Schneibster

I'm not the one suggesting that the law of the conservation of mass/energy can be violated.

Bwahahahahaha. You said, it varies. It doesn't have to vary; it might or it might not. That means you are plain, flat, wrong.

And as it turns out, you are not only wrong about the definition of an open system, but about the definition of a closed system as well, because you do not know the difference between a closed system and an isolated system. It looks to me like you really need to go read all four of those links until you understand the basics of introductory thermodynamics. Please feel free to ask questions in a polite manner when you do not understand, and please also be sure to check what you think you understand with someone who actually does understand it before you start trying to argue about it. This is called "learning." {edited}.

<sigh> OK, here we go again. I'd think after you got whipped with your nine statements that violate conservation of mass/energy, you'd learn a little bit, but it appears you need a little more schooling. I doubt this will do any good, but here goes:
Here: "I have seen articles about a closed universe..." And here: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, systems that are stale in domain." And here: "No, by definition of open and closed.

Closed means: nothing in, nothing out." By the way, this last is wrong; closed means no energy in and out, but matter can enter and leave the system. Please see the four definitions of a closed system provided in the previous post, and on the previous page. And here: "the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies correctly to closed systems." And here: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies correctly to closed systems, not to open systems like the universe." And here: "The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems.
An open system doesn't violate the law, the law doesn't apply." The second statement is clearly wrong; see the four links provided in the previous post and on the last page.

And then there is here: "It's closed system against open system, as far as universe goes." Which is again wrong; it is unknown whether the universe is an open, closed, or isolated system. Most cosmologists assert that it is isolated; some that it is open. Very few assert that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system. On the other hand, most cosmologists assert that the universe has an open cosmology; this is the meaning of dark energy. With visible matter, the universe is far short of being flat; add dark matter, and it accounts not only for the rotation of galaxies, but also adds enough mass to make the universe nearly flat. Now they have to account for an apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe starting (IIRC) about seven billion years ago. This is accounted for by dark energy; unlike dark matter, there is no additional confirmation of dark energy, and there are other theories that could create the same effect by different means, and currently not enough information to choose among them. Dark energy is merely the most popular hypothesis, I think. Perhaps they have come up with some supporting information for it since I last looked it up.

You seem to have trouble with this word, "confused." I'm not sure you understand what it means, when you apply it to someone whose statements agree with the links they post, when yours do not. I have to conclude that you understand what "confused" means about as well as you understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the definitions of open, closed, and isolated systems, thermodynamics itself, the definitions of open and closed cosmologies, what you read in the articles whose links you post, and how to learn. Which is to say, quite simply, not at all. {edited}

Ion

Here, Schneib, because you wander a lifelong in the desert, I straighten you out:
1.) is supported by:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy3.html

and: "...But it must be emphasized that you cannot take the 2nd law off the shelf and apply "as is"..." to work in open systems;

so, my:

"...When the poster of the opening post has a law of thermodynamics, an amendment to the Second Law of Thermodynamics that suits open systems, then the poster should bring it..."

means something, doesn't?

2.) is supported by:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/3/1

and has "...This implies that the universe is 'open'..."

Now, thank me nicely.

Schneibster

Which it clearly does not; it reflects your misinterpretation of what the links say, which is very different from what they actually do say. As I and several other people have been trying to tell you for a very long time.

I never said you had. What I did say is that
you don't understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics,
you wrongly deny that they apply to open systems,
you wrongly define open and closed systems and don't even know what an isolated system is,
you wrongly confound open thermodynamic systems with open cosmologies,
you wrongly accuse me of lying,
you wrongly assert that you never said that the conservation of mass/energy could be violated, and
you wrongly assert that you never said anything about closed systems.

Not only that, but I proved every single thing I said. You have asserted many things, but so far provided evidence to support none of them.

I see absolutely no inconsistency between those two statements. Each is true. They are in different contexts, and are therefore the most appropriate way of saying the same thing in two different contexts. It's unfortunate that you believe the exceptions are more important than the rule, but it doesn't make it true. I find that this is a common problem with the scientifically challenged, along with a confusion about the differences between hypotheses and theories, and the difference between physical law and physical reality.

Again, this is a common source of confusion for the scientific neophyte. You will no doubt gain sophistication if you can ever figure out how to learn; unfortunately, it looks like that is going to be a really long time from now.

I'm sorry, I don't have any more time to waste trying to teach a newbie how science works. Please feel free to ask someone else, but I suggest you not begin by insulting them.

Ion

Which it clearly does, unless a scientific neophyte like you talks.

Learn by rote my previous post, and repeat it twice a day, everyday.

Dark Knight Bob

Open as in expanding. NOT as in non-isolated as you're claiming.

Also known as virtual particles. What you neglect to realise is that these particles then pop OUT of existance afterwards. They do not stay in the system idefintely. They are restricted by the heisenburg uncertainty principle and the laws of thermodynamics. I've already stated MANY times this is what the scientists are talking about when you quote this. If you can't move on from this and re-adjust your arguement then we're not going to be able to get anywhere at all.

Feel free to ask any other cosmologist by email or whatever to define what these terms mean in relation to the article.

Dark Knight Bob

To highlight how you're misinterpretting the use of the term open in this context does me "opening" a door have anything to do with the fate of the universe? No it's to do with opening a door. Therefore how does an open,flat,closed universe have to do with anything other than the rate of change expansion in the universe.

according to your definition you either have an open or closed universe.

If that's the context the article talks about why then is there a term called "flat" universe? your definition is a logical yes/no true/false definition.

A definition that has 3 options clearly isn't anything to do with what you're talking about when you refer to an open universe.

Ion

"...There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum..." means that at any given time particles exist, many die and are replaced righ then, but at any given time "...There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum...".

There is a permanent state of new particles.

Anglican

1) the second law of thermodynamics applies to open systems. You can state it in ways in which have no relevancy to open systems, but there are othe rways of stating it. It really wouldn't be that interseting if it did not apply in some way to open systems as in the rela world just about every system studied is an open system.

2) Your confounding the concept of an open system in thermodynamoics with the concept of an open universe in BBT; the two concepts are unrelated. In BBT the term 'open' refers to the geometry of the universe.

Dark Knight Bob

This is where wave particle duality comes in. Find me any part of the universe where a gravitational wave doesn't exist?

If you think that the universe is only made up of particles and nothing else i.e energy then i'm never going to get anywhere.

This thread to me is clearly going no-where.

I'm out.

Ion

There is little difference between open and flat.

Closed is closed.

The definition has two options: open or flat, and closed.