# Do we have to obey physics

1. Dec 13, 2005

### Wishbone

To me physics is nothing but descriptions or, models to observed events. So what tells us that things must obey these descriptions, is there any logic that tells us that a event disobeying these "laws" cannot exist?

2. Dec 13, 2005

### octelcogopod

Science/physics is about finding out how these events occur, and why, so far we have been succesful in this trial and error approach.
For instance there's no indication that a tractor weighs less than a golf ball, but it might be, sure?

Nothing is ever 100% solid proof either, imo, so physics is just about finding out the probability of repetition based on a collection of events.
After a period of time the events happen exactly as predicted, thousands, even billions of times, and at that point the probability is so little for anything else to happen that we ignore it.

3. Dec 13, 2005

We break scientific "laws" often, laws can change. Newton's "law of gravity" has been modified under conditions in a vacuum, then also Einstein changed our conception of gravity laws. Even legal "laws" change.

4. Dec 13, 2005

### franznietzsche

Well you can go ahead and try to violate the 'law of gravity', but you'll be in for a rude awakening after jumping out of the plane without a parachute when you find that in fact, gravity is quite real.

The logic telling us that you can't violate the 'laws of physics' is inductive. Everything we observe follows certain rules. It stands to reason then that those things we don't observe follow the same rules, even though we're not watching.

5. Dec 14, 2005

### Wishbone

That sounds like what I said, but loosley using the word rules. Im not saying that I know how to break the laws of physics, but I don't buy the idea that everything we observe follows RULES. They follow descriptions we write down as mathematical equations. Simply put, we can't say that the laws of physics cannot be broken simply because we do not know of anyone or anything breaking them...

6. Dec 19, 2005

### emrandel

Rephrase: Physics are the laws/restrictions that apply to the individual that ALLOWS these laws to apply to him/her sub-consciously. One most delve into the sub-conscious relm to correct their embedded stereo-types and go beyond the laws of physics. It requires a strength of will not common in the average individual. So, like all other rules, they do not apply to exceptions.

7. Dec 19, 2005

### Wishbone

See I disagree, I am simply saying in the everyday observable universe, there is absolutley nothing, that stops us from breaking the laws of physics. Simply because the laws of physics say nothing about their own validity. They are simply observations that are written down in mathematical form. They always do work out, and we really haven't proved that we see something breaking the descriptions of physics, but that does not take away the fact they are not absolute rules.

8. Dec 19, 2005

### emrandel

There in the part of the quote where there you see the "***" you flip-flop. If you were to divide both those sections into two different point-of-views they would both be valid, yet you contradict yourself? Maybe a mere typo, it's hard to say. Ignoring this descrepancy, well said.

9. Dec 19, 2005

### neurocomp2003

ar eyou talking about current laws of physics...or the concept of "laws of physics"(or rather the mechanics of the universe)?

No we don't really have to obey current laws of physics..and if you can show us that you can disobey them then you should tell academia.

but there are underlying universal fundamental principles or characteristics that i think anything that exists in this universe would obey at some low scale. FOr example x=vt; I think would be a universal quantity.

10. Dec 19, 2005

### Wishbone

No, that is not a flip flop, I believe it is from a misundertanding of the word "rules". I am simply saying that the fact that descriptions have stayed valid in our observations, isnt enough to call them rules.

11. Dec 19, 2005

### Pengwuino

So do you have any proof of this? Any reason why? Have you seen people fall up lately?

12. Dec 19, 2005

### Wishbone

and that proves they are ubreakable?

13. Dec 19, 2005

### Pengwuino

The burden of proof is on you. Prove they are breakable.

14. Dec 19, 2005

### sameandnot

i see em fall up when im doing my daily head stands :)

15. Dec 19, 2005

### Pengwuino

Why would you include a headstand as part of your daily routine?

16. Dec 19, 2005

### sameandnot

great rush of blood to the brain is great for clarity of thought. it's like booze to the drunkard (blood to the brain, that is)

17. Dec 19, 2005

### sameandnot

ok, i don't have a daily routine... of excercise, at least. but i guess i still get a decent head-rush from hanging out with you cats everyday. usually, while im working.

(headstands really are good for that, though.)

18. Dec 19, 2005

### Wishbone

no my not being able to break them proves I do not know how to break them, not that they are unbreakable.

19. Dec 19, 2005

### Pengwuino

You must figure out a reason as to WHY they CAN be broken that isnt based upon simple opinion.

20. Dec 19, 2005

### Wishbone

I have stated such reasons.