Question for agnostics and atheists

[theVOID]

Not Dark Matter, Dark energy, they are entirely different things. Dark matter are particles that exist and have a real gravitational effect on the universe, we can infer them through unaccountable gravitational effects on galaxies in space - we can't see them directly because they do not absorb or emit photons - they simply pass through slightly warped. The voids and supervoids in space are entirely dark matter - that's what my alias is (picture for an avatar wouldn't be very interesting ).

Dark energy is different. It is inferred to account for a very strange effect on our universe, it turns out the universe is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an exponential rate - it is getting faster, but it also turns out that even as it continues to grow faster and faster every second the net mass-energy per square meter in the universe stays constant. This constant mass-energy density is known as lambda, the cosmological constant.
I explained a little bit about what we know of dark matter above, if you want to know more feel free to ask.

So dark matter in simple terms are what makes up the void in space, inferred through unaccountable gravitational effects on galaxies? Dark energy is a type of energy or radiation that causes the known universe to expand, inferred to account for expansion without change in lamda?

Um.... That makes no sense

The only example of an isolated system given is the Bomb calorimeter. Perhaps I shouldn't have jumped ahead in my thinking. I'll rephrase. Where in nature does a closed system exist? If it doesn't, what is the purpose of formulating hypothesis for things not occuring in nature? I think that no part of nature exists outside the universe and no part of the universe exists outside nature. Do you agree?

There are many other examples, feel free to google them if you like.

What does it matter whether or not closed systems exist in nature? They exist all the same and have their own way of being described by thermodynamics. You ask what the point is in forming hypothesis about things not occurring in nature - well where do you think all of our human inventions fit into that line of thinking? They don't exist in nature but still have real world implications.

Um... What?

disregard it was pointless and irrelevant to the discussion.

It's impossible to disprove, neither is the idea that the universe is the lovechild of two gay 4x10^100 foot tall Elton Johns in a higher universe so what's your point?

Nor do I deny that it could be. Nor do I think God couldn't be a giant purple alien bunny, or a ball of Dark energy outside the universe or a giant George Burns. The point is to determine perspective and scope. What allows science to infer based off unaccountable phenomenon or strange effects and not I?

Science demands a certain level of verification for all claims, it also demands that the hypothesis be testable, falsifiable, repeatable and open to independent examination and peer review. It also makes predictions that can continually be tested as more data comes in, and when the data does not match the predictions then you begin the process of re-examining all the evidence abd formulating new hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, have no such basis for your claims, they are not able make predictions about the universe that we can test for validity, meaning you can provide absolutely no reason for anyone to accept your claims nor any way of ever being able to know whether or not they are true.

Sweet, you go buy a really really really really big telescope and tell us if you can see any walls out there.

While funny, hardly productive. What happens to that money I donate to science?

Neither is speculating things that can't be known.

The money you donate to science is used to study the world around us and find useful applications for the knowledge.