- Dec 27, 2022
- 462
- 14
- 1,685
View: https://x.com/grok/status/1921502404488655004
GROK
The universe is widely accepted to be expanding, supported by redshift, cosmic microwave background, and supernovae data. The idea of matter shrinking is a speculative alternative lacking empirical support. Black holes are predicted to have singularities by general relativity, though theories like gravastars propose no singularities; "solid particle wave condensate" is not a recognized term. Gravitational and inertial mass equivalence is well-tested, central to general relativity, with no clear novel explanation provided. These ideas are intriguing but diverge from mainstream science.
ME
Expansion allegedly stretches light (hence the redshift), but nothing else - distance or structure - has been observed to stretch. The universe is not expanding. Even light cannot stretch if Feynman is correct:
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
GROK
The universe's expansion is supported by strong evidence, like the redshift of light from distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, which indicate space itself is stretching. This doesn't affect gravitationally bound structures like galaxies, explaining why they don't stretch.
Regarding light, Feynman's quote highlights its particle nature, but light also exhibits wave properties. The redshift occurs because space expands, stretching light's wavelength, consistent with the expansion model.
Alternatives like the Tired Light theory, where light loses energy, struggle to explain other observations like the CMB. While debates like the Hubble tension show science is evolving, the evidence currently favors an expanding universe.
ME
Galaxies don't stretch, distances between galaxies don't stretch, distances between galactic clusters don't stretch. Suspicious, no?
Shouldn't there be competition between expansion and gravity so that fringes only weakly bound by gravity succumb to expansion and fly away?
GROK
The universe's expansion stretches space, but galaxies and clusters don't stretch because gravity holds them together. Expansion affects unbound regions, like between superclusters, not bound systems like the Local Group. There is competition between gravity and expansion—gravity dominates locally, while expansion wins on large scales. Weakly bound fringes may be stripped by dynamics, but not directly by expansion. The standard model, backed by redshift, CMB, and supernovae data, explains this well. Alternative theories, like Tired Light, lack broad support. Recent Hubble tension suggests faster expansion, but the model holds. See NASA's Universe Expansion page for details.
ME
Gravity holds ANY two galactic clusters together so the universe's expansion cannot stretch the distance between them? Too preposterous, Grok.
GROK
Gravity doesn't hold all galaxy clusters together against the universe's expansion. Within clusters, gravity is strong enough to prevent internal stretching, keeping galaxies bound. However, between unbound clusters, like those in different superclusters, space expands, increasing their distance, as seen in redshift data. This aligns with the standard model, supported by cosmic microwave background and supernovae evidence. Alternatives like Tired Light suggest redshift without expansion but struggle to explain other observations. Recent studies, like gravitational lens discoveries, refine expansion rates but support the model. Your skepticism highlights an important debate, but the evidence leans toward expansion dominating on large scales.
ME
"between unbound clusters, like those in different superclusters, space expands, increasing their distance, as seen in redshift data."
No direct observation? One cluster is observed in the east sky, another in the west sky, and the distance between them is seen to increase. No?
GROK
We can't directly observe the distance between galaxy clusters, like one in the east sky and one in the west, increasing over time. The universe's expansion is inferred from redshift, showing distant galaxies receding faster, as per Hubble's Law. For example, the Virgo Cluster (16.5 Mpc away) moves at ~1100 km/s, but the yearly distance increase is too tiny (0.00000714%) to measure. Cosmic microwave background and supernovae data further support expansion. Alternative theories like Tired Light suggest redshift from energy loss, but they don't explain time dilation in supernovae or other evidence, making the standard model more robust.
ME
"We can't directly observe the distance between galaxy clusters, like one in the east sky and one in the west, increasing over time."
You can't because the distance is not increasing. As simple as that. The universe is not expanding.
GROK
The universe is widely accepted to be expanding, supported by redshift, cosmic microwave background, and supernovae data. The idea of matter shrinking is a speculative alternative lacking empirical support. Black holes are predicted to have singularities by general relativity, though theories like gravastars propose no singularities; "solid particle wave condensate" is not a recognized term. Gravitational and inertial mass equivalence is well-tested, central to general relativity, with no clear novel explanation provided. These ideas are intriguing but diverge from mainstream science.
ME
Expansion allegedly stretches light (hence the redshift), but nothing else - distance or structure - has been observed to stretch. The universe is not expanding. Even light cannot stretch if Feynman is correct:
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
GROK
The universe's expansion is supported by strong evidence, like the redshift of light from distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, which indicate space itself is stretching. This doesn't affect gravitationally bound structures like galaxies, explaining why they don't stretch.
Regarding light, Feynman's quote highlights its particle nature, but light also exhibits wave properties. The redshift occurs because space expands, stretching light's wavelength, consistent with the expansion model.
Alternatives like the Tired Light theory, where light loses energy, struggle to explain other observations like the CMB. While debates like the Hubble tension show science is evolving, the evidence currently favors an expanding universe.
ME
Galaxies don't stretch, distances between galaxies don't stretch, distances between galactic clusters don't stretch. Suspicious, no?
Shouldn't there be competition between expansion and gravity so that fringes only weakly bound by gravity succumb to expansion and fly away?
GROK
The universe's expansion stretches space, but galaxies and clusters don't stretch because gravity holds them together. Expansion affects unbound regions, like between superclusters, not bound systems like the Local Group. There is competition between gravity and expansion—gravity dominates locally, while expansion wins on large scales. Weakly bound fringes may be stripped by dynamics, but not directly by expansion. The standard model, backed by redshift, CMB, and supernovae data, explains this well. Alternative theories, like Tired Light, lack broad support. Recent Hubble tension suggests faster expansion, but the model holds. See NASA's Universe Expansion page for details.
ME
Gravity holds ANY two galactic clusters together so the universe's expansion cannot stretch the distance between them? Too preposterous, Grok.
GROK
Gravity doesn't hold all galaxy clusters together against the universe's expansion. Within clusters, gravity is strong enough to prevent internal stretching, keeping galaxies bound. However, between unbound clusters, like those in different superclusters, space expands, increasing their distance, as seen in redshift data. This aligns with the standard model, supported by cosmic microwave background and supernovae evidence. Alternatives like Tired Light suggest redshift without expansion but struggle to explain other observations. Recent studies, like gravitational lens discoveries, refine expansion rates but support the model. Your skepticism highlights an important debate, but the evidence leans toward expansion dominating on large scales.
ME
"between unbound clusters, like those in different superclusters, space expands, increasing their distance, as seen in redshift data."
No direct observation? One cluster is observed in the east sky, another in the west sky, and the distance between them is seen to increase. No?
GROK
We can't directly observe the distance between galaxy clusters, like one in the east sky and one in the west, increasing over time. The universe's expansion is inferred from redshift, showing distant galaxies receding faster, as per Hubble's Law. For example, the Virgo Cluster (16.5 Mpc away) moves at ~1100 km/s, but the yearly distance increase is too tiny (0.00000714%) to measure. Cosmic microwave background and supernovae data further support expansion. Alternative theories like Tired Light suggest redshift from energy loss, but they don't explain time dilation in supernovae or other evidence, making the standard model more robust.
ME
"We can't directly observe the distance between galaxy clusters, like one in the east sky and one in the west, increasing over time."
You can't because the distance is not increasing. As simple as that. The universe is not expanding.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram