bristol physicists break 150 year old "law"

[onthecuttingedge2005]

no they are not... they are best guesses. period. capiche? dong ma? comprende?

all the current "laws" of physics are theories... based upon axioms... ie: newton's work is based upon the axioms of euclid... etc. etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam.

i don't have to. period. capiche?

i could care less about violating the theories (laws) of academia...

i wouldn't presume to know... such would be megalomania.
i'll leave presumptions like that to you and academia... 

look Wilby.

you are neither right nor wrong, simply put. does this sound right?

Wilby, I like you and your postings but I offered my arguments with jest.

you like to jest right?

if you can not then I would tuck my tail and hide because there are some very wide brain pans in this world that would tear you a new spinster.

argument to the truth is what it is all about. this is physics.

Jerry

[WilbyInebriated]

look Wilby.

you are neither right nor wrong, simply put. does this sound right?

sounds like your opinion...

Wilby, I like you and your postings but I offered my arguments with jest.

you like to jest right?

if you can not then I would tuck my tail and hide because there are some very wide brain pans in this world that would tear you a new spinster.

that's nice. arguments? is that what that was? i see... try a cogent one next time.

i like truth far more...

as far as tucking my 'tail' and hiding... that's not going to happen. i'll be their huckleberry. i know the questions they cannot answer. i am aware of the assumptions at the base of their theories... and i have no problem throwing the mediocrity of it in their faces. bring it.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

sounds like your opinion...
that's nice. arguments? is that what that was? i see... try a cogent one next time.

i like truth far more...

as far as tucking my 'tail' and hiding... that's not going to happen. i'll be their huckleberry. i know the questions they cannot answer. i am aware of the assumptions at the base of their theories... and i have no problem throwing the mediocrity of it in their faces. bring it.

if I run into a brick wall at 300 miles an hour, will I die? maybe, there is a high probability that It would happen given the amount of information on brick wall to velocity collision information but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?

can you answer that? with or without proven theory?

I'll tell you what physics says about this and why if you don't know.

Jerry

[WilbyInebriated]

if I run into a brick wall at 300 miles an hour, will I die? maybe, there is a high probability that It would happen given the amount of information on brick wall to velocity collision information but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?

can you answer that? with or without proven theory?

I'll tell you what physics says about this and why if you don't know.

Jerry

you cannot run at 300mph into a brick wall or otherwise... that's just asinine to even suggest. oh did you mean drive? hell i've seen race cars hit brick/cement walls at over 300mph and watched the driver walk away...  did you have a point?

you are getting confused jerry...
i don't have to prove anything. i am not the one claiming 'laws'... thus the burden of proof does NOT rest on me... capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand? now, if you think they are 'laws' by all means prove it. prove that NO THING VIOLATES THEM EVER. capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand? if and when you do that i might concede, until then all you have are theories...

as a side note:
regarding this quote of yours... "but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?"
how do propose to falsify this hypothesis?

[onthecuttingedge2005]

if you think they are 'laws' by all means prove it. prove that NO THING VIOLATES THEM EVER. capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand?

like I said, 'you are neither right nor wrong'. nor am I, nor is anyone else.

I stick to 'current' observations, until those observations are over written, I will stick with the tested laws of physics. like I said, things do change.

out with the 'old' laws and in with the 'updated' laws. everything gets updated. doesn't matter what.

if you would of had children then you would of been updated too? simple and sweet.

did it really take this long for you to understand that I was not against you and your argument? shame on you Wilby. I thought you were wittier than that.

Jerry