Classical Truth and Beyond

[walterpthefirst]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, other than it's fun to think about the interactions at that level... the affinity, the non.  It's legal for me to consider that in my spare time without exciting the bull.  Hope you caught the pun....lol...some light humor.  

 

Its fun to think about things you can never have, never achieve and never know?

 

More fun than actually thinking about what you do have, can achieve and can know?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I haven't mentioned religion, nor am I concerned one way or another which direction the conversation leads.  At present, I've offered nothing more than my own observations and related questions, the most obvious of which is if "fact" doesn't point to an Absolute, then how will faith ever do so?  If you equate faith with religion, that is understandable; but the two are not necessarily the same. 

 

There are plenty of "What if..." scenarios that would just as easily lead to forgiveness and grace.  Some involve religion; others do not.  But, certainly, if more people were capable of seeing the Big Picture, this world might just be a better place as a result. 

 

The problem I see with your approach is that it assumes a Bigger Picture than what we actually have.  We have this world, these resources, these people, this life; and we can make grace a reality with what we have.  Granted, it's an uphill battle and we'd be fighting politicians, corporations, and greedy billionaires for every inch of the way.  But it is possible (theoretically) in the here and now. 

 

But you are looking for something outside of the Big Picture to come in and put everything right the way it should be.  There's simply no evidence that anything beyond the Big Picture exists; and certainly no reason to believe that this metaphysical Something would fix the Big Picture if it did exist.  WE are the Absolute, Ed.  There simply isn't anything else we can depend upon but ourselves. 

Science isn't correcting towards ourselves....it's specifically designed to correct in spite of our misunderstanding.  If it's correct, then it's correcting towards an absolute, unless we can be 100.1% certain.  Hence our manifestation is in an order....very close to what the Bible suggests...

[Edgarcito]

46 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Its fun to think about things you can never have, never achieve and never know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope springs eternal....

[pantheory]

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Science isn't correcting towards ourselves....it's specifically designed to correct in spite of our misunderstanding.  If it's correct, then it's correcting towards an absolute, unless we can be 100.1% certain.  Hence our manifestation is in an order....very close to what the Bible suggests...

 

I generally agree Ed,

 

Science is generally designed to be self correcting as you explained,  which is great. But  a big problem IMO is that all of science, as well as human thinking, is not of reality, but simply a perspective of it, whereby there are almost countless other valid perspectives that could be considered.  So in this way I generally don't believe in absolutes excepting where the evidence is certain. For instance when perspective definitions are involved and assertions can be disproved -- like its going up,  not down, or it's a big elephant, not a little rat

 

Cheers Edgarcito

[walterpthefirst]

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Science isn't correcting towards ourselves....it's specifically designed to correct in spite of our misunderstanding.  If it's correct, then it's correcting towards an absolute, unless we can be 100.1% certain.  Hence our manifestation is in an order....very close to what the Bible suggests...

 

Your definition of what science is doing would only apply to mathematics, Ed.  Not to any other branch of the sciences.

 

That's because only math deals with absolutes and in math they are abstract concepts.  Proofs are only used in mathematics and they are absolutes too.

 

So the empirical sciences are not doing what you say.  They are not correcting towards an absolute.

 

Instead they are correcting towards a better understanding of the physical universe, acknowledging that a 100% absolute understanding of the universe is an impossibility for human beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Science isn't correcting towards ourselves....it's specifically designed to correct in spite of our misunderstanding.  If it's correct, then it's correcting towards an absolute, unless we can be 100.1% certain.  Hence our manifestation is in an order....very close to what the Bible suggests...

Not a single one of these assertions is accurate.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not a single one of these assertions is accurate.

I don't think I'm that far off J....let me give you an example so it might help.

 

Let's say we have a few people here.

 

Person 1 with perspective ABC

Person 2 with perspective ABC E

Person 3, a scientist with perspective ABCDEF

And Person 4, another scientist with perspective ABCDF

 

So science moves along and persons 1 and 2 remain normative in their perspective and the two scientists move forward in knowledge and certainty and now are both ABCDEF and person 4 is working on research G.  Then his research uncovers ABCDEFGHIJ

 

Now to my point please.  Let's suppose we find their ABCDEFGHIJ makes all of everything we researched before fit exactly.....waves, particles, distances, time, it all fits.  Solar system 1 acting on solar system 2, it all still fits.  Glory, and the math to boot.  Double glory.

