Thread: New model of the universe ?

That is a coincidence, you must've got the backlink notification over a month ago, and you post at BAUT 11 minutes after I post here.

It sounds like *all* energy is "free", according to your way of describing it. You just have to buy the right ladder, eh?

I seem to be seeing a conflict that is not real.. Its interesting that it can be said., but may not be correct.

That Gravity's effect results in the energies measured. A argument for that is real enough but not well explained.

Its not free energy. NOTHING is free. The ultimate price is paid for that energy perceived. Mater has ceased to exist.

Regardless of the souse, energy is not free. Something will have paid that price.

I do not see any earth shattering news here. Just the way its worded is at issue..

Heat, Light. are forms of energy output.. To have output, There must be input.

With an infinite ladder, you can pick all that fruit you want. It does become a matter of perspective. The optimism of having infinite space and infinite matter would mean that the glass is always full. The pessimism of having an infinite space and finite matter would mean that there is maybe going to be a 'heat death' of the universe ?

pup 15

That's also possible Astromark. That is the other school of thought to me. With continual bangs and crunches, more is converted to light and projected into space. Instead of free energy and energy gain, there is decay and energy loss. In that model, there is a real cost of just doing business. By the book, conservation of energy makes sense in a small space or a closed system, but maybe the universe doesn't operate that way. Maybe the universe is an open system. Infinitely open.

Until I figure out how light is converted into matter once again, I can't really say whether the universe's energy is being conserved, gained, or lost.

I think our local perspective, even with our fancy telescopes, is somewhat limited. And it is, limited by nature, because we can't see with infinite focus. And I think it's been found out that our whole visible portion of the universe is actually shifting towards a more expansive mass that is unseen. Unless one starts talking with E.T.'s, or sending probes on suicide missions, then we won't be able to know what's out there for sure. Even if we did start talking, our knowledge would still be limited if the universe really is infinite, and then we will never ever really know because of it's inherent nature. It is an endless question that will never be answered. Or at least until we have space colonies and start to drift around like the other E.T.'s. Until someone get's so far out and eventually sees that there is an end and turn's back. Otherwise, the traveler's-at-heart willl probably keep on traveling forever. That's what I see as the destiny of mankind. That's why I humor the alien visitations. They're just like what we will be, given a long enough time.

Due to our limitation of being stuck on this rock, there is only so much fruit within reaching distance. Our ladder is limited, and therefore, the energy/matter within reach is limited. If only we could harness the atomic energy of this ham sandwich.

You know, I was reading about the new types of thorium-based nuclear reactors. They convert almost all of the atomic energy of the fuel, while urananium-based plants only convert something like 3% of the available atomic energy. Sounds promising.

I should probably get back to the question of where that unaccounted % of Earth's heat energy is coming from.

I looked up tidal locking. The bulging or oblonging of a body while it is rotating, creates a tidal wave of reshaping, which looks like an input of free energy to me. All that flexing is like bending a piece of wire. It's going to heat up.

"The material of B exerts resistance to this periodic reshaping caused by the tidal force" Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's hard for me to see how this can cause an object to decrease it's spin. To me, angular momentum should be conserved no matter what.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right. Are they implying that when an object doesn't spin so fast that it's orbit will increase because it has lost inertia ? I would think that only forward momentum would matter.


And then I remember the slowing of the spinning egg. The arguement always comes back to the egg. But I also know that when you compare the hard boiled egg and soft egg in a spin contest, there is no spin imparted upon the internal egg yolk of the soft egg. Like a gyroscope, the internal soft yolk will resist inertially and remain more fixed. If both eggs were allowed to be brought up to speed and remain at that speed for a while until the internal yolk was also spinning at the same speed, then I wonder which egg would win the spin test ?

I was doing a little reading on the magnus effect.

Magnus effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many astronomical objects (planets, galaxies etc.) have both rotational (spinning) and linear (moving) motions in space. The Magnus force should in principle be acting on astronomical objects. There have been arguments indicating that Magnus effect works on planets and galaxies.[19] [20]"


I could see how the spin of a planet against the solar winds and whatever else in space could influence the trajectory of the planet and slow its spin down ever so slightly.

And just how reliable are these measurements of the slowing of the earth and the increase in the moon's orbit ? Are these measurements constant from year to year, to day to day.

If the Earth and Moon are swirling around each other, and they both pass between two outer planets, then they will be pullled apart slightly, right? Like osmosis. How do we know that these measurements are not the effect of other distant bodies, those of which can not to be literally-closely measured ?

For a body that is spinning, the magnus effect would slow it's spin down. For a body that is not spinning, it would have some resistance against the cosmic wind. I would think that the forward facing atmosphere of an orbiting planet would be slightly flattened and the other side would have a tail. This is like having the shell on the inside and the yolk on the outside. I believe the EM field of Earth kind of takes this shape from the solar wind. So why not the atmosphere, if not just a little bit ?

I thought bullets and arrows with spin go farther because they resist being tipped and therefore remain in aerodynamically optimal forward facing positions as they travel. I thought angular momentum/inertia only resist's angular change.