[Bored chemist]

We all know that the moon has real tidal impact on the Earth.

And we know it won't last forever.

This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.

No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.

You all know that this statement is  correct.

Yes, those eight words are correct.
But the rest of your rambling is not.

[Dave Lev]

This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.

No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.

Just a simple question:
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?

[Kryptid]

This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.

In other words, the real Universe. Where do you think the heat goes? It doesn't just disappear. It just goes to a different location in this same Universe.

I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.

A claim that is wrong due to the first law of thermodynamics.

However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.

No, no it cannot. This was one of those false claims I was talking about when I was referring to your Theory D thread being closed.

He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.

Gravitational waves are not tidal forces nor are they just gravity. They are their own, distinct phenomenon. Gravitational waves are to gravity what electromagnetic waves (such as light) are to electromagnetic fields.

In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

That's entirely up to you. If you start repeating the same nonsense arguments as you did in your Theory D thread (such as gravity being able to create new energy, orbiting objects always drifting outwards, the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe, etc.) then I will, indeed, ask you to stop replying to this thread.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

You may think of the universe as an infinite "heat sink" where energy dissipated into space is lost forever, but I don't think that is the case. Energy takes many forms, but behind all forms of energy there must be a prerequisite setting that allows for gravity and motion. That is my stimulus for seeing gravitational wave energy as being the basic infinite form of energy. That premise satisfies my logic/need for a universal fundamental background to everything else.

That setting then enables the laws of physics and the periodic table of elements, to be eternal, and which I like to think would have to be the same everywhere.


128081,128128,128166,128198,

[Dave Lev]

You may think of the universe as an infinite "heat sink" where energy dissipated into space is lost forever, but I don't think that is the case.

Dear Bogie_smiles
You are almost the only person that claims clearly that the Universe is Infinite in its size and in its age.
Your theory for infinite bangs is based on that key understanding that the universe is Infinite.
No Multiverse, no different space/times layers and no any sort of other imagination.
Just for this understanding you should get a reward from the whole science community.

the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe,

Can you please share with us your opinion about the size of the universe?
Is it finite or infinite???

If it is finite - can you please specify its size?
If you can't do so, then how can we discuss about the energy for a universe without any knowledge about its size?
Do you think that the energy that is needed for ant is exactly the same as needed for a space shuttle?
Therefore, it is not an issue of energy in theory D, Z or even in the BBT.
We must understand the size of the Universe before we discuss about any sort of energy for that universe.
So please - would you kindly tell us the real size of the Universe according to your understanding.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

[Kryptid]

Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.

[Dave Lev]

Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do appreciate you honest answer.
However, if you don't know and you also claim that it is possibly unknowable, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?
Don't you agree that a theory for finite and compact universe should be different from a theory for infinite Universe?

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?

How could it be that the science community don't care about the size of the universe.
How do they to tell us a story about the Universe without any clue about the size of that universe?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.

There is an evidence
It is called - curvature in space.
To my best understanding, we didn't discover any sort of curvature in space.
If that is correct then it proves that there is no limit for our Universe.
No limit means - infinite.
Why can't we all accept "Bogie Logic" that the Universe is infinite?
At least - do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe is infinite?
If so, do you estimate that the BBT - as is - fits also to the infinite Universe?
Can you really set infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

Why don't we have a backup story for infinite Universe as Bogie offers.

[Halc]

We are talking "Bogie Logic" here, lol.

Yea, I noticed.

Go in a straight line into space forever and tell me when you run into the wall, crash wham!!!

First of all, spatially, you can go in a straight line forever and not even reach stuff that you can see in front of you, regardless of speed. That part is known.That's hardly any kind of evidence of the universe being spatially infinite or not.
Secondly, finite space does not imply it has an edge. Space on the surface of Earth is finite, yet there's nowhere where you can go in a straight line and wham into the end of it. So much for "Bogie Logic".