 

Here's my point, that it would then be possible to discern how bio-system (person 1) was misperceiving "the absolute", and person 2, and person 3 and 4....through our complete understanding of the mechanisms that yielded ABCDEFGHIJ.  I personally believe those keys are in the very small.  You don't have to agree or deem me inaccurate.  It's just my personal imagination.  

 

Hope that helps you to understand my ABCDE's....thx.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay, if you're claiming that science can do that in your imagination, then I obviously cannot argue with that.  I mean, bless your heart, I don't want to take that away from you.

 

But let's look at what science really does, in the real world.  Just for the record, of course; just so I can say "I did it."

 

Science does not continually correct itself in order to work toward some perfect Absolute.  And science will never be able to produce some perfect Absolute, some great and final Eureka! moment that answers everything for everybody, everywhere, for all time.  Because every Eureka! moment science does have simply paves the way for the next one.  And with every Eureka! moment comes new questions to ask and new answers to explore.  Even the big Eureka!  moments that seem to be end-alls within themselves, eventually we look back on that moment as the foundation of Something Better (but not of Something Perfect or Absolute).

 

Look at penicillin, for example.  As Eureka! moments go, that one was a Biggie.  No, hell, that one was a Bigly Biggie.  We suddenly had a means of, not just fighting,, but potentially eliminating, one of the most formidable and mortal enemies in the history of humanity: the humble, yet ubiquitous, bacterium.  Since then, in the field of antibiotics, there has yet to be another Eureka! moment of the same scale, import, and gravity as penicillin.  Instead, there have been a series of smaller, nearly unheard-of, Eureka! moments.  Yet, we now have more powerful antibiotics than penicillin ever dreamed of being, as a result of those tiny, quiet celebrations in research lab basements. 

 

We also have more resistant bacteria as a result of the same.  MRSA and XRTB both come immediately to mind.  So, far from being the end-all discovery, far from becoming the final Eureka! that led to the perfect Absolute, penicillin is now simply looked back on as the foundation of Something Better, the first stepping stone on the path to antibiotic medicines.

 

Every other Eureka! moment, in every other scientific discipline, is exactly the same.  Because science doesn't correct itself toward perfection; it corrects itself toward a better, deeper understanding, which will always involve new questions to ask and new answers to explore. 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't think I'm that far off J....let me give you an example so it might help.

 

Let's say we have a few people here.

 

Person 1 with perspective ABC

Person 2 with perspective ABC E

Person 3, a scientist with perspective ABCDEF

And Person 4, another scientist with perspective ABCDF

 

So science moves along and persons 1 and 2 remain normative in their perspective and the two scientists move forward in knowledge and certainty and now are both ABCDEF and person 4 is working on research G.  Then his research uncovers ABCDEFGHIJ

 

Now to my point please.  Let's suppose we find their ABCDEFGHIJ makes all of everything we researched before fit exactly.....waves, particles, distances, time, it all fits.  Solar system 1 acting on solar system 2, it all still fits.  Glory, and the math to boot.  Double glory.

 

Here's my point, that it would then be possible to discern how bio-system (person 1) was misperceiving "the absolute", and person 2, and person 3 and 4....through our complete understanding of the mechanisms that yielded ABCDEFGHIJ.  I personally believe those keys are in the very small.  You don't have to agree or deem me inaccurate.  It's just my personal imagination.  

 

Hope that helps you to understand my ABCDE's....thx.

 

 

 

Nothing fits exactly in science.

 

Even the most exact scientific result in history came with error bars on the measurement.

 

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

 

The predicted curve of the Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum (blue line) appears to be exactly matched by the COBE satellite data (red crosses).  But zoom in on the graph by a factor of 400 and divergence starts to appear.  The prediction and the data do not match with absolute exactitude.

 

In the future, if we could measure the data with better instruments we still wouldn't achieve absolute exactitude.

 

At greater scales of magnification there would still be divergence between the prediction and the data.

 

And we could continue chasing down the divergence forever and never reach absolute exactitude.

 

That's just the way cosmic cookie crumbles.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

This should persuade you, Edgarcito.

