Set up and Appeal Court for those who feel they have suffered unjustly from the application or operation of the laws of Physics, or Nature in general. The Appeal court would not be allowed to change the laws (only a legislature can do that), but it could order compensation to be given to those who have been wronged.
-- 8th of 7, Jun 21 2002

Exhibit 1: This sort of thing should be allowed http://www.youtube....watch?v=40H47Z_eOKE
[Dub, Nov 13 2010]

Suing god doesn't work. People have tried it. You might even win, but how do you get paid?
-- StarChaser, Jun 21 2002


For abhi and Vernon?
-- neelandan, Jun 21 2002


Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
-- phoenix, Jun 21 2002


There's nothing to do with God here, far as I can see. If 7/8 wanted to sue for Acts of God, I imagine those would be fairly well covered by existing "criminal damage" legislation in most countries. If I burn your house down, you can have me prosecuted; if God burns your house down, well, bringing the bugger to trial might be a bit difficult, but, hey we got Milosevic, so you never know... maybe one day we'll get that big genocidal maniac in the sky. (Sorry, just playing devil's advocate, here.) Anyhoo, the real culprit would be Sod, not God. It's his Law that generally covers the unjust operation of reality with respect to individuals, if I recall correctly. Your honour.
-- Guy Fox, Jun 21 2002


I think we'd also need a Philosophy Appeal Court for those who have suffered from the effects of logic.
-- lubbit, Jun 22 2002


who do I sue to recover all my missing socks?
-- runforrestrun, Jun 23 2002


Lubbit: How do we know there isn't ? If there was, how would it know if it were in session or not ? How would it take evidence, or if it were real or not ? How could you find someone with an objective viewpoint to act as a judge ? What would prevent the defendant from declaring that the court was a figment of his imagination, and defying the court to prove otherwise ??

No, we don't think so.....
-- 8th of 7, Jun 24 2002


<H. Guide> We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. </H. Guide.>
-- RayfordSteele, Jun 25 2002


So...can we repeal Ohm's Law?
-- DrCurry, Jun 26 2002


A variation on the suggested appeals court might be acceptable. For example, if a Mad Scientst suggests a wild notion, and Seniority-Possessing Famous Scientist says, "Bah! Humbug!", well, the court might be able to decide if the latter was speaking more from opinion than from fact, and thus give the wild notion a more fair chance. Likely enough, it will still be an incorrect wild notion, but there HAVE been more than a few cases where the wild ideas should have faced less resistance than was dished out by the entrenched Scienticrats. There is a reasonably well-known saying to the effect that Physics only makes major advances when the current generation of old scientists finally dies off -- and how do you suppose such a saying came to be? (Hmmmm....now that I've written this, I'm wondering if some other Idea around here was already about it. Oh, well.)
-- Vernon, Jun 26 2002


DrCurry: No, you can't repeal Ohm's Law. But you can sue for compensation if you feel you have been unjustly treated or disadvantaged by its operation. Current thinking is that there may be some resistance to the charges, however.
-- 8th of 7, Jun 26 2002


//current generation of old scientists finally dies off //

Care to accelerate the process with Alfredo's souped clay, Vernon?
-- neelandan, Jul 12 2002


Damn it! I was just about to submit a propsal to repeal some of the less helpful laws of physics.
{Linky}
[edit] Oh, and the speed limit. The Old C, Speed of Light is so passé. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was fine for the olden-days, but we've got much better roads and brakes nowadays.
-- Dub, Nov 13 2010



random, halfbakery