Would a single act of Magic negate all scientific theory?
542380
That would depend on your definition of Magic, wouldn't it?  My own definition includes a lot of things that appear to be well within the scientific cause-and-effect paradigm.  For example, I have long held this to be true:  If anything is magic, then sex is magic.  Now, lots of biologists would argue that it is all quite explainable in scientific terms, etc.  Sure.  So how do you explain feelings that seem to be completely beyond human existence and into the realm of the numinous which are sometimes experienced by those who are deeply in love?  \n\nOr another one:  at what point is the explanation "coincidence" purely inadequate?  If I shuffle the cards honestly, and you cut them yourself, and I do three tarot layouts in a row, what is the odds that the very same card will appear in the very same position three times in succession?  OK; astronomical odds is not the same as impossible.  But is my explanation, that the card has something to tell you that we didn't notice on the first two layouts, any more nonsensical?\n\nMagic is a vocabulary.  It does not need to contradict natural law in order to be real magic; it simply has to be effective.
746381
No, the laws of physics currently prohibit any type of matter from accelerating to light speed, since it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.
1093187
No.\n\nThere is no way to include it in scientific theory.\n\nOutside scientific theory it is optional.\n\nIt has big disadvantages - eg it leads to war, bigotry, hatred, terrorism etc.
19813
no, and im curious to know why you would put this in the physics section... the laws of physics are very strict about things and the existance of ghosts would certainly violate a lot of them.
41518
Yes. All theories exist. When a theory is proven, it becomes a law or a fact.
409964
All (good) science is based on theoretical notions thought up by someone carefully observing the universe around them, proposing an explanation, and then testing to see if it can be used to predict a likely outcome.  If it predicts the likely outcome all the time, it becomes a Law.  In physics, Gravity is already a Law, but String Theory is still a theory.  A theory is not pseudoscience unless most thoughtful people can see holes in it.  Theoretical thought, even "on the margins of science" is essential for progress.\n\nDoubtless there were many sensible folk who thought the Wright brothers were lunatics, but they had the math & mechanical skills to prove their theoretical notion that a machine could make a man able to fly.\n\nNow go to your workshop and think!
517258
No.\nThere is none.\nBut there are a bunch of reasons to believe it as fiction.
399579
It would screw up a lot of calculations and other assigned physical values. Since no friction at all is 0 you would be claiming less friction than none. It is set up the way that it is for much the same reason that there are limits to aerodynamic lift and other forces that are nonsensical when allowed to become either negative or larger than one.
913496
Your proposal was getting interesting until you introduced a gratuitous element into it - "God". I've seen this argument before and it actually works against the concept of a god, or gods. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed a less ambitious, but interesting, theory wherein human mentation is necessarily projective - a bit like a classical field in ordinary physics. The point is that if it were true, then humanity can be seen as more intimately integrated to some essential character of the universe - but this essence needs no supernatural characteristics. Indeed the concept would be diminished by it.\nFor example, in his proposals there are empirical parameters for detection of this characteristic or its manifestations - again, just as if you were talking about, say, electromagnetism.\n\nI'm not saying I buy the theory. I am saying that the substance of the theses points away from the supernatural. Of course if the theory has any success, it may provide a basis for talking about what humans have disguised, or abstracted, as god or gods.
1136179
An interesting question.  \n\n#1 would seem at first glance to be automatically false, as everyone will agree that there is evidence that there was a time when the things we see today in nature, did not exist.  But to get a little deeper, what if these things are the natural products of natural laws that have always existed?  E.g. what if our universe is just one of an endless series of universes that appear, unfold under natural laws that have been in existence for eternity, and then disappear, only to get reborn again as a new universe?\n\n#2 is the *goal* of a scientific explanation.  I.e. to see how much we can explain by the discovery of natural laws.  Science has no way of knowing if such an explanation will always be possible, but it has to try.  And so far we have done remarkably well ... almost everything we see in nature can be explained in terms of the operation of natural laws.  And natural laws can often be shown to derivable from simpler natural laws.  (E.g., that's why physicists are on a quest to unify the four forces of physics ... so that all laws of atomic physics can be derived from a single law.)  However, scientists will always be faced with the question of where these simplest of natural laws came from.  And they may have to settle for the answer "they seem to have always been there", which brings us back to #1.\n\n#3, and #4 need more definitions to distinguish them.  What do you mean by phrases like "beyond nature", and "intelligence."  \n\nHOWEVER, despite being a died-in-the-wool evolutionist, I lean towards #4, (an intelligent, supernatural origin for all things in nature) but not with in the same sense as Intelligent Design.  I *don't* believe some intelligence designed every cell membrane, every flagellum, every eyeball, every bird, bat, or insect wing, every endochrine cycle, etc.  Evolution provides a far more satisfactory explanation for all those things based on such simple natural laws as the law of natural selection.  \n\nBut I do wonder where that force of natural selection, as a natural law, came from.   I believe it will be shown to be derivable from simpler laws of chemistry and thermodynamics, which can be derived from even simpler laws of physics.  But ultimately, we will still be faced with wondering where those primary laws of physics came from.
1179547
I think we're all obliged to pass on all known facts, and all theories.\nAnd, theory is the correct choice of words for your question, IMO.\nSince neither can currently be absolutely proven nor disproven by 'scientific' standards, both of them are theories (or beliefs .. sets of information that meet personal criteria for acceptance).\n\nI lean toward God/Creation, myself. That trumps Big Bangs, etc. since God would have created that  :-)  (not that it matters to anyone but me!)
560337
None actually, but having no proof on the other side, by grace of the Occam´s razor I would choose the simplest hypothesis: no god.
163534
No. All kinds of instruments unrelated to human perception register the assorted physical properties of the universe, like energy, radiation, etc.,.
216587
It's been said that any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.  Let's try a few of the older but lesser known ones:\n\nAbout 15/20 years ago material science came up with two new materials which are rather interesting.  The first is Aerogel, a solid which is lighter than air - it will float at room temperature.  The second is called Seagel which is about as heavy as plastic but is as strong as steel, it can be either transparent or opaque and your choice of electrially conductive or not.\n\nHow's that for a start?
694010
If the laws of physics have the same forms in all frames of reference than the cause of interaction is confirmed.\nIn the case of this question there must have  been someone who caused  this fine question.\nOther wise it would have never existed.
2251
Science is by nature empirical, if you can't observe or quantify something then it cannot be studied scientifically. For this reason, God cannot be proven scientifically (and technically, science can't disprove God, as you can never prove a negative), as you can't observe Him.\n\nThis is not to say that science and God are mutually exclusive. If God exists, and if His actions were observable then it would be studied scientifically.
288181
If by "miracles" you mean "things that operate counter to the known laws of physics," then no.  If you mean "wildly improbable things that nevertheless happen," then yes.  These days the word "miracle" is often used to mean "coincidence" rather than the old style raising the dead/walking on water stuff.