 

Why?  Because the information concerns the discovery of the Higgs boson by the LHC at CERN.  They announced the discovery because the data came in with a statistical significance of 5 Sigma.  This is explained below.

 

https://home.cern/resources/faqs/five-sigma

 

For some results, whose anomalies could lie in either direction above or below the expected value, a significance of five sigma is the 0.00006% chance the data is fluctuation. For other results, like the Higgs boson discovery, a five-sigma significance is the 0.00003% likelihood of a statistical fluctuation, as scientists look for data that exceeds the five-sigma value on one half of the normal distribution graph.

 

Is 5 sigma a perfect and absolute fit?   No.  It's always possible to do better.  As in the example below.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf

 

This science paper by Davis and Lineweaver is considered to be the current gold standard in cosmology when it comes to explaining the relationship between time, distance, the redshift and the recession of galaxies.

 

We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ.

 

Is 23 sigma a perfect and absolute fit?  No.  It's always possible to do better.

 

Will 100 sigma be a perfect and absolute fit between prediction and data?  No.  It's always possible to do better.

 

Will 1,000 sigma be a perfect and absolute fit between... ?

 

Will 1,000,000,000,000, sigma be a perfect and... ?

 

Will (insert any number you like) sigma be... ?

 

 

You get the picture, Ed?   Nothing fits perfectly and absolutely in science.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Moreover, everything in science is accepted tentatively.  Even if a scientific discovery seemed perfect and absolute, scientists would neither accept it as such, nor declare it to be such.  Why is that, Ed?  Isn't it because new data will eventually come along and be added to the discovery?  How can a perfect Absolute be missing something that only gets added later?  Making every Eureka! moment merely the predecessor of the next.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Moreover, everything in science is accepted tentatively.  Even if a scientific discovery seemed perfect and absolute, scientists would neither accept it as such, nor declare it to be such.  Why is that, Ed?  Isn't it because new data will eventually come along and be added to the discovery?  How can a perfect Absolute be missing something that only gets added later?  Making every Eureka! moment merely the predecessor of the next.

I haven't commented on this thread bc yall are talking about shit way over my head. But Ed worships the God of the gaps and believes we will eventually find proof yet unknown or get our answers in heaven. You are all talking about new scientific data and that comment that every eureka moment  is a predecessor for the next made me think about something. 

 

We've had many many of those Eureka moments the past 2,000 years or so that have all brought Data to the surface that the biblical God is not real. Every new discovery takes us farther and farther away from that concept. So if Ed is looking for a Eureka moment in science that would send us back 2,000 years to belief in omnijesusfatherspiritgod. I very much doubt that will happen. 

 

Just curious where he is going with this. Is this just science talk? Or is he putting a religious spin on it?

 

DB

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay, if you're claiming that science can do that in your imagination, then I obviously cannot argue with that.  I mean, bless your heart, I don't want to take that away from you.

 

But let's look at what science really does, in the real world.  Just for the record, of course; just so I can say "I did it."

 

Science does not continually correct itself in order to work toward some perfect Absolute.  And science will never be able to produce some perfect Absolute, some great and final Eureka! moment that answers everything for everybody, everywhere, for all time.  Because every Eureka! moment science does have simply paves the way for the next one.  And with every Eureka! moment comes new questions to ask and new answers to explore.  Even the big Eureka!  moments that seem to be end-alls within themselves, eventually we look back on that moment as the foundation of Something Better (but not of Something Perfect or Absolute).

 

Look at penicillin, for example.  As Eureka! moments go, that one was a Biggie.  No, hell, that one was a Bigly Biggie.  We suddenly had a means of, not just fighting,, but potentially eliminating, one of the most formidable and mortal enemies in the history of humanity: the humble, yet ubiquitous, bacterium.  Since then, in the field of antibiotics, there has yet to be another Eureka! moment of the same scale, import, and gravity as penicillin.  Instead, there have been a series of smaller, nearly unheard-of, Eureka! moments.  Yet, we now have more powerful antibiotics than penicillin ever dreamed of being, as a result of those tiny, quiet celebrations in research lab basements. 

 

We also have more resistant bacteria as a result of the same.  MRSA and XRTB both come immediately to mind.  So, far from being the end-all discovery, far from becoming the final Eureka! that led to the perfect Absolute, penicillin is now simply looked back on as the foundation of Something Better, the first stepping stone on the path to antibiotic medicines.

