Well, you are asking me to describe so many Scientifict laws, and many of which are even not very accurate to this day. "inverse square law of interaction of charges", for example can only be achived if a Scientist is looking for something of which he already has his mind set of what he is trying to find. This same theory can be used to prove almost anything, and can even contradict each other. For example if I get a coil of wire and I add some curent to it, then I put it near a magnet, it might either pull away, or towards it depending on the current direction. made a further hypothesis concerning this interaction, which gave a lot of headaches to Helmholtz, Maxwell and others. He asserted that the force between two wires can be viewed as the sum of the forces between infinitesimal current elements. Normally, those of the Newtonian school do not mind breaking up the world in this way and looking at action in the universe as a simple summation of pairwise interactions. But what Ampere discovered was that the force between two current elements depended not only on their distance, as in the inverse square law, but also on their angular position.For a decade, Ampere's work, including his highly disturbing discovery that force between current elements does not obey a simple inverse square law, was either ridiculed or ignored.

In 1832 what began was a very fruitful collaboration between the young scientist Wilhlem Weber and the old man of the Leibnizian tradition at Gottingen University, Carl Friedrich Gauss. They did a number of experiments including inventing an electromagnetic telegraph. Then Weber began a long series of experiments on his own to confirm Ampere's discoveries.


but if you want me to prove all those theories wrong, or I'm not sure what you want me to prove, those theories cannot prove that GOD doesn't exist. How do you know that GOD didn't make those laws? It is possible that GOD made those laws.

Even the "energy conservation law" leans towards the life after death belief rather than oppose it.

I can tell you seem to have your mindset to believe in something without alot of researchig in what you don't believe.

I also find it funny how you try to mix obvious make belief charaters with GOD etc.

By the way, there is also only one GOD.

• I'm not saying they're wrong, but they don't prove Atheism. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 02:45 UTC
  • Laws And God - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 19:28 UTC
  • Post for Motumos. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 21:48 UTC
    • Once again same link for Motumos (this time may click). - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 22:27 UTC
      • I don't seem to understand your views about why GOD wouldn't exi - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:56 UTC
        • "Laws"of physics are just human descriptions - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 00:21 UTC
          • Only one Law giver - x-x-ray - July 8, 2001 - 04:33 UTC
            • Incorrect. No God is needed to create natural laws. - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 20:40 UTC
        • God does not make/change any law-they come from math (symmetries - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 21:32 UTC
          • Hmm. - terry - November 15, 2001 - 11:20 UTC