[Dave Lev]

I'll have to finish my ranting on these topics later, since I'm on a cruise and stuff is happening all the time, lol.

Dear Bogie_smiles
I hope that you enjoy the cruise.

You may be right. However, my premise is that the universe has always existed; no creation or initial event that everything has to track back to. Celestial mechanics would be a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules would occur naturally and would be recycled via big crunches and big bangs.  Maybe protons are eternal too?

Let me summarize my point of view about your theory.
1. Infinite space - Yes, you are absolutely correct. There is only one Universe and the space in this universe goes to the infinity at any direction. If you jump by 10^1000 LY to the left, while I would jump 10^1000LY to the right - the distance between us would be exactly 2*10^1000LY.
2. Infinite age - I also fully agree with you that the Universe with its infinite space is infinite in its age. the idea that it had been created only 13.8 By ago is just imagination.
3. Imagination - Multiverse, Curvature in space, other space dimension in space time, Space expansion/inflation and other hypothetical theories - Those are pure imagination from scientists that do understand that the current BBT can't fit to the observations but they still wish to hold it.
4. Energy in the space - There is abundant energy in space. even in an "empty" space.
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-energy.html
"There is abundant energy in space. Even though most of deep space (the vast stretches of empty area between planets, stars and moons) is cold and dark, space is flooded constantly by electromagnetic energy."
Try to use that electromagnetic energy in your theory.
6. Free energy - As there is no other space dimension while  space/time are always there then there is no free energy that could come free of charge to help your theory as our scientists hope to get in the BBT theory (while they don't have a clue how that energy comes in).
7. Real Matter - It is perfectly OK to assume that there was always matter in the Universe. However, there is maximum upper limit on proton lifetime.

Maybe protons are eternal too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
"The maximum upper limit on proton lifetime (if unstable), is calculated at 6 × 10^39 years, a bound applicable to SUSY models,"
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 
Therefore, you must show how new protons/atoms are CONSTANTLY created in our real universe.

[Kryptid]

"The maximum upper limit on proton lifetime (if unstable), is calculated at 6 × 10^39 years, a bound applicable to SUSY models,"
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 

Proton decay is theoretical. It hasn't been observed and might not happen. If so, then the proton would be stable.

Dave, you seem to be dangerously close to talking about Theory D again. You were barred from doing so because your old thread about it devolved so much that it had to be closed. Don't bring Theory D up.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I pretty much trust the scientific community to come to a consensus on what is known, and what is as yet unknown. I don’t hesitate to speculate about the “as yet unknown”, and I don’t claim to know all about what is known, so my ranting is more for my own entertainment, and for discussion. I appreciate your responses and enthusiasm for discussion.

Since I subscribe to the idea that big crunches and big bangs are common events, given infinite space and time, I would say that if protons have a well defined quark structure, and that there are up and down quarks and mediating gluons that represent the forces, then I would wonder about the physics of those particles throughout the crunch and bang cycles. Does the extreme of gravity during a crunch leave the protons intact? Do the protons give up their individual particle nature when and if the crunch collapses under the extreme of gravity, and then reform in the cooling and expansion phase? Does a Big Bang pulverize all matter into wave energy, or does matter survive the crunch bang?


123886,123937,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Would nuclear fusion occur during a big crunch. If so, fusion energy would certainly make for a Big Bang, wouldn't it?


123940,123997,124043,124112,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.


124233,124289,124317,124368,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 
Therefore, you must show how new protons/atoms are CONSTANTLY created in our real universe.

My speculations are based on 1) a multiple Big Bang universe that has always existed, 2) space that is filled with matter composed of gravitational wave energy, resulting in matter that can be recycled between matter and wave energy via the big crunch/bang cycle.

If there was any evidence of proton decay, i.e., if they might not have always existed, then my "model" would address it with the premise that multiple big crunches and big bangs occurring throughout eternity would be converting matter to wave energy via big bangs, and wave energy to matter via gravitational compression. There would be ample opportunity for protons forming within the heart of massive objects like stars, or as a result of super novas, if not within the crunch/bangs themselves, I speculate.


124550,124651,124674,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Infinity is long enough for anything that can happen, to happen. If protons can decay they will. And if they do, they will be remade in the compression "ovens" from the massive accumulations of matter that are in the process of naturally forming all the time across the universe, from matter and wave energy that already exists.



125226,125399,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I doubt that big crunches and big bangs are particularly rare on a grand scale, though they would be few and far between. The measure that would make them common place is the infinite scale of the universe that is full of matter and energy. But I think that we have to accept that individuality of conscious beings is very fleeting and a one time experience for each of us. And yet, everything we say and do stays with us as long as we are functioning beings.


