Well … props for understanding that distinction but really there’s some way any thing, X can be understood as Y. It just takes a little squinting driven by motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, or both.
My suggestion is just relax and admit there’s no way to objectively prove your beliefs. I have met quite a few believers in god or woo over the decades who admit this and that they believe what they do for no more reason than because they want to (comforts or centers them, makes them feel good, helps inform their ethics, what have you). There’s nothing wrong with that IMO because if you can bring yourself to say that, you probably have a pretty chill “live and let live” approach to life and won’t try to disparage me for not subscribing to your beliefs. We could have a beer and talk about life together and get along just fine.
Science is not designed to (dis)prove the numinous and it’s a fool’s errand to try to force fit it to that purpose.
The first law of thermodynamics is specific to a closed system - within a closed system, energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be transformed from one form to another.
This does not mean that energy is eternal, because of the stipulation “within a closed system”.
If one considers the possibility that a closed system has been created, and/or that the closed system could be destroyed, the energy within that closed system would begin with the creation of that closed system, and possibly destroyed with the destruction of that closed system.
In a non-closed system, the rule does not necessarily apply, so the statement that energy is eternal cannot be validated.
We also do not have the means to validate that the universe is an absolutely closed system, so the first law of thermodynamics may not even apply on a cosmological scale.
As for energy being omnipresent, this is a category error. Energy is not a singular thing that is present everywhere, and “everywhere” is defined as all of existence, which by definition means energy, so declaring energy as omnipresent is the same as defining everywhere as omnipresent - it’s circular, you’re essentially stating:
Everywhere is defined as wherever there is something existing.
All existence is energy (either as energy or matter)
Energy is everywhere (this is circular to point 1 as we’ve already defined everywhere as being wherever there is energy)
For something to be omnipresent, it needs to be a single thing - energy is not singular, it comes in many forms. If you consider a banana is a singular form of energy in the state of matter - if that banana was everywhere, it would be omnipresent. The energy that constitutes the matter that makes up the planet Mars is not the same energy that constitutes the matter that makes the banana. The banana is not Mars, therefore, energy is not omnipresent.
Ah, yes, that’s a classic trap. And I feel somewhat embarrassed that I didn’t catch it earlier . The laws of thermodynamics are abused by a lot of crackpots that don’t understand them. And with that we can conclude that OP fails already in the premises. Not much more need to be said here.
A closed system cannot exist in the universe unless the universe itself is a closed system; closed systems exist, therefore the universe is a closed system
Even in an open system energy is not created, it just comes from outside the system.
Energy is a morphism; all energy is in the state of forms of energy. Energy is singular, forms of energy are not.
In physics – or more specifically, in thermodynamics – a closed system allows the transfer of energy with its surroundings, but it does not allow transfer of matter. This is, of course an idealisation that cannot be perfectly realised, among other reasons by the very mass/energy equivalence you cite. By the defined properties, energy can be transported in to (out of) the system. Then, by the very same mass/energy principle you cite, this energy can then be transformed back into mass, effectively adding to (reducing) the mass content of the system, violating its defined properties. This is admittedly a marginal effect, but it demonstrates that no such thing as an ideal closed system can exist. Thus, by your very own statement and the non-existence of ideal closed systems, you cannot conclude the way you do.
We are then left with the following options:
your assertion that closed systems cannot exist in the univers unless the universe itself is a closed system is true, but by the fact that ideal closed systems cannot exist, you cannot from this conclude that the universe is a closed system.
your argument only goes one way, so the universe can be a closed system (since there is no surrounding system to exchange matter with), but other closed systems contained within the universe are not possible.
my guess that is because a sharp 8th grade algebra student could derive it, if someone handed them the “correct” set of assumptions; that is what Einstein did (on this topic): come up with the correct set of assumptions; the rest is pretty trivial.
I showed that actual closed systems are only theoretically idealised constructs (the same goes for isolated systems, but that’s not really relevant here), and that no practical realisable system can be closed. Thus, your assertion is invalid on the grounds of premises that are not true, regardless of its otherwise logically valid or invalid reasoning.
Plus, here’s what I summed it up with (and I have added some highlighting to aid your reading comprehension):
Here is a simple yes/no question: Did I in any place here write that the universe is a closed system? Hint: The answer is not yes..
" Many physicists consider the entire universe an isolated system , which, by definition, exchanges neither energy nor matter with its surroundings. This is based on the idea that there is nothing “outside” the universe with which to exchange. This is the common interpretation that underlies the idea of the conservation of energy in the universe as a whole."-google AI
There is a fundamental difference between considering something and proving something, or even having evidence in favor of it. That being said, the universe is by definition all there is, so one can say that it is, again by definition, isolated, whatever that might mean. It might just happen that things are a bit different with scales that might turn out to be infinite. More on that below. But this is, however, decoupled from your statement, which was
…in which you infer (On which grounds? You have not given us a reference) the universe being a closed system from the existence of closed systems within the universe. But as I pointed out and showed, closed systems (and, for that matter, isolated systems) within our universe are theoretical idealisations, and cannot be realised. Thus, your inference is false, in that your premise is false. And it was this premise and the inference I commented on, not the actual state of the universe, which is irrelevant to the validity of your argument. I suggest you sharpen up your reading comprehension so that you can comment on what people actually write, not what you wish they had written.
In any case, since you want to speculate, consider this: If the universe is infinite, you cannot define a bounding surface on which you can formulate an energy conservation law. The only possible boundary condition that you can set up which we are currently aware of is the Big Bang. But since we do not have a functioning theoretical framework for quantum gravity, not to speak of quantum gravity singularities, it is not going to help you. Thus, you cannot use conservation of energy in the universe as a whole as an argument.
So you were not able to find your own references and formulate your own arguments, but had to resort to an LLM to get arguments? And you want us to take you seriously? Wow. People’s interweb search abilities seem to be deteriorating at an accelerating rate.
. The laws of thermodynamics are abused by a lot of crackpots that don’t understand them. And with that we can conclude that OP fails already in the premises. Not much more need to be said here.