Hard science rests on a soft foundation. How many times have the castles of stone produced by "hard" science crumbled to dust when science really examines the details? How many times have the "Laws" of science been shattered by further investigation? There are only two "hard" laws in science, Somehow, somewhen our universe came to be. Somehow, somewhen it will end. All the rest are theory, working hypotheses, and our best guess. All of them are based on observation, anecdotal evidence, and have limits we conveniently leave out of the "law". The speed of light is a constant. Yes, but only in the part of the universe we can observe, What is the speed of light when approaching the event horizon of a black hole? What is the speed of light in a black hole? What is the speed of light exiting a white hole (if they do in fact exist)? If you insist on calling them laws at least add all the qualifiers and corollaries to the laws. 2 plus 2 always equals four (only in the decimal system). Two human females plus two human males usually adds up to more than four. (And I'm glad it does). If science can admit that we don't have all the answers and we never will (my unabridged book of questions stretches to infinity), maybe we can accept their work as imperfect, but the best explanation based on incomplete data. Maybe then we wouldn't be in such a hurry to enforce or impose them on ourselves. Its time to admit that the quest for knowledge is neverending and our conclusions are always subject to change (like everything else). Pappadave.