Ion

No.

Case in point:

my definition of open system is correct, you say it's wrong, then you post the same thing.

You argue to say: definition of open is wrong because of A, but definition of open is right because of A, it's violation, it's not violation, na, na, na.

Ion

When did I say the law of conservation of energy is violated?

Violation is your gig, not mine, remember?

My links speak of an open system, the first link words it as an "...open..." universe.

I see that you are employing laws and words to the wrong conditions, for example you are confusing laws and words for closed systems with laws and words for open systems.

You are doing a mess...

Schneibster

No, I posted four reputable references other than myself that all unanimously say that your definition of a closed system is incorrect. You post zero references; you make an unsupported (and, BTW, unsupportable) claim to the contrary. Who to believe? Hmmmm. he who claims? Or he who proves? Your stuff is weak.

One of those links is for professional engineers who must understand this stuff so that HVAC equipment sitting on top of fifty story office buildings doesn't explode, and other equally crucial engineering tasks. You wanna go tell the engineers they're wrong about thermodynamics, be my guest- but I don''t suggest yelling insults at them like you have me when they tell you you haven't ever even seen a clue, much less actually possessed one. They might call the cops and have you hauled away to the looney bin.

Puerile sixth-grade behavior deleted.

Ion

See that you are mindlessly arguing?

The definition that I gave and you argued against with "Wrong..." is for open systems.

Not for closed systems.

You are confused again and arguing.

Bring up my definition and prove it's wrong.

I am watching...

Schneibster

Here: "When the universe expands, there is new matter in the universe." And here: "Scientists are working onto observing new matter being created during the expansion of the universe, not just new space entering the universe." And here: "So when the universe is expanding:

.) new space,

.) particles,

and

.) fields

are in." And here: "one calculation has the mass of the universe increasing, along with the universe expanding;" And here: "So you need to have new stuff to appear to push things apart." twice: "I have seen a calculation of the mass of the universe increasing." And here: "The universe's mass is increasing, so there must be newly created matter in the universe." And here: "The mass of the universe is increasing, new matter is in, therefore the universe is an open system."

And here: "I have seen articles about a closed universe, where the mass doesn't increase but just the distance between galaxies does, toped by articles about an open universe, or flat universe, where the mass does increase." As an example, you give this article, which nowhere mentions an increase in the mass of the universe. You misinterpret "the expansion of the universe and its mass" as "the expansion of the universe, and the expansion of its mass," when what was actually meant was "the expansion of the universe, and the mass of the universe." You then misinterpret a later section of the article which states that the expansion rate of the universe is dependent on the density of matter, and that the expansion rate is increasing, as saying that the density is increasing when the truth is that an increase in the expansion rate indicates a decrease in the density.

And finally, here, to top it all off, you misinterpret a statement of the reality of vacuum fluctuations, which are clearly and concisely indicated to obey the law of the conservation of mass/energy in the very article you cite, to say that mass/energy is being created in violation of the law of the conservation of mass/energy: "So the universe expanding is a sea of particles that appear in existence, making it open, it is not a vacuum of distance without mass."

I remember you claiming that, but I don't remember your proving it; and just above, I have you making claims that violate the conservation of mass/energy no less than nine times. So I would have to say that you pretty much blew it in front of everybody. Anybody who can read now fully understands your level of comprehension.

And yet again you misunderstand the meaning of "open," because you do not comprehend the difference in the meaning of "open universe" in cosmology, which is a reference to an FRWL cosmology with a cosmological constant less than one, and the meaning of "open system" in thermodynamics; nor do you understand the definition of "closed system" in thermodynamics, nor are you aware of the existence of "isolated system" as a separate idea from "closed system," nor do you understand that neither of these terms has anything to do with the FRWL "closed universe," which is a universe with a cosmological constant greater than one.

You neither understand the difference in the meaning of "open" when applied to a cosmology and when applied to a thermodynamic system, nor do you understand how to apply the laws of thermodynamics to open, closed, or isolated systems. I have absolutely no idea why you think I'm making a mess of anything but your weak unsubstantiated assertions and incoherent and illogical arguments.

