The logic of the first law when used to interpret particular observations suggests this or that as an explanation.
For example, one can always add another force to nature to make observations consistent with the logic the first law, just like one can always add another epicycle to make observations consistent with the logic of the geocentric system. If the constants had changed during the course experiment, did they change every where or just in the proximity of the experiment? If they changed everywhere, then funny things should have happened everywhere during the experiment. Anyway, evidence by itself does not set the course of science. At least the weight of the evidence AND occam's razor are our guides. Harry Remi Cornwall wrote: > No Harry, 'faith' in logic. > > Don't get ratty when someone challenges your preconceptions. Extend the > argument. Is there something I've missed? Is there a point 3, 4... a way > into the argument that Steorn might be on to? > > I think not. That's the 1st Law and what it means in a nutshell. > > When someone challenges one in science, one has to dot the 'i's and cross > the 't's unless one has very good experimental evidence. > > R. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 September 2006 19:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]: > > Remi, > > >> Now when people start talking about violating the *1st Law* it can only >> mean: >> >> 1) The constants of nature have changed over the timescale of your >> experiment. >> 2) That some new force has been found. > > > Your faith in the first law is strong. > Is it stronger than your religious faith? > > Harry >
