I would create a separate Gulch dimension for us to shrug to.

Both Herb and JohnMahler would like the "Q" episodes from Star Trek: The Next Generation if they would like to look at time from outside of time. As "Q" said, you would have to change the gravitational constant of the universe.

I would replace human perception of time. Sequentiality as opposed to history and prophesy; which is what consideration of time realizes. Tense is only a grammatical construct for ordering sequential events within printed word. Other terms are meaningless across the mean of time in an infinite Universe.

Friends.

The physics we have now is OK except that they have added fantasy to it and expect that we accept that, too, as physics. E.g., an Expanding Universe; Black Holes; a limited Universe; etc, etc, in the other diciplines. But: As Ayn Rand observes, in her philosophy, "Existence is an axiomatic concept" and all flows from that fact, whether intellectually or physically.

Existence exists. It this is so, existence exists everywhere, in all directions to infinity. And, if it exists now it must have existed from an eternity past and will presumably exist for an eternity into the future. Furthermore, if it exists now, despite an eternity of the burning of galaxies, there must be a mechanism throughout that renews these galaxies at an efficiency of 100%. This describes the Universe we should be searching for. It precludes magic. And all must be totally reasonable.

Any of you who may be interested in a paper I've written having to do with just such a Universe, please write me at jamesburtonwright@gmail.com.

Jim Wright

I would eliminate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that is not really what this article is about.

How about several moons orbiting the Earth? Imagine the show at night.

I would change nothing about physics. A = A. However, I might change how it is taught. Rush Limbaugh has often remarked about "making the complex understandable". That is a rare gift that I use as often as I can.

I would only change it to make warp drive and transporters possible.

Hey, once a geek, always a geek, and "I'm gonna wave my geek flag high," as Jimi put it. Kinda.

But yes, a wish is just as valuable as a wish - which is to say: not very - and in context of wanting to change physics, a wish for a shortcut to effort. IOW, I'm confident we'll get something very much like ST's warp drive (it's already in the works, with promising prospects - http://www.geekologie.com/2012/09/to-inf... ) and maybe even a matter-transporter, though this latter would raise some interesting dilemmas vis-à-vis bank vaults (or any other store of valuables, like one's home or business,) teenagers and the opposing sex's locker rooms, etc.

Not sure if this would be a change or if we just haven't figured it out yet, but with a universe this vast; to not have faster than light travel seems like a waste.

It might be interesting to eliminate the 1st law of thermodynamics (you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in - conservation of energy). Our evolution is a direct corollary of the scarcity of resources which follows from this law. I often wonder what things would look like if there wasn't a constant competition for various scarce resources.

The laws of physics are perfect. It does however require a love of mathematics.

The speed of light.

I would have published a Universal Physics Users Manual

change the gravitational constant, so we could
get the f#$k out of here, and so I wouldn't weigh
so much!!! -- j

I would change nothing, because it is already perfectly tuned to support us.

Would work to show terrestrial science that properties such as inertia and that many of the observable "laws" that apply to and on this planet do not necessarily apply beyond earth

I would emphasize nanoscience a little more.

The essence of genius is the ability to isolate simple rules from the complex chaos presented to our senses.This is the reason that we study Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein but don't study Buridan. This professor seems to be substituting subjectivism for objectivism. I'm with you pre, the one we got is tough enough.

Disobey the laws of nature and generally the punishment is harsher then getting a ticket.

Nobel Prize winning physicist T.D. Lee wrote a book in the 1980's (Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory) that outline the concept that the so-called "constants of nature" COULD be engineered.

Interesting thought.

Are you kidding? The creator of the laws of this universe is so infinitely more wise and intelligent than I am that I wouldn't dare touch a single thing, lest I break the whole of creation.

Seriously, the way everything is so intricately balanced and tweaked, if one little aspect was off by just a few fractions of a percent, we wouldn't have things like stars... it's really really incredible.

Physics is only about the laws we believe govern reality. How can that be intimidating?

I would formulate a system allowing you to step "outside" of time in order to travel through space many times faster than the speed of light. However, I fear that programs of this sort can have the effect of the user eschewing reality by acquiring god-like powers that make reality seem dull. It could be easy to slip into unreality and get lost there. Also, I don't think that this program is for the weak minded or unimaginative, but the smarter you are, the more susceptible you'd be. Look art me -- I just got sucked in at my very first sentence. Wouldn't everyone like to be Alice if you could
control the wonders?

I can't help getting past the "this looks stupid" feeling every time I look at Second Life.

I would neutralize all polarity, electrical as well as magnetic, outside of the Gulch of course.