Good luck! There are thousands! Each physical science has it’s own set of laws.
A law, in the physical sciences, is a property of matter or energy, or both, that can be described by a mathematical equation or group thereof.
For example, the ideal gas law relates pressure, volume, and temperature by the equation
PV = nRT. Where R = 8.314.
Other laws do not have equations per se, but describe how the equations will work. The entropy law is such a law. Basically, it predicts that in a process, the physical entropy will increase, or, if it decreases locally, a greater amount of energy must be applied to make that happen. This allows prediction of the energy balance and entropy gain in a process, before setting up the process.
Laws derive from theory, and are confirmed by experimental data.
What is the evolutionary mechanism of sin and death? Everything living dies. When did this start? What is the origin of evil? The answers to these rather pertinent questions can be found only in the Word of God–the One who made the laws and the mechanism of making dead matter alive.
I’m just going to throw some typing out at you in order to contribute my two bits to answer you.
I like to experiment in this, so no concern over nutty assertions, OK?
A list of physical laws is not so useful without the whole story of the development of the mathematical assertion it ends up as. Besides, to answer you of “what is the nature of these laws”, an assertion of a physical law is purely a human creation, just as is every word spoken or written ever, though some sure mean a lot to some.
Every painstaking effort humanly possible has been made to assure any assertion of a law is hip as it can be to the verity of God’s creation. But of course, we shall always be limited in our understanding of even the simplest of our shared observations of the natural world. Attributing balances of defined natural phenomena with other forces, events, properties in associative or relative expressions or as functions involves a grand tale of life-long efforts of untold thousands making tiny little contributions over many many generations are intrinsic in any developed assertion of natural law. We’ve done and are doing the best we can, but our “scientific laws” fall far short of understanding but the surface of God’s creation, and as masters of creation and agents of natural harmonizing we have failed utterly. But as children of God reverent to the delicate and all encompassing beauty, wonder, and order (at least as is possible for us to understand) we ought to celebrate the vital esteem for ouselves of which we have earned, and thank God that His creation has allotments for us to create in our own image also all still as a part of God’s enablement of our living dearth. Further we ought to look to Him for guidance of how to use the knowledge we have (its also clearly in the stories of the developments). All this is worthy of enormous joy and blessings to be celebrated each and everyday.
But our understandings are models of nature, and not the nature which those models strive to represent. Yet these modular structures have a nature within themselves, and deserve to be called the Word of God every tiny little step of the way. The letter ‘a’ is a blessed miracle. It led the control of polio virus, it stars in kindergarten classes, and looks both ways before it crosses.
Indeed it is a grand model of physical law, and I believe God is very pleased with it. Same goes for E/m=cc. The parallax of Adam and atom is an amazing story being written write this moment, right, that is.Indeed it comprises a physical understanding wholly based in spiritual faith. Amen.
Study mathematical physics. It takes 4 years at any decent university, or 2 years for a diligent student making optimal use of libraries and Wikipedia.
If you are looking for an enlightenment injection, this is the wrong place for it. Maybe a dozen CAF members are suitably educated. Half of those filter their knowledge through either scientific or religious dogma, and understand nothing.
I know that this is a wasted post, because you are not qualified to understand anything which you wish to receive, for free. You might want to sign up as a volunteer Democratic campaign worker so as to get in line for the coming freebies.
If you think that you can learn something without going to school, at least buy a dictionary. It will give you the correct spelling of “phyical,” which would be a necessary start for you.
Even good editors overlook typos. In context, does anyone have difficulty figuring out what the word might be? Now what?
Getting order out of chaos has not shown to be within the capabilities of mankind. God speaks ordered creation. We still have difficulty with our navels. God is and always has been–forever. Most of our bodies will wind up in the grave–earth, pyre, or water.
There’s millions of physical laws and I doubt any one person knows them all.
The nature of the laws is to relate observations to mathematical equations. They exist mostly on paper because nature doesn’t have a calculator, it just acts. As an example, suppose you drop a ball from some height on earth, the ball just falls down. The ball didn’t do any calculations of how to fall, it just fell. The equation y=0.5gt*t just relates the distance the ball traveled to the time it takes to get that far.