Thirdly, you can draw a straight line in the temporal direction and you will very much 'bang into a wall'. There may or may not be meaningful 'universe' on the other side of that wall, but the wall is very much there, which seems to be how you define a boundary according to your logic.

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?

Example is inapplicable unless you can name one engineering project (or any empirical observation for that matter) that depends on whether or not the universe has finite spatial extent or not.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Go in a straight line into space forever and tell me when you run into the wall, crash wham!!!

First of all, spatially, you can go in a straight line forever and not even reach stuff that you can see in front of you, regardless of speed. That part is known.That's hardly any kind of evidence of the universe being spatially infinite or not.

I think you agree that the universe is infinite. Correct me if not.

Secondly, finite space does not imply it has an edge. Space on the surface of Earth is finite, yet there's nowhere where you can go in a straight line and wham into the end of it. So much for "Bogie Logic".

I acknowledge that there is no edge to space.

Thirdly, you can draw a straight line in the temporal direction and you will very much 'bang into a wall'. There may or may not be meaningful 'universe' on the other side of that wall, but the wall is very much there, which seems to be how you define a boundary according to your logic.

Agreed. The line I was talking about was one that is drawn straight out into space.



128500,128590,128620,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Many of us recognize the graphic of the birth of the universe, with the pinpoint beginning from a single "primordial atom" (per Georges Lamaitre), that is expanding outward into any imaginable future we want to entertain. I'm not an advocate of that scenario because my logic tells me that there was no beginning. The graphic depicting the universe growing from a single primordial atom to an infinite expanding universe doesn't seem to be right to me, but it seems to be the current consensus.

I prefer an "always existing" universe, where Big Bangs naturally occur; they occur in any patch of space containing enough matter and energy to allow gravity to form a Big Crunch/Bang, and I advocate a scenario where that has and will occur an infinite number of times, into the infinite future.


Let's hear from you on that premise ...


128739,

[Halc]

Many of us recognize the graphic of the birth of the universe, with the pinpoint beginning from a single "primordial atom" (per Georges Lamaitre), that is expanding outward into any imaginable future we want to entertain.

While I've seen may graphics, I can find none that were authored by Lemaitre himself. He certainly didn't posit the universe beginning from a small state. The visible universe perhaps, but that never grew to infinite size in any finite time. So I think you're misrepresenting the general big bang concept.
I don't see how a graphic can depict an infinite thing and a finite thing in the same picture.

The graphic depicting the universe growing from a single primordial atom to an infinite expanding universe doesn't seem to be right to me, but it seems to be the current consensus.

That's a common naive misconception. It is certainly not any kind of consensus. You said you don't want to learn any actual physics, so I can not really help you. Your blog is already 800 posts and still asking the most basic questions.

I prefer an "always existing" universe, where Big Bangs naturally occur; they occur in any patch of space containing enough matter and energy to allow gravity to form a Big Crunch/Bang

Well that's the problem with this model. Any collection of matter/energy (let alone what we see in our visible universe) squeezed into a small existing space like that would constitute a black hole (and a violation of energy conservation), and it would be in a crunched state before it could ever bang. It couldn't happen once, let alone multiple times.  The Milne model works something like that, but only because it is a zero energy solution, so no black holes form.

I think you agree that the universe is infinite. Correct me if not.

I think this question was directed to me, despite lack of mention of me in the post.
The size of the universe is unknown, and also coordinate system dependent and also dependent on the direction the measurement is taken. So for instance, in the approximate inertial frame of Earth, the universe is physically bounded and under 28 BLY across. The visible universe is often quoted as being larger than that, so the often quoted figure doesn't use inertial coordinates for the measurement.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think this question was directed to me, despite lack of mention of me in the post.
The size of the universe is unknown, and also coordinate system dependent and also dependent on the direction the measurement is taken. So for instance, in the approximate inertial frame of Earth, the universe is physically bounded and under 28 BLY across. The visible universe is often quoted as being larger than that, so the often quoted figure doesn't use inertial coordinates for the measurement.

