49 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because GR does not require an assumption of finite energy.

In any case energy is a (relative) number rather than a thing isn't it.

An infinite number  of energies  might sum up to a very small 'resultant" (is that right?) whereas  there  might be a way of directing the energy  systems (whatever  that means) so as  to sum up to an infinite resultant

.

I imagine that is meaningless gobbledegook but perhaps you can devine something in it?

 

Ps Is it right that some people consider the total energy in the universe   to be zero?

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

In any case energy is a (relative) number rather than a thing isn't it.

Yes. It depends on reference frame.

 

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

An infinite number  of energies  might sum up to a very small 'resultant" (is that right?) whereas  there  might be a way of directing the energy  systems (whatever  that means) so as  to sum up to an infinite resultant

As far as I can interpret it, it is correct.

 

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it right that some people consider the total energy in the universe   to be zero?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

 

 

Yes.

 

(Geordief asked "Is it right that some people consider the total energy in the universe   to be zero"

Gennady  answered "Yes" )

 

If that is anyway near correct ,the expression "an infinite amount of energy" seems close to being a  contradiction  in terms..

1 minute ago, geordief said:

 

(Geordief asked "Is it right that some people consider the total energy in the universe   to be zero"

Gennady  answered "Yes" )

 

If that is anyway near correct ,the expression "an infinite amount of energy" seems close to being a  contradiction  in terms..

I meant, yes, indeed some people consider the total energy in the universe to be zero.

But I don't know what the "total energy in the universe" means. In some definition perhaps it might be zero. As "an infinite amount of energy", too. For example, if the universe is infinite in size and vacuum has energy, then there is an infinite amount of vacuum energy in the universe.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Ps Is it right that some people consider the total energy in the universe   to be zero?

Yes I expect there are a fe people somewhere that consider this to be so.

But in myopinion they would be wrong.

 

Whatever else our universe might be of possess it is not empty.

As soon as there is anything in a universe that anything must have a configuration and that configuration must possess energy of configuration, otherwise known as potential energy.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Yes I expect there are a fe people somewhere that consider this to be so.

But in myopinion they would be wrong.

 

Whatever else our universe might be of possess it is not empty.

As soon as there is anything in a universe that anything must have a configuration and that configuration must possess energy of configuration, otherwise known as potential energy.

Here Alan Guth explains why he thinks that total energy of the universe might be 0. Starting at the minute 22 until about the minute 26: 

 

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Genady

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Here Alan Guth explains why he thinks that total energy of the universe might be 0. Starting at the minute 22 until about the minute 26: 

So how do you address my comment ?

1 minute ago, studiot said:

So how do you address my comment ?

If A.Guth is right, the positive potential energy which you describe in your comment might be countered by a negative energy of the gravitational field and the total might be 0.