How did the Universe get here?

[edthecynic]

From what we do know there is zero evidence of any "creator".

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

And according to Newton there is such a thing as a body at rest. Einstein said there is no such thing as a body at rest, everything is always being acted upon by outside forces. He called it "Relativity." Ever hear of it? In his general theory of relativity of 1916, he showed that the mass of the Universe shapes and curves space and time. All bodies, even stationary ones, are always in motion through spacetime, following paths of 'least action'.

 

[Boss]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

 

[edthecynic]

However the matter and energy that comprises the Universe has always existed and will always exist.

Hmm... Immortality! Sounds familiar!

Yeah, sounds like the Law of Conservation of matter and energy.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess that is where faith comes in, Boss.
I would want more people to have faith in you, to invest in your good points not
judge you for your faults and weaker areas instead of your stronger ones.

And same with others. Why not set up a study and see who is interested?
As it gets going, maybe they will catch on that this is the closest we can get
to proving the existence of God and demonstrating the spiritual process
in the Bible can be fulfilled.

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] can you really blame their skepticism if they have never seen spiritual healing or forgiveness totally transform someone else, much less their own thinking.
And if they were created to be like this, to push for proof before believing,
how is that a bad thing? why not use it for good?

I am ready to work with you and follow your lead.
since you are familiar with Peck's books, he left behind a foundation we could apply to for grant support to set up studies to follow up on his book urging research and development on spiritual healing by deliverance and exorcism.

of course there will be skeptics, but many more wiling to move on this.
I have friends at a church who liked the challenge of documenting stats to prove a pattern by correlation.

Dear [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I couldn't find the post where you insisted it was necessary to prove energy was not spiritual. I think this is an issue of terminology.

I find nothing wrong with substituting secular terms like "collective truth"
or "collective responsibility" in place of "spirituality" because it refers to similar levels.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I appreciate where you're coming from and applaud your efforts to unite people for the greater common good. I also agree this has a LOT to do with terminology. You have people here who refuse to acknowledge immortal spiritual nature (God) but readily accept immortal energy and gravity. They laugh and ridicule the idea of "something that can't be proven" while believing in things that simply can't be proven. They will attempt to argue that science can't prove things, yet it has somehow proven God doesn't exist. They jump back and forth from this concept of science exploring possibility to science determining facts, as if to say, science doesn't need to prove anything as long as it proves God doesn't exist. It's actually a perverted assault on science and should be rejected for the fanaticism it is.

Everybody wants to say "you can't prove spiritual God exists!" But maybe you can? Maybe we already have and we just didn't know it? Maybe God is gravity and energy, which are immortal? Maybe we CAN quantify spiritual nature? I pose these questions to them in order to make this point, not because I demand an answer. I know they don't have one.

Where you and I differ is on our understanding of these people. You still think they can be reasoned with, that you can reach out to them and find common ground. I'm telling you, it's a waste of your time. They are not interested in finding common ground with anyone. They will literally lie to your face and admit that "science can't prove or disprove God" then turn around in the next paragraph and say "but science has evidence God doesn't exist!" They want to have the cake and eat it too. They want you and I to be pinned down by the inability to prove God with science, while they parade around using science as proof against God. I don't put up with their nonsense. If I thought for one second they had a rational bone in their body about this, I'd be on board with your approach. I don't think they are rational. I think they are on a mission and they'll do anything to make that happen.

 

[dnsmith35]

In special relativity, needed for accuracy when large energy transfers between systems is involved, the difference between thermodynamically closed and isolated systems becomes important, since conservation of mass is strictly and perfectly upheld only for so-called isolated systems, i.e. those completely isolated from all exchanges with the environment. In this circumstance, the mass-energy equivalence theorem states that mass conservation is equivalent to total energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. By contrast, for a thermodynamically closed system (i.e., one which is closed to exchanges of matter, but open to exchanges of non-material energy, such as heat and work, with the surroundings) mass is (usually) only approximately conserved. The input or output of non-material energy must change the mass of the system in relativity theory, although the change is usually small, since relatively large amounts of such energy (by comparison with ordinary experience) carry only a small amount of mass (again by ordinary standards of measurement).

In special relativity, mass is not converted to energy, since mass and energy cannot be destroyed, and energy in all of its forms always retains its equivalent amount of mass throughout any transformation to a different type of energy within a system (or translocation into or out of a system). Certain types of matter (a different concept) may be created or destroyed, but in all of these processes, the energy and mass associated with such matter remains unchanged in quantity (although type of energy associated with the matter may change form).

In general relativity, mass (and energy) conservation in expanding volumes of space is a complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity and in Minkowski space.

