> > You're correct. The fact that it goes against the laws of physics means it
> > isn't true.
>
> i agree with each of your statements except for
> this one. there are no "laws" of physics - only
> habits. that is, we observe the behaviour of
> various things in nature, and extrapolate "laws"
> therefrom. the problem, of course, is that we can
> never know for sure what all of these "laws" are,
> and the situation is further complicated by the
> contextual relevance of the "laws" we've formulated.
> Newtonian physics explains a whole lot of behaviour,
> but look a bit closer and Einsteinian physics does
> a better job. but both are, at best, context-sensitive
> approximations of the true behaviour of nature.
>
> so your statement could better be phrased as,
> "because it goes against the laws of physics as
> many of us currently understand them, it is
> unlikely to be correct."
Are you saying that if I go to the main stairway of my high school tomorrow
morning and drop my bookbag off the third floor landing, there is a chance that
it, instead of falling to the ground or the floor, hitting someone and most
likely getting me suspended or arrested, will hover in the air, tracing out the
ten commandments?
-Nathan