126070,126266,

[Dave Lev]

Dave, you seem to be dangerously close to talking about Theory D again.

Dear Kryptid
I only wish to focus on real science.
In real science there is no way to move an atom (or create an atom) without real energy source.
I really like the theory from Bogie_smiles as there is a real energy source for its infinite bangs/crunches theory.
He actually reuse the energy in its infinite time & space universe.
We can agree or disagree on that kind of energy source, but at least there is a real source for the energy in his theory.
Theory D is irrelevant for this discussion.
I also like the idea of repeatable bangs/crunches activity.
In our real universe any activity must be repeatable.
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.
Actually, there must be a way for us to verify if Bogie_smiles theory is real.
I would advice to verify if the expectation from Bogie_smiles theory meets the observations.
If yes, then it might be a good theory.
However, if we would verify even a single contradiction (in current observation - or in the future observation) then this theory is not realistic.
Therefore, real energy source + repeatable activity + 100% correlation between expectations to observation should be the base for Bogie_smiles theory or any other theory.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I only wish to focus on real science.
In real science there is no way to move an atom (or create an atom) without real energy source.
I really like the theory from Bogie_smiles as there is a real energy source for its infinite bangs/crunches theory.
He actually reuse the energy in its infinite time & space universe.


...
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.

Agreed. A single Big Bang will "play out", and my speculation is that either everything would move away from everything else until the distances separating them would make them undetectable, or, until all mass has radiated itself into oblivion, .

Actually, there must be a way for us to verify if Bogie_smiles theory is real.
I would advice to verify if the expectation from Bogie_smiles theory meets the observations.
If yes, then it might be a good theory.
However, if we would verify even a single contradiction (in current observation - or in the future observation) then this theory is not realistic.
Therefore, real energy source + repeatable activity + 100% correlation between expectations to observation should be the base for Bogie_smiles theory or any other theory.

I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing reality. There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.


I do think that over time there will be many new discoveries about the macro universe as well as the micro realm, and the excitement is in the on-going unfolding of an understanding of reality.

,127176,127233,

[Dave Lev]

I do think that over time there will be many new discoveries about the macro universe as well as the micro realm, and the excitement is in the on-going unfolding of an understanding of reality.

We have already discovered that there is no curvature in space.
Therefore, our Universe can't be limited in its size!

I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing reality

Your Idea that the universe is infinite in its size/space is 100% correct.
As there is no curvature in the space, the assumption that our universe is limited in its space is just incorrect.
Based on this understanding it is clear that there is no way to set unlimited universe space by a single bang that took place 13.8 BY ago.
Hence, the age of an infinite Universe must be also infinite.
Therefore, our real universe must be infinite in its size/space and also in its age.
Any one knows that, even those people that wish to believe in a single BBT idea.
Hence, if we wish to believe that our universe is limited in its size and had been created 13.8 BY ago by a single bang, now that we know that the Universe is unlimited in its size (and its age) - it is very clear that based on the same concept, there must be unlimited number of bangs.

There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.

No
There is only one clear understanding for our Universe.
It is infinite in its size and age as you have stated!

You have offered better alternative for that real universe.
Therefore, in my point of view, your idea for unlimited no of bangs for infinite universe is much more realistic than the current main stream speculation that our universe is limited in its size and had been created by only a single Bang.
Please be awrae that in order to keep the wrong idea of a single BBT for the unlimited universe size, some scientists offered new speculations as Multiverse and different space/times layers. However, they are all incorrect.
The missing curvature in space proves by 100% that there is only one universe and this universe is unlimited in its size and age.
Any theory must explain that unlimited universe size and age!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If you like the idea that the universe is infinite and eternal, you might like the idea that changes in the path of objects in motion through space are governed by the changing local gravitational wave energy density that the object encounters. It is those changes that cause an object to follow a curved path through space.


127318,127331,127353,127436,127461,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.

And thus, the occurrence of life, here and there, now and then, would be a certainty. Any objections to that premise?



127500,127608,

[Dave Lev]

Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.

And thus, the occurrence of life, here and there, now and then, would be a certainty. Any objections to that premise?

127500,127608,

There is small problem in this concept.
Let's assume that you are fully correct in your theory.
However, do you agree that our sun is losing mass due to fusion activity & solar wind?
https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
In the same token every star in the galaxy or in the Universe is also losing mass over time.
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.
Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.

[Dave Lev]

Matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and objects of matter both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.