Thank you. I'm sorry I have not elaborated with detail in my posts, and with links to images, but I had a stroke in the past two years, and I am slowly trying to get my faculties back in order (not to sound too bleak, , :shrug:). I'm sure I am able to express myself, and understand people's responses, but the prognosis is that I may not get back to my desired level of clarity. Bare with me ...  I may have lost a bit from my peak.


Thank you for that post. It helps.


128787,128840,128863,129082,

[Dave Lev]

All measurement have limits of precision. So there is still room for the Universe to be curved, but at a level too small to currently be measured

Well, we clearly see galaxies at a distance of almost 13 bly.
If the curvature was real, then we should see it in the space of those far away galaxies.
As we cant detect any curvature - then it is clear indication that those far away galaxies are not located in any curvature space.
Hence, 13 by ago our univese was not compact at all.
Lets read the following message from Halc -
 The CMB shows that the bang in fact occurred everywhere, not at some location in space.
What is the meaning of - everywhere?
For me everywhere in a universe without curvature means unlimited space or just infinite.
In any case, so far there is no evidence that the universe is finite. Therefore - it is vitel to cover a posibility for infinite universe in any theory.

[Bored chemist]

This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.

No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.

Just a simple question:
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?

Yes.
One quick question in return; do you understand that the total energy (tidal thermal and orbital) is the same at the end as it was at the start?

i.e. do you accept that

There is no new energy.

[Dave Lev]

Energy is conserved in a closed system, so it wouldn't be a violation for the bang to have the same energy as the last one. It doesn't leak away anywhere. Your idea of fusion isn't necessary since the crunch isn't lacking for energy.

Sorry - infinite universe can't be considered as closed system.
The energy in our locatiin should leak to the infinity after infinite time.
You actually confirm it-

 

t will expand ever faster until the sky is completely dark, with all the light sources too far away to ever see again.

 if the universe is infinite, then it has to be infinite also 13.8 by ago.
So how energy could enter to this infinite universe from outside while at the BB moment it was already infinite?
And as the space is already there, How space could expand at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a theory for infinite universe should be quite diffrently from the finite universe.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - infinite universe can't be considered as closed system.

Yes they can- for the same reason that a finite one can.
If the universe is "everything" then there's nothing outside it to pass energy or matter to nor receive it from.
So it's closed.

[Dave Lev]

There is not a location in space anywhere where the big bang did not occur. It quite literally means what it says

No location means no single point or singularity.
So how can you discuss about çrunche back to singularity-

You forget the context above, which is about a cyclic model where all the universe crunches back down to a singularity again, at which point it has the same energy as it started since it has nowhere else to go

Do you really see any possibility for infinite universe to crunche back to singularity?

What is the chance for energy/matter from any direction in the infinity to come back to a very single point?

Double the size of an infinite universe and it's still infinite, not 'more infinite'. It's all about a changing linear scalefactor

As there is no end for infinity,  how can you belive that energy/matter from all the infinity  would come back to a single point?

If the chance for that is zero, how the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago got its energy from the infinity space?

Please also take a desision
Singularity or not singularity?
You can't just use each situation whenever is needed for the theory.

There is not a location in space anywhere where the big bang did not occur.

How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?
Is it real?
As there is not any location in the infinite universe that the big bang not occur, what is the chance that it didn't occur at all?

[Bored chemist]

How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?

Very easily.
The bang became the universe.
How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?

[Dave Lev]

How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?

Very easily.
The bang became the universe.
How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?

Not so easy.
The infinite universe was there long before.
Please see the following message from Halc

if the universe is infinite, it has to be infinite also 13.8 by ago.

Wow, you actually got something right.

How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?

As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang, it proves that Bogie logic is fully correct.
Why not infinite bangs for infinite Universe?
If you don't accept Bogie logic then you have to agree that there was no bang at all.

[Bored chemist]

As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang,

It can, but you don't understand it. I don't know if that's a fundamental problem, or just because you refuse to pay attention.