Re: Kevin (I think) said recently:

Kevin O'Brien (Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:12:41 -0700

>Kevin (I think) wrote recently:
>
>" Imagine someone excavating
>Jericho found two golden spheres that, when they collided, always had a
>momentum sum greater after the collision than they had before. Though no
>doubt all sorts of weird natural explanations would be concocted to
>explain
>the phenomenon, by definition it is a distinctly non-natural phenomenon."
>
>In my physics education, admittedly many years back, I remember
>exploring thought problems of this sort. The conclusion we reached
>was that such a finding would NEVER lead to a non-natural
>explanation, but ALWAYS to an exciting new science of new laws of nature
>we had not previously suspected were there.
>
>So I must politely disagree with your definition, my friend.
>

I have no problem with that (you disagreeing that is). However, the fact
that you and your classmates missed the point does not refute my conclusion.

The law of conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical law; so much
of modern science is based on it that if it were proven to be false, or if
exceptions were to be found, the vast majority of accepted theories in most
disciplines would either collapse or have to be reconfigured. On top of
that, the law of conservation of momentum is so inexorably tied into the
very nature of the physical universe itself that if even one exception was
found we would have to rethink our concepts of what the universe is really
like.

That's why I called such an exception a non-natural phenomenon, because it
would violate the very nature of the physical universe as we understand it
to be. And if that were the only exception extant, it would be more likely
to be a non-natural anomaly rather than a representation of new physical
laws.

Kevin L. O'Brien