 

Every other Eureka! moment, in every other scientific discipline, is exactly the same.  Because science doesn't correct itself toward perfection; it corrects itself toward a better, deeper understanding, which will always involve new questions to ask and new answers to explore. 

 

From the long perspective of time, science certainly is a self correcting method. In one short life span sometimes little is accomplished. But in another less than a century, unbelievable quantities of technology can be invented by Engineers, but less often by scientists. But given time, science catches up with Engineering, inventions, and technology.

 

One of the main academic problems today IMO is called Groupthink. This is a problem that seriously slows down science. Most of science funding, both public and private, follows mainstream theory and thinking. This was one of the biggest problems that was often pointed out by Josh when he was here.

 

That being said,  I prefer Irish whiskey over Scotch. Although I like most Mexican beers (all beers in general), but for Edgarcito's understanding, prefiero Medelo Especial en particular -- o Dos Equis verde, pero tomo  Luz de Tacate con alguna frequencia porque la tiene menos calorias.

 

Cheers to all

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I haven't commented on this thread bc yall are talking about shit way over my head. But Ed worships the God of the gaps and believes we will eventually find proof yet unknown or get our answers in heaven. You are all talking about new scientific data and that comment that every eureka moment  is a predecessor for the next made me think about something. 

 

We've had many many of those Eureka moments the past 2,000 years or so that have all brought Data to the surface that the biblical God is not real. Every new discovery takes us farther and farther away from that concept. So if Ed is looking for a Eureka moment in science that would send us back 2,000 years to belief in omnijesusfatherspiritgod. I very much doubt that will happen. 

 

Just curious where he is going with this. Is this just science talk? Or is he putting a religious spin on it?

 

DB

 

He seems to be following logic this time IMO. But given time he will interject a religious spin to his "arguments," which should be expected, right

 

My guess is that he's trying to show the logical problems with science,  like we are always explaining the logical problems with Christianity.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

He seems to be following logic this time IMO. But given time he will interject a religious spin to his "arguments," which should be expected, right

 

My guess is that he's trying to show the logical problems with science, like we are always explaining the logical problems with Christianity.

Ahh, one doesn't have to reach much to see the analogous examples in the Bible......"I am the truth, light/life, and the way"....our conversation in one verse.  I digress.  My instruments keep me "visualizing" what is potentially happening to the sample upon introduction.  Simple GC stuff, but still.  (One glaring analysis technique that is near verbatim to the Bible is ICP).  Men are just behind and aren't willing to admit it.

 

Back to the self-correcting aspect.  Could we look at a particular subject and plot likely a wave-like graph and see where the line points?  Just an abstract thought.  Thx.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Ahh, one doesn't have to reach much to see the analogous examples in the Bible......"I am the truth, light/life, and the way"....our conversation in one verse.  I digress.  My instruments keep me "visualizing" what is potentially happening to the sample upon introduction.  Simple GC stuff, but still.  (One glaring analysis technique that is near verbatim to the Bible is ICP).  Men are just behind and aren't willing to admit it.

 

I will happily admit it if you can demonstrate it here with objective evidence.

 

37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Back to the self-correcting aspect.  Could we look at a particular subject and plot likely a wave-like graph and see where the line points?  Just an abstract thought.  Thx.

 

[pantheory]

On 10/23/2023 at 2:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

Ahh, one doesn't have to reach much to see the analogous examples in the Bible......"I am the truth, light/life, and the way"....our conversation in one verse.  I digress.  My instruments keep me "visualizing" what is potentially happening to the sample upon introduction.  Simple GC stuff, but still.  (One glaring analysis technique that is near verbatim to the Bible is ICP).  Men are just behind and aren't willing to admit it.

 

Back to the self-correcting aspect.  Could we look at a particular subject and plot likely a wave-like graph and see where the line points?  Just an abstract thought.  Thx.

 

 

 

 

As you probably already know Edgarcito -- that there are two aspects to my conversations with you. First of all I like you as a person and we would probably have a great time having a few brews together. But as to the second aspect concerning religion of any kind, I view all of it as an intellectual inhibitor, no better than Greek Mythology -- being a total atheist for many decades now maybe like your dad was.

 

I had to look up the acronyms ICP and GC.  Hope the IPC part doesn’t mean that you have migraine headaches?

