English: Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics photograph. Français : Albert Einstein, photographie officielle du Prix Nobel de Physique 1921. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Words are servants of the fallible mortal sphere and when called upon to serve a realm of greater things
prove inadequate.

Spirit and Matter are not two distinct entities but

two forms or aspects of one single Entity or fundamental Substance.

two are inseparably combined in every atom which, itself and its forces, possess the elements of

vitality, growth and intelligence in that atom

Checklist.


What we create, we perceive. Appearance is fashioned

Signature of Albert Einstein from Princeton in 1934 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Our understanding of the scientific fundamentals of the universe is actually retreating before our very eyes. We have ignored consciousness, shoved it out of the way because there exists a dispute. Rationalism that holds that, knowledge is gained independently of sense experience and observation that focus on sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. We refer to Reality as that, which is perceived by our 5 senses. The absence of matter or void is therefore “not Reality” to us. Yet is not "nothing" as some have supposed, but “that which is like nothing known to us”. In scientific Reality, Spiritless matter can exist and likewise in religion, Spirit less matter. Yet this is just reality we know and That which is like nothing known to us. We choose that, which all our worldly experience affirms and we ignore findings that simply make no sense.
Inconsistency of Science.
According to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine, the sugar industry funded research in the 1960’s that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat,. The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. “Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola's cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not."
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory. The thing about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations. Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory should be discarded. Yet, mostly, we disregard new theories, based on other, already widely accepted. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. At its essence, and though in practice it’s messy, this is how science works. Needless to say there have been a lot of theories discarded along the way. Physicist DAVID HILBERT once said “At stake is the integrity of the scientific method, as well as the reputation of science among the general public, as it now seems.
On November 25, 1915, Albert Einstein announced his new and deeper understanding of gravity. The general theory of relativity. Ironically this was largely due to some extend of mathematical collaboration with the Physicist David Hilbert who once said “Physics is actually too hard for physicists. “There is more to life than can be explained by our science. Physicists, philosophers and other scientists should consider a new narrative for the scientific method that can deal with the scope of modern physics which, contrary to established practice need to account for the unseen or spiritual, or conscious as it is often referred to for lack of scientific terms. The Einstein Theory, whilst drawing from the idea of a separate or transcendent God, it interprets and throws light upon the idea of an imminent God and can only be interpreted in terms of an imminent God a reality which in its very nature is life and consciousness. This leaves Materialism, as a worldview, in the air.
On a lighter note, I saw a very symbolic example of this adjusted measurement today as my 11-year-old son tried to prove his upper legs were much more muscular than mine. He measured my leg by holding his two perfect hands out straight on either side of my upper leg. Moving away, after careful examination of the space between his hands, he narrowed the gap and brought his hands to his upper leg. “See dad!” he exclaimed victoriously, as the experiment “proved“ his legs were indeed wider than mine (according to his measurements). This brought a smile to my face of coarse and I will not deny him that “victory” for now. The fact remains that science, which is not a standardized unit of measure are continuously used to measure biblical or ancient truths. Yet the latter, never changes and is never used as a constant measurement for scientific experiments. I refer here particularly to the spiritual components contained in the ancient scriptures, the “nothing” the void in our physical awareness, the energy like Eistein called it or the “light” as we are .
Somehow, we seem to make progress as we now have String theory exploring the existence of other or parallel universes.
The Big Bang principle is a prime example where no explanation at all for the origins of “Everything” is sufficiently defined, if nothing but physics exist. Albert Einstein said it; “Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.” In his genius, he captured the essence of the study of this book, and simultaneously, committed the exact scientific sin that completely ignored acknowledging the spiritual. His barometer is physics and physical concepts and provides our intent to “create” as the spiritual explanation that makes this equation “balance”. He refers to Reality as that, which is perceived by our 5 senses. What he managed to do well in that statement, was to acknowledge the co-existence of the spiritual-conscious and the physical. He rightly explains the existence of the physical as a manifestation of our awareness. Yet Einstein’s inability to unite the spiritual with physics by acknowledging the existence, was hampered by the inability of science to recognize the existence of spirit in creation. In 2016, it now turns out that our beloved familiar baryonic matter—that is, everything we see, and everything that has form, plus all known energies—is reduced to just 4 percent of the entire universe, with dark matter constituting about 24 percent. The rest cannot be defined by physics.
You can't see the dark matter and dark energy — but you know it's with you because it interacts with the things you can see. It's important to understand that dark matter and dark energy are different "things," in the sense we've inferred their existence through different kinds of phenomena. Observation proves it interacts with what we can see in different ways. Dark matter was discovered decades before dark energy by looking at how galaxies rotate. It was Vera Rubin's famous work in the 1970s that showed pretty much all spiral galaxies were spinning way too fast to be accounted for by the gravitational pull of the their "luminous" matter or, what is visible through a telescope. Rubin and others reasoned there had to be a giant sphere of invisible stuff surrounding the stars in these galaxies, tugging on them and speeding up their orbits around the galaxy's center. Dark energy on the other hand, was discovered 16 years ago, when observations showed the expansion of the universe was accelerating (known since Edwin Hubble 1920) Once again, a form of invisible stuff was invoked to explain the motions of the visible stuff. In this case, dark energy was made accountable for nature's heavy foot on the cosmic gas pedal. So how do physicists and astronomers get away with claiming the existence of cosmic ghosts (dark matter and dark energy) with data, its prevalence and its stability. There are literally thousands of studies now of those rotating-too-fast galaxies out there — and they all get the same, quite noticeable result. In other words, data for the existence of dark matter is prevalent. It's not like you see the effect once in a while but then it disappears. The magnitude of the result also stays pretty consistent from one study to the next.
