Schneibster

1. Prove that the universe is a closed system; tell me what is outside of it.
2. Show me where in the law of conservation of energy it is stated that it only holds in a closed system.
3. Prove that any experiment or observation ever in the history of science has shown a violation of the conservation of mass-energy.

I'm talking about some really basic physics here. You don't seem to be getting it. Perhaps you didn't understand it when they said that the energy present in an open system, plus the energy put into that system, minus the energy taken out of that system, must equal a constant.

1. Repeat: show me the outside. I am talking really, really basic cosmology here. Try defining universe before you start; it might help to clear your mind.
2. Perhaps you'd like to discuss your unfounded and incorrect assertion that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems with the experts. This is really basic thermodynamics, and I'm surprised you'd attempt to discuss this subject without taking the time to study it first.

You have misinterpreted the meaning of dark energy. Which is your third incorrect statement. Isn't it "three strikes and you're out?"

Bob K

Zeno's paradox does not account for the fact that by r = dt, or t = r/d time is the controlling factor.

Who travels what distance in 1 second?

If the hare travels ten metres in one second and the tortoise one metre in one second, then in two seconds the hare would have traveled twenty metres and the tortoise only two, therefore the hare would have overtaken and surpassed the tortoise.

Bob K

Infinite = Without physical or mathematical limits.

The conservation laws of physics tell us that matter/energy [m/e], electric charge, momentum, etc., cannot be destroyed.

Inre m/e, matter can be changed into energy, described by m = e/c2, and energy can be changed into matter, described by e = mc2.

M/E, therefore, cannot be created nor destroyed.

M/E, therefore, is infinite in duration.

M/E, therefore, existed prior to any Bangs and will exist after any Crunches.

A closed/isolated m/e system is defined as an m/e system (A) to which m/e cannot be added (were would it come from?), (B) from which m/e cannot be removed (where would it go?) and (C) in which the total quantity of m/e is a constant/does not vary.

An open m/e system is defined as an m/e system (A) to which m/e can be added (with no specification of where the m/e comes from), (B) from which m/e can be removed (with no specification of where the m/e goes to) and (C) in which the total quantity of m/e is not a constant/varies.

The m/e of the universe is a closed/isolated m/e system because no m/e can be added to it (where would the additional m/e come from?) and no m/e can be removed from it (where would the removed m/e go?).

In a closed/isolated m/e system, the total m/e is a constant/never varies.

The total quantity of the m/e of the universe has never varied, does not vary now, and will not vary in the future, and, therefore, is infinite in duration in time.

Time [T] is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of a duration or time-interval as a standard for the unit of measurement.

Once a time-interval is chosen, it becomes abstract and independent of any naturally occurring physical phenomena which may have been its model, such as the rotation of the Earth about its axis or the orbit of the Earth about the Sun.

The essence of time is the time-interval [TI], the unit of measurement of time.

There are two types of time-intervals: (1) the variable time-interval [VTI]; (2) the invariable time-interval [ITI].

If the time-interval varies/is a VTI, then the time measured is local time [LT] within a single inertial reference frame [IRF]; the time-interval never varies, then the time measured is universal time [UT] or absolute time[AT] for any IRF.

When an ITI is used for the time-interval to be used for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events, time becomes AT/UT, and has the following Continuum of Universal Time:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

where

T = Timepoint
0 = Origin
T0 = Timepoint Origin--the timepoint of the current configuration/pattern/location of the m/e of the unvierse

The Continuum of Universal Time shows that time is infinite, without physical or mathematical limits.

Combining time with m/e [physics], both time and physics have infinite duration/existence, therefore both time and physics [m/e] transcend Bangs/Crunches and were/are present before Bangs/after Crunches.

M/E is ultimately quantified by quantums--photons, gravitons, etc.

A quantum has a limited volume and is therefore surrounded by a vacuum.

Quantums are not known to be jammed against each other; they are known to be separated by distance, and the space between quantums is therefore devoid of quantums, of m/e of any kind, and is therefore a pure vacuum.

The total volume of the pure vacuum is therefore larger than the total volume of the total quantums.

This total volume of the pure vacuum which surrounds the total volume of the quantums is called space.

Space, therefore, is the location in which time and physics [m/e] exist.

Space has no physical structure, no m/e framework; instead, m/e must exist within space (where else would it exist?).

Space, being the location in which time and physics, both of which are infinite in duration, is also infinite in duration, having no physical or mathematical limits to the duration of its existence.

Because it has no physical structure, there is no physical or mathematical limit to the volume of space, therefore the volume of space is infinite.

We thus have herein a description of the universe as being comprised of three realities: (1) Space; (2) Time; (3) Physics [M/E].

Because of of the three realities which are the components of the universe all have infinite duration, the universe itself therefore is infinite in duration--it has no physical or mathematical limits to its duration.

With all of these considerations, the universe is infinite in duration, space, time and physics never could have been created, therefore the universe existed/exists before Bangs/after Crunches.

Ion

I disagree with the post, but will streamline on this part only:
You don't catch up with what I posted:

once again, violation is not the word -you are mentally stopped on violation-;
doesn't apply is the word.

My previous post did show precisely this, and in line with my previous post, this:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7655243.htm

has:

"...there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. What appears to be empty space is filled with ghostly particles that pop in...existence..."

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.

