Invisibility NOT doing more than exactly what the spells says it does

Please help settle this long running dispute regarding how the invisibility spell works. Invisibility when cast on an object makes the object vanish from sight.

However a fellow players seems insistent on claiming this also provides an additional property not detailed in the spell description. Namely, for example, if the spell is cast on a closed door. the door vanishes from sight revealing the room or area beyond.

My counter to this is to point to the fact invisibility is of the illusion school and the property he is assuming the invisibility spell additionally possesses belongs fundamentally in the divination school.

A ring of X Ray vision for example relies on the spell True Seeing which is of the divination school. Similarly Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, a spell by its effect that would more adequately reflect the ability to see in to an area that is blocked to line of sight is also of the divination (scrying) school.

Is there a general rule regarding exceptions I can point to, that states along the lines of if an exception isn’t documented then it isn’t a principle of the game rule?

I think his problem is that he’s seen invisibility depicted in certain popular media such as sci-fi and fantasy films and assumed that the D&D invisibility spell must work like that by reference and inference.