1. I see, but surely that agrees with my statement that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, rather than contradicts it.

2. I do not think so.
Here is a simple example: I am in a speeding car, which stops suddenly, so I get thrown out the windshield. In the frame of reference of the car, coordinate system K, that is utterly ridiculous. However, in L, the coordinate system of the ground, it is perfectly logical, just another example of the law of inertia. Since K is accelerating (we can assume L to be stationary) the laws of physics, namely Newton's first law, do not hold in K.

3. I've kept out of this argument until I felt I could contribute something worthy. My time has finally come.

Originally posted by fyodor
Here is a simple example: I am in a speeding car, which stops suddenly, so I get thrown out the windshield. . .
You should have been wearing a seat belt!

4. my imagination freezes up like a deer caught in the headlights of oncoming traffic when i'm in a stuffy room. (speaking of poor air quality & temperature)

5. "I am in a speeding car, which stops suddenly, so I get thrown out the windshield. In the frame of reference of the car, coordinate system K, that is utterly ridiculous"

Sorry, Fyodor I don't follow. Why is it rediculous in the frame of reference of the car?

6. >Sorry, Fyodor I don't follow. Why is it rediculous in the frame of reference of the car?<

Because relative to the car, you are not moving and then all of a sudden you fly through the window. That is rediculous when you're not taking the fact that the car is moving into consideration.

7. Yeah, I see what you mean. If I was sitting here typing this, and all of a sudden me, my house and everything else was flying through the air a huge speed, that would appear nonsensical ("impossible"). However, if the earth suddenly stopped spinning (OK, pretty unlikely) then that is more or less exactly what would happen.

The bit I have a huge problem with (and always have had) is the "Universe is finite" argument. When I am in my house, and move in one direction, I come to a wall. There is my garden beyond that wall, and a garden fence. Beyond that fence there is a road. You can see where this is going. If I continue in the same direction, if the universe is finite, where do I go once I reach the end? What's beyond the "finiteness"?? Do I loop back, and come in the other side?

Logically, and from experience I must keep going infinitely. Anything else would be "impossible" in my current frame of reference.

8. The bit I have a huge problem with (and always have had) is the "Universe is finite" argument. When I am in my house, and move in one direction, I come to a wall. There is my garden beyond that wall, and a garden fence. Beyond that fence there is a road. You can see where this is going.
I completely agree, how about size, what's the smallest in the universe, don't you just keep getting smaller and smaller, universe though universe, or bigger and bigger, i think so. Mabey in a way the universe is finite, but what do you call the area beyond or within it. Somebody shoot me down...

9. "Because relative to the car, you are not moving and then all of a sudden you fly through the window. That is rediculous when you're not taking the fact that the car is moving into consideration."

That surely doesn't work. Relative to the car, at first i am stationary, then the car rapidly decelerates, then i fly through the window. I still don't see the problem.

The car feels a resultant force, causing it to feel an acceleration in the opposite direction of the passenger, so the passenger flies through the windscreen.

"Do I loop back, and come in the other side? "

Pretty much, you blast off from Earth in a giant rocket, and you end up back where you started.

"what's the smallest in the universe, don't you just keep getting smaller and smaller"

Plank's length limits size; there is nothing smaller. On the other hand the only limits to how large a body can be would be the physical size of the universe.

10. >Relative to the car, at first i am stationary, then the car rapidly decelerates, then i fly through the window. I still don't see the problem.<

Relative to the car, you are stationary until you fly out the window. Forget the fact the car is accelerating and then it stops. That's not relevant to explaining his point. You're sitting in a car and all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, you fly through the window. That's not logical.

>The car feels a resultant force, causing it to feel an acceleration in the opposite direction of the passenger, so the passenger flies through the windscreen.<

Once again, forget about what the car is doing. That's not important right now.

11. "Relative to the car, you are stationary until you fly out the window. Forget the fact the car is accelerating and it stops. That's not relevant to explaining his point. You're sitting in a car and all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, you fly through the window. That's not logical"

But... it is logical because you fly through the window because the car accelerates towards you, at great speed, whilst you remain stationary (or travelling at constant veolcity).

"Once again, forget about what the car is doing. That's not important right now."

I see what you're saying but....

... this seems to be no different to arguing that me falling off a cliff doesn't make any sense if we ignore gravity. So sure me flying through the window of car doesnt make sense if we ignore the car.... but why would we ignore the car?

I'm fairly sure that from a relativistic point of view a frame of refrence cannot be accelerating.

12. Pretty much, you blast off from Earth in a giant rocket, and you end up back where you started.
Ouch, irony. It was intended to be a serious question too.

13. You can't do everything in your imagination, just visualize a rubik's cube, turn it around a few times and you will soon discover that you've forgotten which colour was there and which colour was there, and so on.

14. >I see what you're saying but....

... this seems to be no different to arguing that me falling off a cliff doesn't make any sense if we ignore gravity. So sure me flying through the window of car doesnt make sense if we ignore the car.... but why would we ignore the car?<

Okay, but please let it be clear that I wasn't necessarily agreeing with his theory; I was just trying to explain what he was trying to say to you.

>You can't do everything in your imagination, just visualize a rubik's cube, turn it around a few times and you will soon discover that you've forgotten which colour was there and which colour was there, and so on.<

I think it's very unlikely that you can do this or other "unimaginable" stuff while concious. However, I do believe that the human mind has the capability to.

There's a lot of **** out there that a lot of people have never experienced before. I myself have thought/felt/experienced some things that I couldn't quite comprehend after the experience was over with. Maybe what I experienced in my altered state of mind was the "unimaginable".

Also, haven't you ever had a dream and couldn't quite make sense of it (once you woke)? Maybe what you experienced in the dream was the "unimaginable", and your brain just doesn't know how to handle it now that you're awake.