Natural laws are variant not invariant
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Natural laws are invariant and not variant.
Objects move because their very nature makes it not only possible, but almost impossible not to.
Variances are very wide spread, but are the natural result of the invariant natural laws.
If the laws are invariant then in the long run you can miss an important fact
It may be possible to miss an important fact, but the fact will never go away if it is in compliance with the invariant natural laws. The convergence of circumstances that revealed the important fact once, with invariant natural laws always in place, could reveal it again, and again.
To your last statement that's true
But where are you looking......and how are you looking?
It is "we" who are looking, always looking from the eyes of the intelligent life forms that arise in hospitable environments across the potentially infinite universe.
This is not what I mean
What I mean is this, when we try to understand the Universe what kind of looking do we use
Understand what I mean?
Yes, I do. And it is individual looking, done to the best of your ability, knowing you can find what others have revealed before you, and knowing that discovery is built upon the work of those looking with you and those who have looked before you.
With no theory, with only what we can observe and what we individually derive from the sum of the observations; we make theory, we don't look with theory.
Good
But how many of the properties of the object can be derived just by observation ?
Only what can be seen; but that is always a clue to the invariant natural laws, as long as what we all see is the same. That becomes the problem. We sometimes see different things and so we derive different natural laws, leading to the misconception that they are variant instead of invariant. The result is the task of reconciling the inconsistencies to the point of invariance.
To your first statement this is true
There are consistencies which is good. , since it proves a fundamental reality
Yes
But based on what fundamental theory?
There is one answer in my view. The fundamental theory driving the task of reconciling the inconsistencies in derived theory is the conviction that the universe is governed by invariant natural laws, known and unknown, and if that were not the case there could be no expectation that the realities of nature could ever be known.
Okay
But are you up on other theories that are out there
Such as electric universe
No, I'm not up on that one particularly. I did see where one reputable forum refuses to even let it be discussed for some reason I never looked into. Have you looked at it? Like it? What about it is notable?
OK, I'll look. That first link didn't work for me though.
Well that's telling
I have looked into about 5yrs ago or so , liked it , but couldn't do the math
But what I did get out of it , is this, it just made more sense
Electricity and magnetic waves are everywhere and in everything no matter where you look
What is notable
That the sun is not in fact a fusion object
That there are sunspots, which should not occur in a fusion reaction
The incongruent features of the surface of the sun
That the corona is hotter than the surface of the sun
I'm going to be alert to the theory and will be better able to discuss it after reading the links. I look forward to contributing on the subject.