 

[edthecynic]

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

And it couldn't be something non-physical because from nothing no thing comes, ex nihilo nihil fit.

 

[edthecynic]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

Prove nothing existed first.

 

[itfitzme]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

So you are sticking to your fantacy, I see.

I was wondering, how you propose this "spiritual" is detected and measured?

What is the force that it uses to interact other objects and fields?

How does it manifest itself?

What does it look like? Sound like?

Is it liquid? A solid? Some sort of force field?

Why has it not been detected in any of the work in particle physics, like the higgs and other particles have?

Where exactly is it?

How does it interact with mass? Gravity? Electromagnetic fields?

What sort of instrumentation will detect it? What are the CGS units of measure?

Where did it come from?

How come no one but you know about it?

 

[itfitzme]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

I see, so "spiritual"*is just another name you are giving the elecromagnetic particles and gravity.

So why not just use the terminology that everyone else uses?

 

[edthecynic]

Dear @Boss I couldn't find the post where you insisted it was necessary to prove energy was not spiritual. I think this is an issue of terminology.

I find nothing wrong with substituting secular terms like "collective truth"
or "collective responsibility" in place of "spirituality" because it refers to similar levels.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I appreciate where you're coming from and applaud your efforts to unite people for the greater common good. I also agree this has a LOT to do with terminology. You have people here who refuse to acknowledge immortal spiritual nature (God) but readily accept immortal energy and gravity. They laugh and ridicule the idea of "something that can't be proven" while believing in things that simply can't be proven. They will attempt to argue that science can't prove things, yet it has somehow proven God doesn't exist. They jump back and forth from this concept of science exploring possibility to science determining facts, as if to say, science doesn't need to prove anything as long as it proves God doesn't exist. It's actually a perverted assault on science and should be rejected for the fanaticism it is.

Everybody wants to say "you can't prove spiritual God exists!" But maybe you can? Maybe we already have and we just didn't know it? Maybe God is gravity and energy, which are immortal? Maybe we CAN quantify spiritual nature? I pose these questions to them in order to make this point, not because I demand an answer. I know they don't have one.

Where you and I differ is on our understanding of these people. You still think they can be reasoned with, that you can reach out to them and find common ground. I'm telling you, it's a waste of your time. They are not interested in finding common ground with anyone. They will literally lie to your face and admit that "science can't prove or disprove God" then turn around in the next paragraph and say "but science has evidence God doesn't exist!" They want to have the cake and eat it too. They want you and I to be pinned down by the inability to prove God with science, while they parade around using science as proof against God. I don't put up with their nonsense. If I thought for one second they had a rational bone in their body about this, I'd be on board with your approach. I don't think they are rational. I think they are on a mission and they'll do anything to make that happen.

Whenever Boss states the position of others, he always misstates it to create a Straw Man he can argue against.

Science does not argue that it has proven that God does not exist, the closest they have come is the assertion that it is not NECESSARY for a God or two or three to exist.

 

[edthecynic]

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

I see, so "spiritual"*is just another name you are giving the elecromagnetic particles and gravity.

So why not just use the terminology that everyone else uses?

Because he has already argued that the spiritual is not physical and any exception to this is irrational.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hubris is thinkng you know more than 400+ years of hard core science.

I already gave you an example of 2,000+ years of belief in Aristotle's "Gravity and Levity" not being proof that Newton's Laws of Motion didn't exist.

See, but there in is the point. Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

If you lose your car keys and spend two hours ripping your bedroom apart to no avail, you have proven that your car keys are not in your room. And if two hours isn't, 400 + years by every single genius born to mankind is absolutely proof they are not.

Dear [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. what is preventing us from agreeing on Goedel's assertion that God can never be known or proven by man, only truth can be known by God
Am I not explaining this clearly?
That despite any proofs we could still be wrong and not know
or the truth (as we thought we knew it) could change

can you pls explain why this isn't clear and being agreed upon

2. I see similar arguments being made
a. if God isn't proven to exist, that doesn't mean God does exist
AGREED
b. if energy is not proven to be NOT spiritual, that doesn't mean it is spiritual
AGREED
those I agree with

why isn't this agreed upon when the terms are switched around:
c. if energy isn't proven to be spiritual, that doesn't mean it is spiritual
AGREED
d. if God is not proven to NOT exist, that does not mean God exists
AGREED

shouldn't we all agree with each other logically, since we are making similar arguments
but just in different contexts substituting different things to be proven ?

