Natural laws are variant not invariant

Fundamentally objects move as they do because of there very nature

The variance comes in when you compare one object to another, they can very different

Which leads to variances that are very wide spread

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the laws are invariant then in the long run you can miss an important fact

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Sure

The thing is though, with what theory are you looking with

 

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

 

If you need a couple of sites to start with try

www.thunderbolts.com

And

www.holoscience.com

 

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.