It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Inverse Reality?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Imagine a world where all or most of our laws of physics is total gibberish.Where like poles attract and gravity is a repulsive force.Where combustion is endothermic and action and reaction are unequal and parralel.Could this idea be feasible someplace or do we simply assume that OUR laws of physics are applicable to any system in any galaxy?




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Our laws of physics apply to everything we know of in our universe, that's why the way we understand physics is so crucial to our understanding of the workings of the universe. So, in short, anything like what you suggested couldn't possibly exist through natural causes in our universe.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Our laws of physics apply to everything we know of in our universe, that's why the way we understand physics is so crucial to our understanding of the workings of the universe. So, in short, anything like what you suggested couldn't possibly exist through natural causes in our universe.


I love that phrase , "natural causes".have you just maybe thought it possible that our definition of "natural" could mean something different elsewhere?I mean is it really safe to make such a crucial assumption when we haven't fully explored the universe?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Honestly, yes, it is pretty safe to make such an assumption. Humanity hasn't physically explored the universe, but through different studies about the universe we keep coming to the same conclusions. The laws of physics in our Solar System are constant through the universe. I'm not saying we know or understand everything, in fact we're quite ignorant to a lot of things, but just that we do have a pretty firm grasp on what we do know.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
capone3d says:

"I love that phrase , "natural causes".have you just maybe thought it possible that our definition of "natural" could mean something different elsewhere?I mean is it really safe to make such a crucial assumption when we haven't fully explored the universe?"

Capone3d, we have to make such a crucial assumption, regardless of whether we've explored the universe. The reason for that is simple. If you ask whether we should assume that physics and the things we come to think of as "laws" don't work universally, then what you're really saying is:

Let's assume magic works!

This means we won't have to ask any questions or come to any conclusions about anything, because if I want to build an interstellar srtarship using, say, an antimatter engine, you can say that we should hold off because maybe there's a magic way of doing it instead!

As Cmdrkeenkid says, everything we've studied so far seems to indicate that the Universe as we know it right now follows some universal laws. If we come along and observe phenomena which can't be explained by our present view of the Universe, then we change that view.

This is what science is all about.

But until we see something that gives us a reason to modify our existing (and workable) concepts, we will not be able to make any decisions at all about anything.

And it is the use of these concepts which have enabled us to build our civilization.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
That nitpicking around 'natural causes' is just plain silly. I mean I suppose anything is possible, but before we make the rules of physics stand on their heads, how about I wake up in the morning with a $10B donation in my bank account from Bill Gates....

Let's focus on that first and then move onto the physics stuff


Osiris

[edit on 19-1-2005 by otlg27]




top topics
 
0

log in

join