Schneibster

No, I don't.

Very well:
Incorrect. All four of the links I provided, and the three quotes I provided from those links as well, define "open system" differently from you:
"If anything can pass into, or out of, a system, we say it is an open system. If only matter can pass into, or out of, a system, but not energy, then we call it a closed system. If neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of, a system, then we call it an isolated system."
"There are three kinds of systems depending on the kinds of exchanges taking place between a system and its environment:

• isolated systems: not exchanging heat, matter or work with their environment. An example of an isolated system would be an insulated container, such as an insulated gas cylinder.
• closed systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment. Whether a system exchanges heat, work or both is usually thought of as a property of its boundary, which can be
  • adiabatic boundary: not allowing heat exchange;
  • rigid boundary: not allowing exchange of work.
• open systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) and matter with their environment.

"
"

• Closed system: no matter can enter or leave
• Open system: matter (mass) may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings
• Isolated system: neither matter nor energy is exchanged with the surroundings

"

Now tell me where it says in any of those definitions that the mass energy of an open system must vary. Then try to justify your previous incorrect statements about closed systems, and hide your complete lack of knowledge of isolated systems and introductory thermodynamics.

Ion

This quoting of me allegedly saying something wrong here:
is in fact in harmony with the links' quotes:
So, there is no wrong by me, it's Schneib that is confused.

This:
is confused by Schneib as being wrong here:
and confused again as defining closed systems -when my definition is in fact of open- here:
and adds to Schneib's confusion in applying violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics to anything happening in an open system.

Ion

Grasping at straws Schneib:
Constant means a must zero variation, varies covers zero and non zero variation, varies doesn't mean must have non zero variation, it covers zero and non zero variation.

As for:

"...Then try to justify your previous incorrect statements about closed systems, and hide your complete lack of knowledge of isolated systems and introductory thermodynamics..."

.) what "...previous incorrect statements about closed systems..."?

and

.) "...lack of knowledge of...introductory thermodynamics..." says who, Schneib, who is confused about closed, open, words and thermodynamics from closed systems wrongly applied to open systems?

Get real...

Schneibster

Are you accusing me of lying about what you said? It is right there in black and white, under your signature. It is present in the post that you posted, whose link is provided right next to it. Here is that link again.

I have no idea what you mean by "is in fact in harmony with the links' quotes." The statement I quoted above is a statement that can only be interpreted as maintaining that the violation of conservation of mass/energy is possible. Which is exactly what I said it was. Along with the other eight, which are by no means the only times you have maintained this fiction.

I can only conclude that your command of thermodynamics and cosmology is insufficient to allow you to see why and how you have misinterpreted and misunderstood what you are quoting. I have already explained the source of your misunderstanding in detail. I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding that explanation, but since it seems very clear and you are not objecting to it, but simply reasserting your original, incorrect interpretation, I cannot construct the explanation another way that you might understand better.

I see nowhere that says that open systems must vary. I see your part #3 which says: "in which the total quantity of mass-energy varies" and no mention of variation being required in any other definition I can find anywhere. Again, please indicate where it says in any definition of an open thermodynamic system that it must vary.

Sorry, my typo. :huh:

The first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems. Says so here, here, here, and here. The last reference shows the relation of the First Law only to an open system; I do not know if there is a later set of notes that show the application of the Second Law to an open system, but since there are three other references above that do, it's not really necessary. By the way, these are the same four links I provided four or five posts ago, that you didn't think you needed to read.

Ion

"is in fact in harmony with the links' quotes." means that it reflects what the quotes in the links say.

I haven't changed my stance in this thread.

You did.

For example, you oscillate between the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to open systems as is, with some amendments (see: ) and back to as is (see: ).

Also violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics in an open system is, is not, it is, it is not, and other examples.
No, you are confused.