The metric expansion of the Universe does not seem to cause some of the mechanical effects typically associated with motion (commute) of massive objects through space. For example, distant galaxies can be "flying away" from each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light. It seems that space expansion and commute through space may be different processes, regardless of the fact that GR nicely quantifies both: expansion may be a "mathematical" property of spacetime ("over time, it will take longer for light to move from A to B") while commute seems to be a physical, "heavy", "energetic" process, with side effects like gravitational waves, and subject to the speed limit. What do we know about the micro-physics of commuting through spacetime - apart from being able to measure it geometrically? How exactly does a particle leave a local region of spacetime and land in a neighboring region? Drawing analogies with how a dot moves on TV (pixel is switched off, a neighboring one is switched on, creating an illusion of motion) - does the particle disappear into vacuum, for a clone to appear in the "neighboring cell", with some properties like momentum, energy, etc. preserved? Described as such, commute would indeed be quite an energetic process, with clear limits on the maximum achievable speed that would depend on how fast the cause-effect relationship propagates locally (how quickly adjacent regions of spacetime can influence each other, how fast the "cloning" cycle is processed). Perhaps a more important question: regardless of how motion through space actually happens and whether my computer-inspired analogy is actually valid, is there any scientific value that can be obtained from viewing motion is an energetic, as opposed to geometric, phenomenon? In other words, would such depictions of motion as an energetic process in the vacuum explain anything, simplify anything, or just serve to increase the number of entities unnecessarily, violating Occam's razor?