3. I gave an example that it took well over 400 years
before humanity proved microbes exist

so how can going over 400 years without proving something
be assumed as proof that thing does not exist

proof of microbes came along after that.
so these do exist even though they weren't proven for centuries

4. I believe we can prove that people can reach a consensus
agreement on the meaning of God and Jesus and do not need to prove these things exist

this requires organizing all people in groups over the internet to form a consensus

so this development cannot even take place until after the internet is created
and people agree to use it for this purpose

are you going to say this is an impossible event
because it has not happened in the past 400 years

what if like the microbes that required microscopes
we didn't have the technology to prove these things back then

but we develop them later, what if it takes longer than 400 years
so what

God can be known to man if God chooses to make Himself known.

What makes "God" an unprovable subject in the current here and now is that, ass-u-me-ing God is, He is choosing to be silent and coy in modern times.



Why He would go to such great lengths to show Himself in ancient times, like to the Egyptians during the days of Moses for example, while remaining so silent and impotent since the invention of the camera is a bit of a mystery.... probably worthy of its own thread.

 

[MaryL]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

So, let's look at this question differently. Where did GOD come from, if you are theist? Does God enjoy teasing mortals with the inevitable? Isn't that a borderline sociopathic condition, like torturing little animals and seeing what they do in response? Is this what GOD comes down to?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course, the next logical conclusion is that any truth can be known by man if only God would allow it to be known.

Even the unprovable subjects like origins and afterlife.


The next logical step is to say that God did reveal the truth behind those subjects in His Bible.

Afterlife being impossible to research leaves origins to study and see if God knows what He's talking about.

Based on the evidence we can see, hear, feel, touch and study, my average opinion on the matter is that the origin stories in The Bible are bullshit. Thus far at least, God seems little interested in proving me wrong in my opinions.



Does the apparent absence of God in recent history prove there is no God? To some, yes... to others no.

Back to square one: Opinions of the evidence.

What is YOUR opinion, based on the evidence that you can see, fee, touch, and study.

​

 

[emilynghiem]

1. God can be known to man if God chooses to make Himself known.

2. What makes "God" an unprovable subject in the current here and now is that, ass-u-me-ing God is, He is choosing to be silent and coy in modern times.

3. Why He would go to such great lengths to show Himself in ancient times, like to the Egyptians during the days of Moses for example, while remaining so silent and impotent since the invention of the camera is a bit of a mystery.... probably worthy of its own thread.

Hi [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] while other people talk a bit past my paygrade, I will start with your points that seem more on the level I am used to sharing on.

1. Being known/understood/proven to some people is not the same as being universally established by agreement globally, which is the level I believe we can have now, thanks to the internet, more people educated and literate in their respective fields of study and history, and the ability of people to mediate between cross cultural groups and form a working consensus.

2. what I find blocks people from assimilating our knowledge and parts of the truth, is division and especially unforgiveness that not only skews judgment and perception, but creates social and physical barriers between people; and thus prevents this realization of universal truth and understanding. it is our own fear, and unforgiveness, while we are preparing but still not ready. like the denial/numbness or anger phases of grief, where we cannot be full reasoned with, but each have our "issues" to resolve first.

as more people become ready, we open up to "receive" greater understanding by sharing with others, especially those most opposed, most feared, most hated. we block ourselves, but that is part of the process. as said in Buddhism, the lotus cannot be forced open but must gradually open on its own one petal at a time. so we cannot see the full garden blooming while there are stages of growth that cannot be rushed or forced.

3. what makes you think the Egyptians didn't go through the same politics with religion and who was closer to God, and who was lost or unworthy as a slave. aren't there mystics and prophets in every religion and stage or culture.

when I see the diversity we have today and the number of people who are open to spiritual understanding, I see that it is greater than ever before. the probelm is with more information and openness there is also more garbage that blocks our view. so again we can block ourselves if we only see the negative and don't see all the positive spirituality and growth going on. I see acceleration and so many groups and individuals doing amazing outreach on high spiritual levels. so it is happening but not all under one identity or religion so it is spread out. when these different groups all connect up as one network, then you will see one huge umbrella or tree of all the other subgroups independent yet joined in spirit. the bahai call this the oneness of humanity. so it is there. and yes many people already see it and live it everyday as you imagine the Egyptians did. I'm sure they had a lot of the same things going on that we have today. our advantage today is we can document and compile all these histories and cultures and amass the knowledge together. so we can do even more than all the other cultures could do before.

thanks Joe and I hope we can do the same with all the genius level knowledge and experts we have among us here even on this board. if we can assimilate all that, so can teh world.