The same holds true for studies of dark energy. This is quite different from the many attempts, over more than a century, to get coherent, repeatable, large, signal-to-noise data on paranormal activity. Evidence for dark matter pushing around the luminous matter is needed to explain the bending of light in gravitational lenses and it's needed to understand the clustering of zillions of galaxies on the universe's largest scales. In other words, the ghostly dark matter is part of a dense web of observations and their explanations. There isn't just one reason to "believe" in dark matter. For years now, people have been looking for direct evidence of dark matter. After a whole lot of work, no one has found conclusive evidence for a dark matter particle. t's still early in the game but, at some point, if nothing is found, scientists may have to re-evaluate their "belief" in dark matter. In that case, they will have to come up with a new explanation. Is this absence of matter or void therefore “not Reality” to us? Or is it just that which is “like nothing known to us”. Yes, 4 percent of the entire universe is “reality”, and even at particle level our science lets us down as we cannot reconcile spirit at molecular level. Therefore, the statement of Nikola Tesla "There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." – seems a likely explanation for the 4percent and only a reality due to the existence of the 96percent’s energy.
Stephan Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” If this is in fact true, It should be extremely likely that all sorts of things will create itself every day, from nothing. If there are some examples of these things that keep creating itself from nothing this would provide support for such a “natural phenomenon” in our daily lives. Yet, I’m not aware of a single species or planet that created itself from out of the blue, out of nothingness, due to gravity. No dark enrgy or dark matter influence, no divine intelligent design, just random self-creation. This by implication could also mean that in the absence of gravity, things cannot be created. Why then is the universe exquisitely fine-tuned to support life? Even today, whether or not the “God hypothesis” simplifies matters remains contentious. The fact that our universe sports physical constants, such as the strength of fundamental forces, that seem oddly fine-tuned to enable life to exist, is one of the most profound puzzles that science cannot explain in any way matter or form.
The Young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older as this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old. For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism on the circumference of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, and philosophers linger. Yet, Criticism is coming ever closer to the heart of Darwin's doctrine. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin expressed their dissatisfaction with what they termed "just-so" stories in biology by pointing out how we use historic experiments based on a certain set of assumptions to arrive at the theory scientist want to prove. Evolutionary inferences often have a historic nature to them, as we see in the above example. Hypotheses regarding the underlying causes of past selection or changes in gene frequencies usually focus on single unique historical events. Besides this obvious shortcoming the evolutionary theory also produces falsifiable predictions (e.g. Williams 1973). But specific historical evolutionary hypotheses, such as “just-so” stories of why the giraffe got its long neck, or why humans have less body hair than other apes, might not be falsifiable or simple to investigate within any epistemological framework. This has not changed with the presence of molecular data in 2016. Although the presence of selection acting on genes underlying a phenotypic trait of interest does help support adaptive stories, it does not establish that selection acted directly on the specific trait of interest. It does not explain why man continued to evolve, and apes “decided” to stay apes. Unable to say what evolution has accomplished, biologists now find themselves unable to say whether evolution has in fact accomplished it. This leaves evolutionary theory in the position where it lacks the concepts needed to make sense of life complexity, adaptation, intelligent design - while simultaneously conceding that the theory does little to explain them. Yet, the theory of evolution will continue to be taught in school textbooks and play the singular role in the life of our secular culture that it has always played. There are in Darwin's scheme no biotic laws, no special creation, no divine guidance or transcendental forces, spirit or consciousness don’t exist. The theory functions simply as a description of matter in one of its modes, and living creatures are said to be something that the gods of law indifferently sanction and allow at free will. This sounds all too much like Hawkin’s explanation that things create themselves out of nothing in the presence of gravity. The theory of Darwinism is suddenly not so unique among scientific instruments, as most seem to be famous, not for what it contains, but for what it lacks. That Darwin's theory of evolution, Hawkins’s creation story and biblical accounts of creation play similar roles in the human belief is an irony appreciated by too few intellectuals. So, not everything that is proved is true and not everything that is true, can be proved, seem to be the opposing views between Science and Religion. This leads me to conclude that both points of view are in fact not scientific by definition and that scientific evidence as a barometer is not acceptable as a single instrument of drawing acceptable conclusions. So should we give up making claims about selection and adaptation in humans and other similar organisms? Yes, and no. We can certainly identify selection in the human genome and learn a tremendous amount about evolutionary processes from that. We have to, however, accept that what is currently taboo in science may provide the details we need to arrive at a proper conclusion. Even when we accept the evolution theory in its most advanced form, we are driven to acknowledge that at some developmental stage after the ape form a special miracle was necessary to introduce into primitive man's brute nature the Divine element or attributes. Genesis gives us the account of this missing link in his nature the soul added to the beast. God said, Let us make man in our own image. And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The common reading of this verse—“God breathed into man’s nostrils a breath of life”—is misleading, since neither breath nor nostrils are involved. Rather, God kindled in man a living, speaking soul. And man became a living soul.