Theories are ideas that haven’t been disproven yet, a law is a theory that has been proven to not have a disproof.
If you are into this subject matter, I heavily suggest Anthony Rizzi’s The Science Before Science. It is very heavy in Aristotelian philosophy. If you have little to no working knowledge of philosophy, this will be an extremely tough read. But it’s still a beautiful piece of work.
I disagree. Indeed, Rizzi’s book is a tough read, but that is because Rizzi is confused and irrelevant. He has nothing to say which is relevant to ante-science. No surprise. Aristotle was wrong about everything except logic, and he did not succeed in utilizing his own logic competently. Had he done so, he would never have declared that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. A follower of Aristotle is an uneducated, illogical nit thinking in the dark ages. You’ll learn more from your neighborhood bartender than from Anthony Rizzi.
If you think otherwise of Rizzi, show a few examples of his relevance to either science or ante-science. I could not find one.
There are not millions of physical laws. There are only a few. I doubt that you know even one of them. Your “equation” y=0.5gt*t is meaningless w/o a description of parameters, and you are too incompetent, or lazy (a related characteristic) to put it into standard mathematical form.
Your statement, “The nature of the laws is to relate observations to mathematical equations,” denotes an understanding of mathematical physics which is just one barf pile removed from the town drunk’s homestead.
All physical laws reveal the order in the universe. That in itself is significant because there is no obvious reason why there isn’t chaos. Physical necessity is an inadequate explanation of the origin and development of rational beings who can understand and use physical laws…
There is a movement toward chaos, which we understand as entropy. But if there were general chaos, we could not have our bodies, which are locally ordered systems, nor our minds, which are second-order organizational processes. In a world of general chaos, we simply would not be and so could not describe it.
Greylorn, methinks you are a wee bit hard on Aristotle; the proto-scientists were Aristotelians.
And the relative speed of falling bodies is not a logical issue, it can be determined only empirically, as it was in Renaissance times. If there was any fault in earlier periods that limited human knowledge, it was a lack of empirical observation.
I presume you either have a PhD in Philosophy (in which case your rejection of Aristotle could be valid, but your objections to physics is not) or a PhD in Physics (in which case your objections to physics could be valid, but your rejection of Aristotle is not). Or, I suppose a third option is that you just have a BA/BS in Physics or Philosophy and think you know all, but have zero authority to declare either wrong. In any event, you’re wrong at least once.
I guess you never considered that “millions” could be an exaggeration? Off the top of my head in 10 seconds: Ideal gas Law, van der Waals gas law, Newton’s 3 laws, Kepler’s 3 laws, 4 laws of Thermodynamics, law of superposition of waves, conservation laws (about half a dozen of those). That sounds like it’s a bit more than a few, and those are in just physics alone, there’s still plenty more in biology & chemistry.
I don’t see how y=0.5gtt is not standard mathematical form, unless you want y_f - y_i = v_0t+0.5gt*t, but if you’re just dropping a ball from a height, v_0=0 & y_i=0, reducing that equation to what I wrote :eek:
I also disagree with my being “lazy” about not including definitions (y=distance, g=gravitational acceleration constant, t=time–happy?), perhaps it befit you to consider that perhaps the OP has knowledge of 1st year physics? In which case, it is likely not necessary to re-state things he might already know (unless you’ve got the habit of explaining every single term of an equation over and over and over again to your classmates (and assuming, as well, that you are a physics student & not a philosophy student)).
Physical laws are not mathematical equations; this is the whole point of the first two chapters of Rizzi’s book. However, the observables can be expressed as a mathematical relation of several quantities. Thus, the nature of the laws are to relate observations to mathematical equations. I see how that might be confusing if you’re so in tuned to mathematical physics, but in reality math is just a useful tool to explain events on paper & does not at all denote reality.
Think about it this way: have you ever seen number one (and not the figure we represent as one: 1)? No, no one has because the number one (and indeed all numbers) are not real, they’re useful representative tools. I bet your first thought after reading the question was: “One what?” And that is exactly my point, one is a quantifier & not a physical entity. Hence, Rizzi has shown a relevance in physics. Also, I’m pretty sure discovering the GR version of momentum (something that eluded other scientists for 80 years) is a pretty good example of his relevance in science. :shrug: