@tribactam@social.vivaldi.net @juergen_hubert@mementomori.social No, that doesn't sound right at all. The theories of relativity, and quantum theory, to pick very well-known examples, are both mathematically rigorous, derived from foundational principles and empirically tested. They are also better at making predictions that match reality. The Laws you've quoted tend to only work under limited conditions which weren't obvious when they were first formulated - they remain valid as very good approximations and give reliable predictions within their limits, but they fail under more extreme conditions where the realities behind the assumptions start to matter. I think that the concept of a natural law is archaic, and the reason we don't use the term anymore is because generations of scientists have watched these Laws come apart over time and have since realised that Science is not about cataloguing God's Laws of Nature, but creating a model of how the natural world works, describing it in a formal Theory, and refining or replacing that model over time as new data makes it necessary.