 

[emilynghiem]

emily, in some cases I would say that yes, we can certainly skip the 'why' or even the 'how' of things and agree that some things are good and should be promoted. Unfortunately, those things seem to be few and far between. Just look at the political discussions on this board; even the smallest things seem to find extreme opposition between people. It is often very hard to find things that people can agree on.

Hi [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION] and thanks for joining in. I hope you can help bring out the better sides and better points/information from each person, and tone down the clashes that will happen with so many brilliant conscientious minds sharpening like knives against each other.

I know some issues are people marking territory and establishing rank in a pecking order.

Some issues are to learn forgiveness and drop mutually.

Others, yes, are supposed to be worked on no matter how big or small because they mean something to someone and that can't be dropped.

It's okay for the few "gems" to be few and far. that is what makes them so precious and why they stand out above the rest.
the few places we actually agree on may be the whole key. like the few words in the most treasured Amendments vs. the miles and miles of verbiage in laws we disagree on.
maybe we should stick to agreement and we'd have less laws and less bureaucracy, less religious proselytizing. sometimes less is more!

A friend of mine told me a very wise parable. she saw people as coals and rough rocks that were being cut into diamonds. we all know there is more rock than diamond. and how hard those rocks are to cut. so we cut each other down, trying to get to the diamond.

the cuts are severe, and the closer we get to the end they require greater precision.
but in the end the tiny percentage that is left is worth much more than all that was cut.
it shines and is worth all the process to get there. and that is how a lot of the process is here, online, all the arguing and nonsense on the internet.

out of all this muck some fine shiny diamonds are going to surface and shine.
so we look for those diamonds those gems, that are priceless next to the worthless scrap left behind in the process.
and yes, it is only a tiny % but that is what we should focus on anyway. not the other nonsense in the way.

the other thing I have found is the harder the process is to cut through the [coal] and get to the diamond, the more precious the gem that we find, and the more we treasure that relationship with that difficult person or process we struggled so hard to break through.

the more pain the more gain
and it gets easier as we go, it may start out harder to see the diamond, but as we learn to discern, we get more help and the process escalates and moves faster and easier.

thank you and please post any key or common points you think would make good focus

 

[Boss]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

So, let's look at this question differently. Where did GOD come from, if you are theist? Does God enjoy teasing mortals with the inevitable? Isn't that a borderline sociopathic condition, like torturing little animals and seeing what they do in response? Is this what GOD comes down to?

And the question still remains on the table... Where did energy and gravity come from? If they are immortal and always existed, so is God. If they don't need creating, same for God. Does energy and gravity enjoy teasing mortals?

So... no sociopathic condition, except for those who believe some things can be immortal and other things can't because that's totally silly.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dear @Boss I couldn't find the post where you insisted it was necessary to prove energy was not spiritual. I think this is an issue of terminology.

I find nothing wrong with substituting secular terms like "collective truth"
or "collective responsibility" in place of "spirituality" because it refers to similar levels.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I appreciate where you're coming from and applaud your efforts to unite people for the greater common good. I also agree this has a LOT to do with terminology. You have people here who refuse to acknowledge immortal spiritual nature (God) but readily accept immortal energy and gravity. They laugh and ridicule the idea of "something that can't be proven" while believing in things that simply can't be proven. They will attempt to argue that science can't prove things, yet it has somehow proven God doesn't exist. They jump back and forth from this concept of science exploring possibility to science determining facts, as if to say, science doesn't need to prove anything as long as it proves God doesn't exist. It's actually a perverted assault on science and should be rejected for the fanaticism it is.

Everybody wants to say "you can't prove spiritual God exists!" But maybe you can? Maybe we already have and we just didn't know it? Maybe God is gravity and energy, which are immortal? Maybe we CAN quantify spiritual nature? I pose these questions to them in order to make this point, not because I demand an answer. I know they don't have one.

Where you and I differ is on our understanding of these people. You still think they can be reasoned with, that you can reach out to them and find common ground. I'm telling you, it's a waste of your time. They are not interested in finding common ground with anyone. They will literally lie to your face and admit that "science can't prove or disprove God" then turn around in the next paragraph and say "but science has evidence God doesn't exist!" They want to have the cake and eat it too. They want you and I to be pinned down by the inability to prove God with science, while they parade around using science as proof against God. I don't put up with their nonsense. If I thought for one second they had a rational bone in their body about this, I'd be on board with your approach. I don't think they are rational. I think they are on a mission and they'll do anything to make that happen.

There is evidence that God does not exist. Especially for those who're looking for it.

There is evidence that God does exist. Especially for those who're looking for it.


All anyone can claim with regards to origins, after-life and God is an opinion of what they believe the evidence is telling them, and until God Himself weighs in on the subject, those opinions are worthless in the quest for proof.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. God can be known to man if God chooses to make Himself known.

