What an eloquently poignant remark. The nuances of the blatantly obvious mistakes must take such fantastic mental gymnastics. I would have though you might have had a brain but nope. Just smug sense of immature tom-foolery. Thanks for wasting my time. Perhaps, if you don’t understand a topic you consider NOT…

Why be cause you don’t understand? That’s ok. 1. you’d need to prove there isn’t something else besides “the universe” I gave two examples, one facetious and one plausible. 2. You don’t get to define anything and everything as “the universe” when we are discussing the laws of thermal dynamics. You can only address…

Did you miss this part below because your replies became ridiculous and mine became facetious. So... p!ss of troll?

Failure to even make a cogent argument is not sufficient grounds for anyone to be convinced of anything you espouse. I cited both nomenclature and a relevant current understanding. Either you agree or you don’t. I don’t agree with you and I demonstrated why. Deal with it.

Yah thanks troll. You’ve added nothing of value, demonstrated nothing as true, and claimed victory after cr@pping on the chess board. This is worst than talking to creationists. At least they cite their sources before throwing a tantrum.

Tell me more about how you think you are right. I like the part where you said" it is a closed system because the word I'm using out of context makes me feel like I'm right".

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance…

I already did. You didn’t read it. You are arguing out of context a position about a scientific understanding by using improper nomenclature. The universe is open like 7/11.

Facepalm No... not in the context we are addressing. When you run out of being right its ok to stop then. Continuing to demonstrate your ignorance is not productive.

The observable universe is an open system. There are 3 main types of thermodynamic systems, defined by what the system can exchange with its surroundings: An open system can exchange both energy and matter. A closed system can exchange only energy.

That does not address the problems with your assertion. Basically you are making a fallacious argument from ignorance. That the universe is already understood and nothing new could be found, or that anything we find could NOT change how we view the universe or thermal dynamics. The plausible existence of a multiverse…

Again, demonstrate you are right. Quit telling me what you believe but demonstrate why it is true.So far you are claiming a model, you made up in your head apparently, has been more correct than current models. Please, earn your nobel prize, you seem to think you struck scientific gold.

You then are arguing that you know what will be found will be in concurrence with what we have found prior. That’s an argument from incredulity. That because we haven’t seen something (like an energy engine) that one cannot exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just addressed this fallacy with you…

And I respectfully disagree. We don’t know therefor we cannot claim to know. If all we see is what we see then all we know is what we see and to assume the unseen is impossible then the unknown is impossible which is a fallacy unto itself. Even saying that the universe is either a closed system or its not is also the…

I name it Cam Ron Jr.

Thanks for the heads up. May the zodiac shine just right on your family tree and what not. ;)

“Sure. I cannot prove that there was an ice age only twenty thousand years ago,

isn’t entropy negated in an open system? A closed system sure, but we have no reason to believe that what we see now, what we can imagine now, is all there is. As if there is a finite amount of energy and no possible way any more could conceivably be created. That’s either to assume energy has no source or that all…

“ then why do you spout ignorant unfounded bullsquat? To prove you cannot prove it right thereby proving everything wrong? What? Sorry. Being skeptical is a quality everyone should struggle to attain. When you say, as fact, something you cannot prove you are NOT being skeptical. You are rather simply espousing some…

I, unfortunately, cannot let it stand without interjecting a large dose of rational skepticism. When you tell them to stop telling you what they believe and ask them to demonstrate why they believe it they either huff off, become defensive, or spew hateful remarks. What better demonstration that they are irrational…