May you all have peace!
Just came across this article:
I realize that perhaps it's too early to say Einstein was wrong regarding his theory of E=mc 2 ... and that "nothing travels faster than light"... (nor am I even saying that - heck, I don't know)... but this article does make one wonder. We shall have to wait a bit more to see, of course, but... assuming for a second that what they NOW "think" is indeed the case, what does that mean as to what we "know"? If they currenting thinking proves to be wrong, would this new understanding be... well... "new light" (i.e., new understanding), per se? If it is true, what does that say about other things we think we "know"... are SO sure of... but perhaps don't/aren't?
I also realize that knowledge of the physical world is progressive; however, again, it seems to ME that what is "true" really is more about what [we think] we know at a given time... versus what really IS true (even though WE don't know it, yet).
I guess I just get a little... ummmmm... "itchy"... when I hear proponents of science declaring, without exception and unequivocally, that something is absolutely what they think it is. Like religion, the history of science's understanding of the physical world seems to be progressive... based on CURRENT knowledge... and current means/tools for obtaining knowledge. As it progresses, both understanding and knowledge change. Not that that's a bad thing... but should ones REALLY say "There is NO... this" or "It IS like that..." or "It just cannot be because... NOTHING travels faster than...", etc.
Not trying to provoke, truly. Don't wanna get into a on-running discussion/debate about physics, etc. Just thought the article and its insinuation was interesting. It's speculative at this point, yes, which is another thing that sometimes confuses me... in light of what some believe about religion (and its "progressive" understanding of "truth"). Personally, while I do have more "faith" in science than in religion... BECAUSE science can at least show HOW they believe the things they currently do (while religion, particularly "christianity") often goes against what they say they believe... or the writings they say they follow, etc., and often cannot even give a reasonable "why"... they really don't SOUND that different... in the way they present what they "know"... to ME.
It's just perplexing to me... how folks define what we "know" to be "truth"... without the caveat that it's really limited... to what we UNDERSTAND... NOW.
Anyway, just something on my mind. Again, no provocation... and no invitation to debate/discuss physics, evolution, religion, etc. Just some things on my mind... why certain things "confuse" ME. You may not agree, they may not confuse YOU... and that's entirely okay. But I thought the article interesting... and perhaps thought-provoking for someone other than myself. My comments, therefore, are as to what we believe to be TRUE... versus what may actually BE... true.
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,