 

As to specifics, I can state that "modern physics" often points in the wrong direction IMO, but that’s all the encouragement I can give you concerning your polite request my friend. 

 

Cheers anyway.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Could we look at a particular subject and plot likely a wave-like graph and see where the line points? 

Certainly.  The line points to the right on this particular subject.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here's another.

 

[Edgarcito]

Random stuff popping up on FB.....quantum foam, S8 tension, Hubble tension.....l'm going to submit to add more tension....lol.  Happy Friday all... lol.

[walterpthefirst]

You called this thread, 'Classical Truth and Beyond' Edgarcito.

 

 

Is that a reference to Classical physics and beyond it, which is Modern physics?

 

 

Classical physics - Wikipedia

Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories.

 

 

Modern physics - Wikipedia

Modern physics is a branch of physics that developed in the early 20th century and onward or branches greatly influenced by early 20th century physics. Notable branches of modern physics include quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 10/27/2023 at 11:50 AM, Edgarcito said:

Random stuff popping up on FB.....quantum foam, S8 tension, Hubble tension.....l'm going to submit to add more tension....lol.  Happy Friday all... lol.

 

Howdy Edgarcito, Happy Friday to you also excepting I am answering you the following Sunday

I think your quote and point above is that some of the aspects of modern physics lack logic and make little sense.

 I too have problems with modern physics, but of course I see no sense or logic at all to religion, totally different from your view.

Quantum Foam is not a bad theory. It is based upon countless observations where in the quantum physicists see on a scintillater screen, little “swirls in the background field (the Zero Point Field) that seem identical to swirls made by electrons and positrons – excepting their existence is only for  millionths of a second or shorter. They know that this field contains real particles --trillions of them every second in one cubic centimeter in the form of neutrinos, as well as EM radiation, and segments of light which they call virtual photons. So they add to it what they call virtual particles (these little swirls), supposedly electrons and positrons going in and out of existence. Even if they are only swirls in the real sense and not particles, the theory itself seems reasonable enough to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

SB tension theory, if I’m guessing your acronym correctly, is simply speculation in quantum physics related to curved spacetime. The word tension refers to contrary observations concerning the theory.  But realize that nearly all in that field of study also consider it speculation rather than well-founded theory like Quantum Foam.

Hubble Tension is real. It is related to the fact that they cannot decide how fast the universe is expanding, called the Hubble Constant.  There are two recognized methods to determine its value which differ from each other by about 10%. The related statistics of each method say that the alternative value could not be correct. This supposed expansion of space is called the Hubble constant, and the word Tension simply means a presently indiscernible contradiction between methods. 

Yes, IMO quantum physics has many contradictions within it. But the main problem IMO is that there is no consensus theory to support it – even though there have been countless theories proposed to do so.  

Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is well accepted, but there are many theorists in that field who are opposed to certain aspects of this theory. Einstein himself later contradicted Special Relativity in his theory of General Relativity when he proposed the necessary existence of an aether.

A link to his quote of 1920 can be seen in below:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.”

https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbp3t0y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

The equations of General Relativity have never been contradicted at solar system scales, even up to roughly 5,000 light-years concerning our local part of the galaxy. But our Milky Way galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across its spiral diameter. Within this scope the equations of General Relativity cannot be used to make accurate prediction because of the existence of an unknown quantity which they call dark matter, which supposedly usually has uneven distributions and its quantities and percentages.  So at the scale of galaxies, General Relativity cannot be used to make accurate predictions. The opposite is true because supposedly most of the universe cannot be directly observed because they involve dark matter and dark energy. The words “ad hoc” is used to refer to hypotheses added to theory to keep them from being disproved. Although Dark Matter has never been directly observed, it is indirectly implied and has become a major part of cosmology theory. It has been added to cosmology to keep mainstream cosmology, via General Relativity, from being disproved IMO.

Although there are certainly parts IMO of modern physics that will be replaced over time, but the theory that most contradicts religion is Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Its quintessential ingredient concerns the evolution of life, which cannot be seriously contradicted because there is a mountain of evidence to support it.

