Could the Laws of Physics be disproven?
yes and no
>inb4 memedrive
>>7676027
Every law in physics has been disproven. Just not by much under normal conditions.
Now stop reading popsci and learn actual physics if you're so interested in it.
>>7676046
which ones?
>>7676027
Yes.
Yes, and that's how new Laws of Physics are born.
>>7676097
You can disprove a law without establishing a new one. That's the problem and thing people like you don't seem to get. You're so bound by systematic pressures forcing into one line of thought that you cannot even fathom a life without those chains, without order, and with pure freedom. Look up Mikhail Bakunin. Actually educate yourself, genius.
>>7676124
Of course you can, but if you have a disproven law lying around then that's a massive invitation for people to come up with a new one. Granted that can sometimes take a while (over 100 years is not uncommon). Recognizing the insufficiency of existing sciences is how most new sciences are formed, not by spontaneous invention. Read some Thomas Kuhn or something and stop sticking around the Russian deconstructionists. Their impotence has passed (unsurprisingly) without pay-off.
>>7676124
>>7676048
>which ones
/sci/ gets dumber by the minute
>>7676438
Fuck off
>>7676027
Yes.
Most of them have been disproved by quantum mechanics ;)
>>7677414
epic troll/10
>>7676027
Yes and no.
Yes, they frequently have been; that's how we got the laws we currently have today. The "Laws Of Physics" are just the model we've constructed for how the world works, and we're not always right. In fact, we're sure we've still missed a few things, because our laws don't explain several important phenomena.
But no, in that "disproven" is an extremely strong term. We can throw out and replace laws, but the evidence that prompted us to come up with them doesn't go away. So the new law must still look very like the old one under the conditions the old law was observed in. Several laws of physics have stuck around for so long, and withstood so many tests in so many different situations, that any modification to them must necessarily be incredibly tiny.
Yes. And as a matter of fact, of someone makes valid proof showing gravity to be incorrect we will stop falling down and everything will float, just like in sci-fi movies
>>7677414
Why would this not work?
>>7677485
The forces that bind together particles, and allow them to affect each other, are not instantaneous. They themselves work at the speed of light. Then you have to account for the material itself, and you'd end up with something closer to the speed of "sound".
If you could visualize how the object is changing in a macro sense, you'd see a compression / expansion pattern propagating down its length. That "wave" wouldn't exceed the speed of light.
>>7677491
Huh
>>7678462
If you push a stick by 1cm the far end moves a teeny weeny fraction of time later than when you pushed the near end.
a bit like like a line of dominoes, the particles inside a solid object transmit force to each other at the speed of sound through that solid.
>>7677485
in because u are using non-relativistic laws (classical mechanics) on a scenario that has relativistic magnitudes.
the rod is 5 light years in length which is a relativistic magnitude.
>>7678462
When you push a small stick, you can't see it, but each of the molecules that make up the stick are held together by forces that work at the speed of light. They aren't just one solid object. When you push one end of a small stick, it actually takes time for the other end to move. You just can't see it because the stick is so short compared to the speed of light.
>>7677414
>faster than light
L0Lno
"bump" is propagated at the speed-of-sound in steel
Lrn2physics
>>7680219
Disperse jagoff!
>>7676027
you already did. i'm the kazakh doctor that performed your abortion at the request of your mother, and yet, here you are.