Good luck to you in treating this five years old discovery:

"...The leading guess about the nature of dark energy comes from modern quantum physics. This is a branch of science, almost incroprehensible to laymen..."

with 'explanations' such as this pearl:

"...3. Prove that any experiment or observation ever in the history of science has shown a violation of the conservation of mass-energy.
...
I'm talking about some really basic physics here.
...".

Schneibster

GAH! I need to be more careful with my citations. I just realized that my earlier response contained a reference to an article by Jack Sarfatti!

While Dr. Sarfatti certainly has produced some interesting work I don't believe that I care to cite him, especially in a cosmogonic conversation. It could have some undesirable consequences.

So, let me substitute the observations that, first of all, it is possible (though not easy) to calculate the antientropic effect of matter and energy inputs and outputs to and from an open system, and that if these are accounted for, it is possible to show that the second law is obeyed within the appropriate constraints and with the appropriate corrections mandated by these inputs and outputs. If this were not so, it would be impossible to postulate subsystems of a system with regard to the second law, and therefore the second law would always be about the universe and never about any portion of it.

Second, apparently the writer (Ion) is not aware of the difference between a closed system and an isolated system. I suggest careful research on this before posting again. It is a hole in the argument that one could drive a Cat D7 bulldozer through.

Ion

Regarding:
------------

1.) "...An open m/e system is defined as an m/e system (A) to which m/e can be added (with no specification of where the m/e comes from), (B) from which m/e can be removed (with no specification of where the m/e goes to) and (C) in which the total quantity of m/e is not a constant/varies..."

yes;
so the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics don't apply to open systems;

tell this to Schneibster too, he doesn't know elementary physics;

2.)"...The m/e of the universe is a closed/isolated m/e system because no m/e can be added to it (where would the additional m/e come from?) and no m/e can be removed from it (where would the removed m/e go?).
...
Space has no physical structure, no m/e framework; instead, m/e must exist within space (where else would it exist?)..."

As I point in my previous post, when the universe expands, particles pop in, it's not an expansion of vacuumed distance.

This addition of particles makes the universe an open system.

Ion

This is an 'elegant' way to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems, and it needs amendments to become applicable.

In my first post of this thread I posted that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems.

Think ink/data ratio.
No.

No copout.

It's closed system against open system, as far as universe goes.

Anglican

Of course the laws of thermodynamics apply to open systems.

The confusion arises if you state them in the most simplistic manner:

1. The energy of a system is constant.

2. the entropy of a system tends to increase.

In these particular statements the system must be closed in order for them to be true, however these are not the only ways of staing the laws of thermodynamics.

Schneibster

Big mistake, because the other arguments are enough to sink you without this one. Nevertheless, I will defend it.

Once again, you think that you can postulate anything and get away with it without facing the consequences of what you are maintaining. Plain and simple:
What you are maintaining is that the law of conservation of mass/energy is violated. Period.. There is no question or doubt about this; it is implicit in your argument. In other words, I can take an isolated piece of space, and watch it, and matter or energy will "pop" into being within it. Perhaps you are only maintaining that this happens "between galaxies" because of some rationalization or other; but no matter what else, you are maintaining the violation of the conservation of mass/energy. Period.

The problem with this is that it has measurable consequences, and these consequences are not apparent. Therefore it is not taking place. Provide convincing evidence otherwise or give up the argument; because unless you can provide such evidence, your argument is shot dead right here. And I have to tell you that if convincing evidence of the violation of mass/energy is ever found, it will be front page news in very short order.

Every single one of the particles you refer to here exists for an extremely short period of time and disappears back into the vacuum. This is because the Uncertainty Principle mandates that it is impossible to detect a violation of the law of the conservation of mass/energy that exists in a very small magnitude for a very short period of time. However, to avoid violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, these particles must disappear within the uncertainty time that is mandated by their mass; they are not allowed to stick around forever, which is what would be necessary for them to have the effect of making the universe open.

Again, this does not imply that the universe is not a closed or isolated system. This same uncertainty exists everywhere within the universe, and there are no such violations within closed or isolated systems that we observe. One of the consequences of the above leading to the universe not being closed or isolated would be the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics within such systems. Since this does not happen, your argument is incompatible with the observable real world.

I have been following the debates about dark matter and dark energy very closely, since I have a strong interest in amateur astronomy and in cosmology. I don't believe that you have any idea what "dark energy" is, much less "dark matter" or "CMBR anisotropy." Certainly there are no clear explanations of the constitution of dark matter or dark energy; however, there is proof of the existence of both, though not unequivocated proof. Neither of these phenomena, however, makes or leads to any conclusion about the closed or open nature of the universe.

Ahhh, a dose of your own medicine stings a bit, does it? Gee, that's a shame. Perhaps you shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it. Review your post that this was a reply to; you'll find it's an exact echo of your statement.

I also need to point out that you are juxtaposing a statement of mine with a statement of yours when those statements were not related in any previous post. This is known as "misrepresentation," and certainly will not win you any points for debating style, since it is an underhanded tactic.

Schneibster

You might as well face the fact that amendments to a physical law do not invalidate that law. To think that they do is of about the same level of sophistication as to confuse a hypothesis with a theory. All physical laws require amendments to make them apply to the real world; that is because our laws are models of the world, not the world itself.
Actually, it's not. You are extremely hazy about the difference between a closed system and an isolated system; as you are representing the second law, it applies neither in closed nor in open systems. Like I said, you'd better go have a look.