# Is the universe a closed or open system?

### #1

Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:56 PM

I know the answer is probably "closed". The reason I asked is because I want to know whether the law of conservation of energy and similar laws apply in both systems. An open system might have energy added to it or subtracted from it by an external source/sink of energy. If the universe isn't connected to anything else, must I definite the word "universe" TO include everything that could possibly affect anything, Thus, there's no reason laws of thermodynamics wouldn't apply in both closed or open systems?.

In an open system could entropy flow forever and anything that could happen might happen , if this is pseudo science please disregard this comment.

Of course there is also isolated systems but lets leave that out.

"**Do you know what you do not know?**

**The cat killed curiousity**

**Lets keep it friendly and polite!
Alan McDougall**

### #2

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:05 PM

And the laws of thermodynamics do apply in closed and open system. Why would you think they wouldn't?

Religion is about belief regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of belief.

Remember - if the predictions of your theory disagree with reality, it is not reality that is wrong.To be fair, bananas are like 90% horse.

### #3

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:44 PM

### #4

Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

If you look at Isotopes, there are a finite number which are "stable"

Therefore if Entropy takes its course, and all the stars are burnt out, and all the possible isotope decays take place, then all we are left with is the stable particles.

The only force left is gravity.

These Isotopes, by definition, are irreducible, so what we are left with is an implosion, which collapses the particles to (presumably) the Planck density.

Where (and I speculate) we get a "big bang" reversal, which generates a new universe.

Chew on that

Occam

### #5

Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:51 PM

"Is the universe finite or infinite"

since the terms only have meaning and validity in finite systems.

**Edited by studiot, 22 August 2012 - 09:52 PM.**

### #6

Posted 22 August 2012 - 08:27 PM

Actually it must be cyclic.

If you look at Isotopes, there are a finite number which are "stable"

Therefore if Entropy takes its course, and all the stars are burnt out, and all the possible isotope decays take place, then all we are left with is the stable particles.

The only force left is gravity.

These Isotopes, by definition, are irreducible, so what we are left with is an implosion, which collapses the particles to (presumably) the Planck density.

Where (and I speculate) we get a "big bang" reversal, which generates a new universe.

Chew on that

Occam

But if the galaxy clusters are moving away from each other at escape velocity or greater, wouldn't they just continue to drift apart?

"As a good christian, I'm always going to disagree with any proof you try to give me." -Peter BE cimp

### #7

Posted 22 August 2012 - 08:31 PM

That's proof (of a sort) that it hasn't been round forever because all the unstable isotopes would have decayed.Actually it must be cyclic.

If you look at Isotopes, there are a finite number which are "stable"

Therefore if Entropy takes its course, and all the stars are burnt out, and all the possible isotope decays take place, then all we are left with is the stable particles.

The only force left is gravity.

These Isotopes, by definition, are irreducible, so what we are left with is an implosion, which collapses the particles to (presumably) the Planck density.

Where (and I speculate) we get a "big bang" reversal, which generates a new universe.

Chew on that

Occam

But it doesn't prove that it's cyclic.

We may or may not get a "Big Crunch" but the isotopes don't tell us what will happen.

### #8

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

Actually it must be cyclic.

If you look at Isotopes, there are a finite number which are "stable"

Therefore if Entropy takes its course, and all the stars are burnt out, and all the possible isotope decays take place, then all we are left with is the stable particles.

The only force left is gravity.

These Isotopes, by definition, are irreducible, so what we are left with is an implosion, which collapses the particles to (presumably) the Planck density.

Where (and I speculate) we get a "big bang" reversal, which generates a new universe.

Chew on that

Occam

How can gravity exist without mass?

"**Do you know what you do not know?**

**The cat killed curiousity**

**Lets keep it friendly and polite!
Alan McDougall**

### #9

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:03 AM

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users