The Earth is flat. Most scholars suggest learned men and women from the dawn of antiquity knew the Earth was round yet, there’s a popular belief that “the flat earth” was somehow a widely held “scientific” idea. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and other believed the Earth was round..

Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ - De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. In order to get the mistaken geocentric theory to work, ancient philosophers had to embellish circular planetary orbits with smaller circular motions called epicycles. Simplified- a scale model of the universe. These could account, for example, for the way the planets sometimes seem, from the perspective of the Earth, to be executing backwards loops along their path. Yet, it is often claimed that, by the 16th century, the Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of physically falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor as well as Newton tells us to prefer it, based on the scientific reasoning that the simpler one must be accepted. Really, I mean, we build a physical model of the entire universe and when the physical scale model falls apart, we change our view to make it possible to theoretically prove it? We actually tried to represent the entire universe with a homemade scale model to explain the same universe we cannot even begin to understand, and this is what we base our entire scientific hypotheseis on to explain how this all came about?
This new theory did not reach the general public until several centuries later, in the time of one of the great Hassidic masters, the Ruzhiner Rebbe. When disciples of the Holy Ruzhiner, as he is called in Chabad tradition, heard of this apparently heretical scientific discovery that had turned the world inside-out, as it were, they brought the news to their Rebbe, probably anticipating his absolute denial that such a phenomenon could ever be reconciled with true Torah teachings and that anyone who believed such a thing was a heretic. However, his reaction was very unusual. When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of “What revolves around what?” is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve God in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.
THIS REPLY IS A REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT THAT SUGGESTS THAT IN TRUTH THERE IS NO DEBATE BETWEEN TORAH AND SCIENCE; RATHER IT IS AN OPEN FIELD IN WHICH THE TORAH INFLUENCES SCIENCE’S PERSPECTIVE ON PHYSICAL REALITY
String theory—We are definitely getting warmer yet String Theory requires invoking at least eight extra dimensions, none of which have the slightest basis in human experience, nor can be experimentally verified in any way.
quantum mechanics regularly violates Bell’s inequality, yielding levels of correlation way above those possible if his conditions hold. That pitches us into a philosophical dilemma. Do we not have free will, meaning something, somehow predetermines what measurements we take? That is not anyone’s first choice. Are the properties of quantum particles not real – implying that nothing is real at all, but exists merely as a result of our perception? That’s a more popular position, but it hardly leaves us any the wiser. Or is there really an influence that travels faster than light? Cementing the Swiss reputation for precision timing, in 2008 physicist Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues at the University of Geneva did an experiment. They showed that, if reality and free will hold, the speed of transfer of quantum states between entangled photons held in two villages 18 kilometres apart was somewhere above 10 million times the speed of light. If our measurements truly do affect reality, that also opens the door to effects such as “action at a distance”–
Einstein’s dismissive phrase to describe how observing a wave function can seemingly collapse another one simultaneously on the other side of the universe.
WHILE THE COMMON CONCEPTION IS THAT ALL OF BIOLOGY IS CHEMISTRY AND ALL OF CHEMISTRY IS PHYSICS, THIS IS INCORRECT, BECAUSE “BELOW” PHYSICS AND “ABOVE” MATHEMATICS SITS THE SCIENCE OF INFORMATION.
Consciousness-
An experiment at the Max Planck Institute, Berlin, in 2008 showed that when you decide to move your hand, the decision can be seen in your brain, with an MRI scanner, before you are aware you have made a decision. The delay is around six seconds. During that time, your mind is made up but your consciousness doesn’t acknowledge the decision until your hand moves. Consciousness, the thing you think of as ‘you’ – is just a passenger inside a deterministic automaton. Your unconscious brain and your body get on with running your life, and only report back to your conscious mind to preserve a sense of free will. But it’s just as valid to say that when you make a decision, there’s always background processing going on, which the conscious mind ignores for convenience. In the same way, your eye projects an upside-down image onto your retina, but your unconscious brain turns it the right way around.
Frank Wilczek, a professor of theoretical physics, showed that the nuclei of atoms are held together by a bizarre force that gets stronger with distance. In the process, they explained why quarks – the building blocks of matter – are trapped inside protons and neutrons, and won a share in 2004’s Nobel Prize in Physics. In common usage, beauty has many subjective elements – a lot of our perception of beauty has to do with the human body and things that are emotionally resonant. But there are certain forms of beauty that we find represented in the fundamental ways the world works. In particular, these are ideas about symmetry, colour, shape, and building complicated structures from a few simple elements. His exploration of parallels between concepts from art, like symmetry and projective geometry, and those from high-energy physics are sophisticated. as Wilczek puts it, “gravitons are the avatars of general covariance”.