Law

Jackofalltrades wrote: 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."

This is not quite true. Physicist sent Neutrinos through the Earth from Grand Sasso to Cern and it seemed they arrived 60 billionths of a second faster than usual, resulting in claims they had spotted the first particles to travel faster than light. It later turned out that the Oscillator they used had not been calibrated to the correct GPS signal which gave off an incorrect reading. The experiment has since been re-tried by several Laboratories and none have been able to replicate the results. Until the results can produce a sigma 5 reading, Einstein's standard model will stay intact.

Yes, scientists have not discovered anything that can travel faster then light.

If this quotation from wikipedia doesn't answer your questions in full, then you are probably misconciving something:

"A physical law or scientific law is "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.

Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law, which deduces rules of moral behavior. Nor should "physical law" be confused with "laws of physics" - the term "physical law" usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well[citation needed]. Some philosophers, e.g. Norman Swartz, use "physical law" to mean the laws of nature as they truly are and not as they are inferred by scientists.[2]"


Then again, I'm having a hard time understanding what you ment in your original post...

Pakislav wrote: Yes, scientists have not discovered anything that can travel faster then light.

If this quotation from wikipedia doesn't answer your questions in full, then you are probably misconciving something:

"A physical law or scientific law is "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.

Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law, which deduces rules of moral behavior. Nor should "physical law" be confused with "laws of physics" - the term "physical law" usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well[citation needed]. Some philosophers, e.g. Norman Swartz, use "physical law" to mean the laws of nature as they truly are and not as they are inferred by scientists.[2]"


Then again, I'm having a hard time understanding what you ment in your original post...

I meant that exact thing that you have quoted from your wikepedia (allthough I haven't read that particular wikepedia entry)

So were you asking whether or not does, say the law of gravity affect, for example, our morality/behaviour?
I mean, you are asking that whether a law regarding theft affects the way we brush our teeth, as an analogy?

The scientific laws each describe only their specific phenomena which are described by laws because they ALWAYS transpire if certain conditions are met.

They are different from moral and social laws in such a way, that an apple will never levitate if it's not suported by another matter, it will ALWAYS fall on Newtons head, but even thought murders are forbiden, there are still killers, and thought drunk driving is forbiden, it still happens.

So scientific laws govern what WILL happen, and moral and social laws govern what SHOULD happen.