2. What makes "God" an unprovable subject in the current here and now is that, ass-u-me-ing God is, He is choosing to be silent and coy in modern times.

3. Why He would go to such great lengths to show Himself in ancient times, like to the Egyptians during the days of Moses for example, while remaining so silent and impotent since the invention of the camera is a bit of a mystery.... probably worthy of its own thread.

Hi [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] while other people talk a bit past my paygrade, I will start with your points that seem more on the level I am used to sharing on.

1. Being known/understood/proven to some people is not the same as being universally established by agreement globally, which is the level I believe we can have now, thanks to the internet, more people educated and literate in their respective fields of study and history, and the ability of people to mediate between cross cultural groups and form a working consensus.

2. what I find blocks people from assimilating our knowledge and parts of the truth, is division and especially unforgiveness that not only skews judgment and perception, but creates social and physical barriers between people; and thus prevents this realization of universal truth and understanding. it is our own fear, and unforgiveness, while we are preparing but still not ready. like the denial/numbness or anger phases of grief, where we cannot be full reasoned with, but each have our "issues" to resolve first.

as more people become ready, we open up to "receive" greater understanding by sharing with others, especially those most opposed, most feared, most hated. we block ourselves, but that is part of the process. as said in Buddhism, the lotus cannot be forced open but must gradually open on its own one petal at a time. so we cannot see the full garden blooming while there are stages of growth that cannot be rushed or forced.

3. what makes you think the Egyptians didn't go through the same politics with religion and who was closer to God, and who was lost or unworthy as a slave. aren't there mystics and prophets in every religion and stage or culture.

when I see the diversity we have today and the number of people who are open to spiritual understanding, I see that it is greater than ever before. the probelm is with more information and openness there is also more garbage that blocks our view. so again we can block ourselves if we only see the negative and don't see all the positive spirituality and growth going on. I see acceleration and so many groups and individuals doing amazing outreach on high spiritual levels. so it is happening but not all under one identity or religion so it is spread out. when these different groups all connect up as one network, then you will see one huge umbrella or tree of all the other subgroups independent yet joined in spirit. the bahai call this the oneness of humanity. so it is there. and yes many people already see it and live it everyday as you imagine the Egyptians did. I'm sure they had a lot of the same things going on that we have today. our advantage today is we can document and compile all these histories and cultures and amass the knowledge together. so we can do even more than all the other cultures could do before.

thanks Joe and I hope we can do the same with all the genius level knowledge and experts we have among us here even on this board. if we can assimilate all that, so can teh world.

Even universal agreement (or disagreement) is not proof of anything, sans maybe a popularity contest.

It's not 'unforgivness' or any other human frailty - it's disagreement. See above ^

I am quite sure (in my own opinion ) that the Egyptians and every other culture experienced by humans has had this same discussion and they all reached the same conclusion - unprovable subject REQUIRE faith. It's the only value that faith has in this world.

 

[emilynghiem]

And according to Newton there is such a thing as a body at rest. Einstein said there is no such thing as a body at rest, everything is always being acted upon by outside forces. He called it "Relativity." Ever hear of it? In his general theory of relativity of 1916, he showed that the mass of the Universe shapes and curves space and time. All bodies, even stationary ones, are always in motion through spacetime, following paths of 'least action'.

Hi [MENTION=13101]edthecynic[/MENTION]
when MarilynVosSavant was asked about the possibility of anything in the universe standing still, I think her answer was: aside from a cat sitting in a window, no.

I interpret relativity very relatively.

If this theory or law is good enough to explain it to you, I believe what is true for you from your perspective and accept that as a parameter in your frame of reference.

If someone else questions it, doesn't understand or need it, or believes otherwise, I start from their frame of reference when working with that person.

1. we can either stick to points that avoid conflicts between our systems
2. or if the point IS to address and resolve THOSE points then we put it in perspective:
3. usually if person A has a point to correct in system B, then person B has an equal point to correct in system A. so it is an even interaction.

this is like the idea of equal and opposite reaction

if both people can give and take and see the other person is equally stretching and correcting faults also, then the exchange can go through in tandem

if both people resist change and keep pushing their point without accepting the other
the two can stay stuck

sometimes to get the process resolved, it requires identifying the equal points so nobody thinks the other person is the bigger idiot or egoist who won't or can't change

the way the process is interconnected, I usually find equal points of tradeoff

it is easier to work one on one and find these between two people who trust each other

when you add more people it is more challenging like a rubik's cube to find the squares and line them up, trading places to get all the ducks in a line.