than the posters opinions, as to whether space expands or not, here is a link to a wikipedia article on the metric expansion of space. While I usually prefer sources other than wiki, this is a good article and it gives further references at the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Here is the main part that deals with the reasons it is currently accepted as valid.
Observational evidence
It was not until the year 2000 that scientists finally had all the pieces of direct observational evidence necessary to confirm the metric expansion of the universe. However, before this evidence was discovered, theoretical cosmologists considered the metric expansion of space to be a likely feature of the universe based on what they considered to be a small number of reasonable assumptions in modeling the universe. Chief among these were:
* the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
* the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").
To varying degrees, observational cosmologists have discovered evidence supporting these assumptions in addition to direct observations of space expanding. Today, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, the properties of the universe which scientists have tested and which can be observed provide compelling confirmation. Sources of confirmation include:
Edwin Hubble presented the first observational evidence of an expanding universe.
Edwin Hubble presented the first observational evidence of an expanding universe.
* Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law") as predicted by a universal expansion.[2] Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogenous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
* In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales in much the same way a Jackson Pollock painting looks lumpy close-up, but more regular as a whole.
* the isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
* The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems. As reported by a group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory, the radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[3] Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.
Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne).
Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method. In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics observations. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants that govern the physics of the universe.
Of course, people are free to believe what they wish. I've ask for supporting links or references to support the opposing view and have been ignored. Once again, I request some support for the opposing view. If I fail to receive any, then I will assume the opposing view is nothing more than opinion.
Wilgory