When can you violate a scientific law?

Question

This is on my study guide for my Geology 125 class and I can't find it in my text or notes. Could somebody please give me an answer? If you could put it in a relatively simple terms that would be helpful...

When can you violate a scientific law?

Answer 1

All problems result from the violation of natural law. Problems of national health, crime, the economy, education, and the environment

http://www.naturallaw.org/ideal_administration/ch01.html

this website is very good!

Answer 2

If it is a genuine law of nature, which is what I
assume you mean by a scientific law, you can't
violate it. It is unfortunate that the word "law" is
used here, because it suggests something that
is enacted and carries a penalty for violating it.The laws of nature are simply descriptions of what
happens under a given set of conditions. They
can be demonstrated, but not violated. The law of
gravity states that an object unsupported in a
gravity field will fall. If you jump from a high place
and are killed you haven't been punished for
violating the law of gravity, you have just given an
example of its universality. The problem, of course, is that sometimes people think something
is a universal phenomenon when it really isn't. The
"luminiferous ether" that supposedly pervaded the
whole universe and carried light waves is one
example, phlogiston is another. We don't know
everything, and some things we can never know,
so it is possible that some event may be found
that violates what we now think is a scientific law,
but if such is found it will really mean that the "law"
was not really a law to begin with. The exception
disproves the rule.

Answer 3

There are several benefits I experienced after violating scientific laws. Some incidents are .I have used non conventional shortcut method to alert the people to warn the Tsunami 2 hours before the real attack to the local T.V. It was ignored at last we lost the life of several thousands. But the meteorological used a proper technique but failed to alert in time. Scientifically speaking that because of the amplification factor I was able to sense and warn the event in time. The seismologist because they want to avoid amplification factor their instrument has sensed the wave at a depth of 10 meters below the earth. The signal they sensed was very feeble they were unable to decide the magnitude of the quake on that day. Even though the instrument I designed is less in sensitivity than their instrument because I kept the instrument 15 feet above the earth surface.which is normally not accepted by seismologist has issued the warning.2. Any safety equipments as per law when it detects the fault it should not get stopped without it is noticed by human. In case of quake alarm if I follow this rule the people will not know when the earthquake has stopped. How they will enter the house without the confirmation that there is no seismic signal. Therefore I changed the concept in my quake alarm to stop itself if it does not sense the seismic signal for 10 seconds.

Answer 4

You can't violate a scientific law. Just to clarify, a hypothesis is an educated guess that seems to explain your observations. Many hypotheses are proven wrong over time, to be replace by better hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis that has stood up to testing, more observations, etc and still has not been proven wrong. It may not be completely correct, but it probably is mostly correct and can be used to predict results. A law is a theory that is correct. We have tested and tested and to be best of human understanding, it is correct. The only way to "violate" a law is if it is wrong. By definition, it's not wrong. Of course, that human understanding part can throw you for a loop. The Law of Gravity has been dented by the theory of relativity. But no matter how you describe it, you aren't going to make yourself float. You aren't going to violate it.

Answer 5

You can't, without disproving it. Which, if you can do it, is a really cool thing to do, because then the law has to be re-written so that it can deal with your exception. The most famous example of this is Michelson and Morley attempting to demonstrate the earth's motion through space by measuring the speed of light both for and against the earth's motion around the sun. The Newtonian law of addition of velocities was assumed to hold. The experiment showed that the Newtonian law was wrong, at least with respect to light, and this violation led to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Answer 6

Only when going beyond the parameters specified for that law. For instance, the a certain law states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form". This is good enough for everyday purposes, but then Einstein said "E=MC^2" saying that energy created equals the mass destroyed times to square of the velocity of light. Now some might argue that mass is just "frozen energy" and so the law is valid, and I would agree with that view. Still, aside from this, we are creating energy by destroying mass.

Answer 7

You cannot violate a scientific law. If you could, it would not be a scientific law. The fact that it had been violated would prove that it was not a scientific law.

Answer 8

If you're talking theoretically, you can do it in a statistical analysis. You can include parameters which are physically impossible in order to accumulate a wider sample. It's the 'what if' game. You know that the 'what if' can't exist, but you use it in order to have more numbers to run.

Edit: Yeah, and what loreena said.

I'm assuming that's what you're talking about, 'cause I don't know of any situations where you could actually violate scientific laws in fact, unless you disprove them.

Answer 9

You violate a scientific law when you are having no proof in explaining a phenomenon... That is, you are just in the stage of doing assumptions and hypothesis... That is without basis to what's on your mind... So, in a scientific law, you need to meet criteria in scientific method. That is identifying the problem, then formulating hypothesis, experimenting, analyzing data, and concluding.

Answer 10

When, and only when, the law is wrong.

That means when the accepted law does not support observations.