Law

I am under the impression that a "Law" is not a general rule that governs everything. So from this perspective the law of relativity is simply the the way relativity works. It is not universal. So E = MC2 is very usefull for understanding the subject to which that law applies, but no further.

Your thoughts?

I think that each word can be used differently by different people in different contexts

When an argument comes down to a disagreement over the definition over what the word means instead of what the statement is 'saying' then the argument becomes ridiculous and pedantic

Jackofalltrades wrote: Your thoughts?

Hopefully Im not being pedantic :laugh:

Everything has boundaries because its those which determine form. Language is not different in this regard yet it exists through the meaning within an accepted language. If someone else uses the same word to mean something else then I think they are technically speaking a different langauge. Is any one language more correct then any other language.... no.

Though some langauges can have sets of words which include greater levels of detail and these can be used to have greater degrees of accuracy. To determine accuracy though requires knowledge in somethings capacity to undertake change; describing an ice cube to someone on a summers day might start out accurate but become inaccurate as the ice melts and so I think then that the word 'law' best means its not likely to change anytime soon as far as anyone who best might know would know.

errm. Excuase me but when was this a philology debate? Is everything a debate about language and grammer?

please refer to what I've said and stay on topic.

OOO, burn!

... and I had to to look up philology.

.......

"I am under the impression that a "Law" is not a general rule that governs everything. So from this perspective the law of relativity is simply the the way relativity works. It is not universal. So E = MC2 is very usefull for understanding the subject to which that law applies, but no further.

Your thoughts?"


First when I read that statement I got caught up in learning about mass-energy equivalence. E=MC2, the whole mass energy relationship, but the more I read it the less it made sense. Then I tried to think about it in a philosophical or philological one, you know, trying to define the word law, but that didn't seem to work either. I'm not sure I understand the statement, but here's my thoughts anyways because I'm interested in knowing what's trying to be said.

E = MC2 is useful for understanding the relationship between mass and energy, yes (and it may or may not be a universal law). E = MC2 is probably not very helpful in understanding the correlation between abuse in childhood years and drug use later in life (or I agree E = MC2 is discipline specific). But in science, E = MC2 is probably more useful than simply being a tool for understanding. It can be used to help science grow, create, learn. It's a building block to higher scientific discoveries. Whether or not it proves useful or breakable in the distant future is anybodies guess.

My question is what were you trying to say? Can you put it in laymans terms?

Well, I've met people who are simply stating that becuase scientists have found things traveling faster than the speed of light in the cosmos that E=MC2 is simply no longer "true."

heh. on the surface it may seem that I am denying the value of such laws, by saying that they are not universal. But I am simply making them more valid by saying that they do not have to strech to other things and are not contradicted by such findings becuase they are basically a totally different subject.

So yeah I think you get my point.

E=MC2 is the theory of relativity; ideas intended on explaining how a bodies size can equate to the energy used to move it. Calculated on the scale of light travelling through the vacuum of space.
However theories can be evolved with added information.
So a law is a guideline. A standard is set so that people can work from it but until someone proves that the 'law' works in a different manner to what was originally thought, then that is the what we follow.
That's if I've understood your question properly anyway :dry: