What is a Law of Nature?

So, you're basically saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", am I right?

All I'm interested in is scientists not being to arrogant and blind in adherence to how the "laws" are, because it means that they will refuse to believe that the "laws" could be wrong or inaccurate or lead to situations where the "laws" are considered to be without fault, meaning that there is a demand that the mathematical equations surrounding them be changed instead of admitting that the "laws" might be at fault.

Modern science is far too rigid and dogmatic in its beliefs that its foundations are "solid" with only the details needing to be filled in.

For example, the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was failing in its predictions, so the hypotheses of Dark Matter and Dark Energy were invented out of nowhere, simply to pad the theory and save it from tossed in the trashcan of failed theories. It makes me wonder if the Big Bang should really just be treated as a hypothesis at this point, as there isn't any good evidence for it, seeing as we really don't know what happened so many billions of years ago.

I agree with your interest. I don't think science is as dogmatic as you claim. Perhaps some older scientists are, but the young whippersnappers are looking to make a name for themselves.

I'm not sure why dark matter/energy is problematical. You have to explain the lack of mass somehow. Sure, it's possible that the entire theory of gravity is broken. If so, time will tell. It takes time to sort these things out. The fact that we are impatient is not a good reason to blow off the current theories.

~~ Paul