You may have no idea of the laws of physics (and I think you don't) but I have worked with them for 50 years and they are (guess what?) self-enforcing.

A law is a limit. A real limit is something that can never be done, not by anyone or anything ever. Presumably the Universe has such limits (Natural Law). But physics is just a model. "Laws of physics" are just the limits of the model. It says nothing about what the Universe itself can or can't do, or what something else can or can't do inside of it. For example, assuming the Big Bang is true (which I don't, but for arguments sake), from all observable evidence, the existence of the Universe itself is a violation of both CoE and CoM. And it has violated those "laws" on numerous occasions according to cosmological models (inflation, dark energy, etc.). People excuse those away as "space can do whatever it wants" but that is an argument from the model itself, against the evidence. Space is likely emergent from the same "stuff" as that which we call "particles" emerge from, so the argument really falls flat on all counts.

Woe betide anyone who thinks they are false or arbitrary.

I don't think they are "false," I just think they aren't proven true. Indeed, physics can't "prove" them because physics is always just a model by definition. The actual Universe is the only determinant of what the limits are, our physics is just useful. I don't think the laws of physics are arbitrary at all. On the contrary, our physic models are extremely good, and thus the limits that the models suggest are themselves extremely good. But that doesn't make them true, it just makes them useful.

If you believe the model is truth, you become incapable of seeing any evidence that doesn't fit the model. The truth is whatever it is. I don't proclaim to know it, but you seem to do so. That makes you blind to anything that doesn't fit your world view.

We don't know whether the Navy videos are truly something or an aberration of the optical system.

I agree. The evidence is not conclusive. I also have seen the other evidence you mention. The total evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't have to be "conclusive" to be compelling. "Conclusive" and "compelling" are just thresholds that are different for everyone. Even when a thing is conclusive that doesn't make it true. It just means a person (or multiple people) believes it. If you are not compelled by the evidence that's fine, but many people are, because it is very compelling.

I don't think that throwing that all away will be a path to enlightenment. Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind.

I never suggested throwing away your knowledge. I only suggested that you allow yourself to question it. You seem to hold too tightly to the models and your experience with them.

You may have no idea of the laws of physics (and I think you don't) but I have worked with them for 50 years and they are (guess what?) self-enforcing.

A law is a limit. A real limit is something that can never be done, not by anyone or anything ever. Presumably the Universe has such limits (Natural Law). But physics is just a model. "Laws of physics" are just the limits of the model. It says nothing about what the Universe itself can or can't do, or what something else can or can't do inside of it. For example, assuming the Big Bang is true (which I don't, but for arguments sake), from all observable evidence, the existence of the Universe itself is a violation of both CoE and CoM. And it has violated those "laws" on numerous occasions according to cosmological models (inflation, dark energy, etc.). People excuse those away as "space can do whatever it wants" but that is an argument from the model itself, against the evidence. Space is likely emergent from the same "stuff" as that which we call "particles" emerge from, so the argument really falls flat on all counts.

Woe betide anyone who thinks they are false or arbitrary.

I don't think they are "false," I just think they aren't proven true. Indeed, physics can't "prove" them because physics is always just a model by definition. The actual Universe is the only determinant of what the limits are, our physics is just useful. I don't think the laws of physics are arbitrary at all. On the contrary, our physic models are extremely good, and thus the limits that the models suggest are themselves extremely good. But that doesn't make them true, it just makes them useful.

If you believe the model is truth, you become incapable of seeing any evidence that doesn't fit the model. The truth is whatever it is. I don't proclaim to know it, but you seem to do so. That makes you blind to anything that doesn't fit your world view.

We don't know whether the Navy videos are truly something or an aberration of the optical system.

I agree. The evidence is not conclusive. I also have seen the other evidence you mention. The total evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't have to be "conclusive" to be compelling. "Conclusive" and "compelling" are just thresholds that are different for everyone. Even when a thing is conclusive that doesn't make it true. It just means a person believe it. If you are not compelled by the evidence that's fine, but many people are, because it is very compelling.

I don't think that throwing that all away will be a path to enlightenment. Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind.

I never suggested throwing away your knowledge. I only suggested that you allow yourself to question it. You seem to hold too tightly to the models and your experience with them.

You may have no idea of the laws of physics (and I think you don't) but I have worked with them for 50 years and they are (guess what?) self-enforcing.

A law is a limit. A real limit is something that can never be done, not by anyone or anything ever. Presumably the Universe has such limits (Natural Law). But physics is just a model. "Laws of physics" are just the limits of the model. It says nothing about what the Universe itself can or can't do, or what something else can or can't do inside of it. For example, assuming the Big Bang is true (which I don't, but for arguments sake), from all observable evidence, the existence of the Universe itself is a violation of both CoE and CoM. And it has violated those "laws" on numerous occasions according to cosmological models (inflation, dark energy, etc.). People excuse those away as "space can do whatever it wants" but that is an argument from the model itself, against the evidence. Space is likely emergent from the same "stuff" as that which we call "particles" emerge from, so the argument really falls flat on all counts.

Woe betide anyone who thinks they are false or arbitrary.

I don't think they are "false," I just think they aren't true. The actual Universe is the only determinant of what the limits are, our physics is just useful. I don't think the laws of physics are arbitrary at all. On the contrary, our physic models are extremely good, and thus the limits that the models suggest are themselves extremely good. But that doesn't make them true, it just makes them useful.

If you believe the model is truth, you become incapable of seeing any evidence that doesn't fit the model. The truth is whatever it is. I don't proclaim to know it, but you seem to do so. That makes you blind to anything that doesn't fit your world view.

We don't know whether the Navy videos are truly something or an aberration of the optical system.

I agree. The evidence is not conclusive. I also have seen the other evidence you mention. The total evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't have to be "conclusive" to be compelling. "Conclusive" and "compelling" are just thresholds that are different for everyone. Even when a thing is conclusive that doesn't make it true. It just means a person believe it. If you are not compelled by the evidence that's fine, but many people are, because it is very compelling.

I don't think that throwing that all away will be a path to enlightenment. Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind.

I never suggested throwing away your knowledge. I only suggested that you allow yourself to question it. You seem to hold too tightly to the models and your experience with them.