That’s very Zen, Karl. Almost Buddhist.

Buddhists need a way to get beyond of their mistakes as much as anybody else. I believe they have one thing clear, matter is not all their is.

The constancy of the speed of light was discovered by Einstein by assuming that the well-proven equations of Maxwell were correct, and that all motion is relative. That’s it. That’s all you need to prove that the speed of light is constant and finite, and that matter actually is energy (E=MC²).

These (and other) absolute definitions were hotly disputed discoveries of how the universe actually works, not inventions of man. They all have practical consequences that can be measured in many ways, to confirm their objective nature.

Well, you need to know some fancy math to prove them. Read A History of Mathematics to get an idea of where that comes from. Or at least read the relatively brief Wiki on the subject.

My perspective towards matters of the Spirit is that there are indeed absolutes against which no manmade concept or law will ever suceed. These spiritual absolutes are the character and Nature of God.

This is why you find my thought process ironic.

The constant relationship between a light year (distance) and a time is a derived calcualtion that man assumes can exist but may actually be something different from the assumptions. There is no reason to mandate that with light energy, distance and time must be considered absolute, it’s sure is convenient, but it might be a logical fallacy based upon man’s assumptions.

As for the roentgen although its use was allowable under the SI system, it is not itself an SI unit and continued use is “strongly discouraged” by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. A man made assessment.

The Planck length is deemed “natural” because it can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and the gravitational constant. This a fundamental smallest common factor between the relationships of these other assumed constants. The assumed nature of the constants appears elegant, but they could again all be interdependent upon the methods of their definitions and assumed constancies.

I believe science does have absolutes in regards to how man perceives them, but these are based upon human observations and assumptions which don’t necessarily have to be invariant.

See this post from last year: The Universe is not Specified to Human Scale that details how most of what we have learned that disagrees with Fundamentalist Biblical Literalism comes directly from having discovered, bit by bit, the huge range of scales of the natural universe that are beyond unenhanced human perception. None of the discoveries that modern existence depends upon were mentioned or even alluded to in the Bible (a book written by men).

Science is all about discovering how things really are, independent of the prejudices and foibles of Man. How can you define a Kelvin in terms of man? How about a light year? A Roentgen? The Planck length? The statistical calculus that relates individual behavior to mob psychology?

Okay, that last one is a distinct measure of Man. But it was not available until we were able to look outside of ourselves and see how our own behavior is at variance with how we perceive and report it.

Pride goes before a fall, or there is no sense in discussing humility.

Peoples actual view if reality is based upon what they want it to be until it is no longer reasonably possible to believe otherwise.

I still believe it is possible to learn from the historical past measures of man. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The yardstick you refer to if its based upon the average normal person will always be changing. May we all come to our senses before the mob of angry self absorbed uncivilized (but very principled) masses carry out their next scorched earth campaign.

What words did I redefine?

Clarify my logical fallacies if you would?

What goal posts did I move?

I did not imply a slippery slope, I stated it for what it is.