So, you offer the gravitational wave as a source of energy.
That is excellent Idea.
Actually, we all know that Gravity comes for free.
However, you should show how gravity or gravity wave could be transformed to energy (especially new EM energy).
Once you have new EM energy, you could theoretically create new protons and new matter.
That matter could compensate the losing mass due to fusion activity.
Therefore, new protons / matter could keep your infinite bang cycles for infinity.
So please - try to find a solution how gravity could be transformed into new EM energy.

[Kryptid]

As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.

That's not how that works. Stars may lose mass, but that lost mass still exists in the Universe in the form of particles. The Universe does not lose mass just because stars lose mass.

New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion. You may not be mentioning Theory D by name, but you are definitely dancing around it.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

There is small problem in this concept.
Let's assume that you are fully correct in your theory.
However, do you agree that our sun is losing mass due to fusion activity & solar wind?
https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
In the same token every star in the galaxy or in the Universe is also losing mass over time.
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.

Not according to my speculations which promote an infinite universe that prominently features the perpetual process I call "matter to energy to matter", via the universal formation, here and there, now and then, of big crunches and big bangs.

Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.

There is no need for new energy if there is a perpetual process of matter to energy to matter via big crunches and big bangs that have been occurring forever, here and there, across the infinite universe.



127815,127842,127890,128054,

[Bored chemist]

"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."

Let's do a thought experiment- they are cheap.
Say we magically switch the Sun off and wait a few years.
OK, imagine a rock orbiting the Sun at a distance of a little over a light year.It has an orbital period given by the distance, and the mass of the Sun.

Then we switch the Sun back on.

Light and the solar wind stream out from the Sun- it loses mass.

But the path of the rock does not change until the light reaches it.
Because all that light is made of photons with relativistic mass.

And that mass exactly balances the mass lost from the Sun.

In a very large universe, the same is true without needing to switch the sun on and off.
It turned on about 4.6 billion years ago. Anything more than (about) 4.6 billion light years away will be subject to the same pull from [ the sun together with the radiation and solar wind] as it was before it lit up.

The Sun loses mass, but the rest of the universe gains that mass.

[Dave Lev]

The Sun loses mass, but the rest of the universe gains that mass.

This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.
A system without any sort of heat/energy dissipation is "Perpetuum Mobile".
However, in our real Universe there is no activity without heat/energy dissipation.
We own our live to the heat dissipation of the Sun (due to its fusion activity).

There is no need for new energy if there is a perpetual process of matter to energy to matter via big crunches and big bangs that have been occurring forever, here and there, across the infinite universe.

Theoretically - in Ideal conditions without any sort of heat/energy dissipation, that activity could be correct.
Therefore, your Infinite Bangs theory could work as long as we all believe in "Perpetuum Mobile".

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion.

As I have stated - Theory D is irrelevant in this discussion.
We try to understand how infinite activity as infinite bangs at infinite Universe could work indefinitely without any need for external energy.
I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.
If you don't me to participate in this discussion - please tell me and I would stay out.

If it is OK, then we all must agree that in real nature/universe there is no way to get "Perpetuum Mobile" system.
If you wish to get infinite Universe (size & age) with infinite energy  that works indefinitely - somehow new energy should be created.
It is not related to theory D or Z.
It is just pure real science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:42:08
New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

Your statement about the meaning of the first law of thermodynamics is 100% correct.
However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.
Let me use the example of BC with minor changes:

OK, imagine a rock orbiting the Sun at a distance of a little over a light year.It has an orbital period given by the distance, and the mass of the Sun.
Then we switch the Sun back on.
Light and the solar wind stream out from the Sun- it loses mass.
But the path of the rock does not change until the light reaches it.

I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.
We all know that the moon has real tidal impact on the Earth.
Due to that tidal impact the Earth gets internal tidal heat energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation - the Moon is drifting outwards.
Therefore, in real orbital path of that rock (as in BC example) - under tidal heat transformation, it is expected that the rock would drift outwards.
It can't just stay at the same orbital radius for indefinitely.
This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
Hence  - gravity force could be transformed into new energy - however it comes with a payment of changing the orbital radius.
You all know that this statement is a correct.
Therefore, before we offer any sort of theory to our Universe - we must offer a solution for new energy.
It is not my personal imagination and it is not related to theory D, Z, BS or BBT.
Our Universe can't be created/work without real energy source.
Sorry - infinite energy can't just come out of nothing.
If you care about real science – then before we offer any sort of theory – it is our obligation to offer the source of energy for that theory.
I don't accept an answer as: "we don't know and we don't care"
This kind of answer is a direct contradiction to real science!

In the same token, the idea of Bogie_smiles for infinite bangs could potentially work indefinitely by adding that tidal energy to his theory and overcome the fusion heat dissipation.
He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.
 
In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

[Bored chemist]

I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.

You might as well claim that unicorns can do it.