Instead, all religions of the world IMHO will gently fade away generation by generation, until maybe the only parts remaining will become parts of philosophies and perspectives, with no evidence needed for their validity, such as Pantheism, where God is defined as simply everything that exists.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

The S8 tension in cosmology | PIRSA

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

18 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Howdy Edgarcito, Happy Friday to you also excepting I am answering you the following Sunday

I think your quote and point above is that some of the aspects of modern physics lack logic and make little sense.

 I too have problems with modern physics, but of course I see no sense or logic at all to religion, totally different from your view.

Quantum Foam is not a bad theory. It is based upon countless observations where in the quantum physicists see on a scintillater screen, little “swirls in the background field (the Zero Point Field) that seem identical to swirls made by electrons and positrons – excepting their existence is only for  millionths of a second or shorter. They know that this field contains real particles --trillions of them every second in one cubic centimeter in the form of neutrinos, as well as EM radiation, and segments of light which they call virtual photons. So they add to it what they call virtual particles (these little swirls), supposedly electrons and positrons going in and out of existence. Even if they are only swirls in the real sense and not particles, the theory itself seems reasonable enough to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

SB tension theory, if I’m guessing your acronym correctly, is simply speculation in quantum physics related to curved spacetime. The word tension refers to contrary observations concerning the theory.  But realize that nearly all in that field of study also consider it speculation rather than well-founded theory like Quantum Foam.

Hubble Tension is real. It is related to the fact that they cannot decide how fast the universe is expanding, called the Hubble Constant.  There are two recognized methods to determine its value which differ from each other by about 10%. The related statistics of each method say that the alternative value could not be correct. This supposed expansion of space is called the Hubble constant, and the word Tension simply means a presently indiscernible contradiction between methods. 

Yes, IMO quantum physics has many contradictions within it. But the main problem IMO is that there is no consensus theory to support it – even though there have been countless theories proposed to do so.  

Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is well accepted, but there are many theorists in that field who are opposed to certain aspects of this theory. Einstein himself later contradicted Special Relativity in his theory of General Relativity when he proposed the necessary existence of an aether.

A link to his quote of 1920 can be seen in below:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.”

https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quote/lbp3t0y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

The equations of General Relativity have never been contradicted at solar system scales, even up to roughly 5,000 light-years concerning our local part of the galaxy. But our Milky Way galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across its spiral diameter. Within this scope the equations of General Relativity cannot be used to make accurate prediction because of the existence of an unknown quantity which they call dark matter, which supposedly usually has uneven distributions and its quantities and percentages.  So at the scale of galaxies, General Relativity cannot be used to make accurate predictions. The opposite is true because supposedly most of the universe cannot be directly observed because they involve dark matter and dark energy. The words “ad hoc” is used to refer to hypotheses added to theory to keep them from being disproved. Although Dark Matter has never been directly observed, it is indirectly implied and has become a major part of cosmology theory. It has been added to cosmology to keep mainstream cosmology, via General Relativity, from being disproved IMO.

Although there are certainly parts IMO of modern physics that will be replaced over time, but the theory that most contradicts religion is Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Its quintessential ingredient concerns the evolution of life, which cannot be seriously contradicted because there is a mountain of evidence to support it.

Instead, all religions of the world IMHO will gently fade away generation by generation, until maybe the only parts remaining will become parts of philosophies and perspectives, with no evidence needed for their validity, such as Pantheism, where God is defined as simply everything that exists.

 

 

 

Thank you very much for the effort.  Granted I am the most casual observer....so I am going to imagine out loud.  What comes to mind is the affinity or lack thereof, of the makeup of the Zero Point Field.  Doesn't matter what I'm visualizing, but I'm visualizing the "in and out of existence" as a random affinity of whatever the makeup of the field presents.  Certain particles adjoin to create the ability....but aren't always in sufficient joinery to be uniform.   ....and to add insult, given the proximity to larger systems, varies the ability.  Soup with potatoes....where the potatoes change the consistency of the soup.  Gonna call it "Ed's tension" if I might.    Thanks again.  For the record, Dos XX is not a bad choice imo as I'm remembering it kept me at a uniform tension, lol, a good tension over a greater time frame than say, Lone Star.  

[Edgarcito]

Betting the combinations derive a different value/property,, but the average is what we expect but still doesn't match critical review.  And relativity is just that, the real combinations that define reality.  

 

Certain combinations work in one direction, while others work perhaps to a lesser extent.  Kind of like spiritual gifts and sin in the same pot....lol.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.