/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10529741]

>the laws of physics are the exact same in every part of the universe because I say so

[Anonymous No.10529747]

>>10529741
>position in the universe is observer independent

[Anonymous No.10529753]

>>10529741
the changes due to location would be part of the laws of physics

[Anonymous No.10529788]

>>10529741
That's a hard statement. Science isn't about hard statements at all. In all honesty, science is more about 'the likelyhood' something is to repeat itself based on experiment and observation. So, instead of saying "it is so", a science fag should say "it seems so". Epistemology 101.

[Anonymous No.10529849]

>>10529747
Show them, Albert!

[Anonymous No.10529931]

>>10529741
>an object can only affect its neighborhood

[Anonymous No.10529947]

>>10529741
if the laws of physics changed depending on position, they wouldn't be laws.
What would be laws would be describing how the laws change with position.

[Anonymous No.10529952]

>>10529741
Because the observations of our observable universe show a consistent universe with the same laws of physics everywhere. A couple laws of physics would also be different if there was variability in their constants.

For example quantum entanglement would not be possible in such a universe, time dilation being caused by gravity in similar ways. And the universe expanding the same everywhere are all massive indicators that the entire universe follows the same laws of physics.

It goes to the point where that might be the biggest thing we're actually sure of.

We might not be sure of the actual laws of physics but we are extremely certain of the laws being the same everywhere in the universe.

[Anonymous No.10529954]

>>10529741
The laws of physics are just how we observe the universe to be.

[Anonymous No.10529967]

>>10529952
>Because the observations of our observable universe show a consistent universe with the same laws of physics everywhere.
no they're not.

We're missing 95% of the mass of the fucking universe. Local realism is proven wrong. Physicists can't even agree if dark energy density is constant. And best of all: we can't explain the axis of evil.

[Anonymous No.10529979]

>>10529952
>We might not be sure of the actual laws of physics but we are extremely certain of the laws being the same everywhere in the universe.
Have the laws of physics been the same always? Could there have been a time in which the laws of physics were vastly different? These questions are rhetoric by the way. We can't know this ofc. But there's no reason to assume that the answer is no.

[Anonymous No.10529981]

>if (x > 0) G = 1;
>else if (x < 0) G = 2;

[Anonymous No.10529985]

>>10529981
>2 lines
>else if

[Anonymous No.10529996]

>>10529979
>Have the laws of physics been the same always? Could there have been a time in which the laws of physics were vastly different?

Yes actually. We know of this time. It's called "before the big bang". The reason we can't talk about before the big bang is because we can't measure the effects with our current laws of physics and we can NEVER know what the laws of physics were because all the data has been scrambled by the laws of physics we have nowadays.

[Anonymous No.10530000]

>>10529741
>mfw this whole fuckin thread
>mfw reality is subjective and shit only happens how it needs to have happened for the present to be playing

[Anonymous No.10530003]

>>10530000
quads tell the truth

[Anonymous No.10530007]

>>10529985
no no no you dont understand: the universe is run on code, and the syntax is absolute trash

[Anonymous No.10530177]

>>10530000
quads for true consciousness as a multi-dimensional experience, with human experience being that of a 3-dimensional universe in linear time