They noticed relatively early that the shift in the perihelion of Mercury was off at a rate of 43 seconds per century! By the early twentieth century physicists found that only half of that could be accounted for by special relativity.

The mystics interpret that to mean that Newton was "wrong" because his laws are not infinitely accurate, whatever that is supposed to mean.

But Einstein had to do more than "apply" tensor calculus. He had to formulate new more general field equations, of which Newton's law of gravitation was shown to be a low order approximation. So far Einstein's equations have been found to be as accurate as can be measured, though in very few kinds of measurements.

The agnosticism sophistry is being promoted here by religionists like Blarman as a wedge to try to get others to take them seriously. It's all fundamentally wrong, along with their misrepresentations of science and misuse of scientific terminology, neither of which they have any understanding.

The Newtonian gravitational law was so accurate that it found discrepancies in the perihelion shift of the planet Mercury. To solve that problem, Einstein apply tensor mathematics to give a more exact result.
There sure seems to be a large agnostic viewpoint about objective reality from some in this thread.

The mas of the Universe is difficult to determine since it is about 165 billion light years across and half of it cannot even be detected by gravitational effects due to the finite speed of light and that of gravitational fields. As for the matter not being observed, it must be inferred from the expansion of the Universe from a big bang kind of expansion. Now religious persons get around that by their desire to have absolute knowledge apparently given though faith. Science has no such absolute as it proceeds by trying to get better and better measurements of objective reality with somewhat a questioning about how valid the measurements are. It is somewhat an asymptotic approach toward physical truth. If there is anything that can be said about unknowable it is that the undetectable part of the universe is only knowable through inference from known physical laws.

It does not stand up to many physical laws.

The only other means of sensing reality is with human made instrumentation which are then sensed by the five senses. From time to time a sense will be found to have some other thing that it senses which had not be recognized before, such a the sense of taste to which umami, "a category of taste in food (besides sweet, sour, salt, and bitter), corresponding to the flavor of glutamates, especially monosodium glutamate" is fairly well recognized. But being agnostic about senses is not rational and will change should actual new means of sensing be discovered just as a new fifth force has not been found and cannot be accepted until testable evidence is discovered.

Please write in sentences. You do not appear to understand the role of electromagnetism in physics and that it is not philosophical metaphysics.

In reference to the clowns who 'downvoted' this, evidently believing physics is "wrong": Science consists of expanding knowledge, pertaining to what is known to have been discovered. It is not a succession of exploded fallacies, each claiming omniscience. It consists of objective concepts and principles understood in context, not discoveries of alleged intrinsic ideas, which is mysticism.

"Mechanistic" cause

Atheism does not mean what he claimed it does. It properly rejects theism as arbitrary, not as a premise to deny in advance with a groundless "belief" in "non-belief".

Atheism is not a belief or commitment to anything, it refers to a rejection of something in particular -- theism, not what one does accept as true. It includes those who philosophically accept all kinds of different positions, not all of which are rational, and some may even be atheists for the wrong reasons.

There are five sense organs, but physical affects throughout the body from all kinds of electromagnetic radiation. It's not a means of sensing "divine force" or anything supernatural, somehow beyond the five senses through which we perceive reality as the source of knowledge. The notion of a "sixth sense" has traditionally meant the religionists' feelings claimed to have a source of revelation.

there is "knowledge and certainty" and there is "faith and ignorance"...there is no inbetween...

He is, but don't assume that he knows he is playing word games. Those characteristically employing mysticism and rationalism in their thinking often don't know the difference between objective thought and word games. Don't assume that they know what proper thinking is.

Existence is everything that is. Etymology of words from ancient languages is irrelevant to the valid concept.

The role of electromagnetism is a topic of physics, not metaphysics. No science has established that it "governs everything" or is the "cause" for anything to exist. There are electromagnetic aspects of matter. Electromagnetism causing anything to "appear" out of nothing makes no sense. It is New Age nonsense, not physics or rational philosophy.

Causation is the law of identity applied to action, not a "highest reality". Things do what they do in accordance with what they are. There is only one reality: everything that exists. There are no alternate realities outside of what is, let alone a hierarchy with a "highest reality".

The post by mshupe you seem to be referring to didn't say anything about a "causation to existence". Causation is within existence, something causing something else. Causation requires existence to operate. The notion of something causing existence is incoherent, as is anything said to be outside of existence to do anything.

The notion of a "cause of existence" is self contradictory. A cause of anything must exist. There is nothing outside of existence to be a cause and existence as such cannot be caused.

Yes, the word is pathos, meaning a deep or moving feeling. Thanks for the recommendation! I think it is healthy to be able to laugh at one's self from time to time. Laughter is good medicine!

What do I think of the assertion:
"Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against."
I will sit this one out.

But, I will mention to blarman, who reads Vonnegut, that I have just finished The Sirens of Titan. blarman may or may not like the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which is good for a laugh. I mention the book because the ending is so sentimental and sad. Vonnegut uses his plain and raw language to tell a deeply moving story, I think the word is pathos.
It reminds me of the question above, what would you do if you met him just before dying.

Science confirms a "sixth sense" if you consider magnetic field detection as that previously undiscovered ability. I don't think that any of the standard accepted senses have the ability to detect magnetic fields, unless you can propose how.

"Mechanistic" cause, that is.

"Always the excuse of someone who can't debunk the actual statement - resort to ad hominem."
Well, this would describe would you did in your previous post when you suggested I was using a, "false definition." Neither of us have engaged in ad hominem, but you ARE playing word games, as you well know.

Look, you seem to be simply dismissing the basic, self evident facts, that are being explained to you, engaging in arbitrary assertions and then making a lot of projections.

You can't do that and then claim others are not interested in "honest conversation."

You're just projecting.

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word exsistere meaning "to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be", but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex- being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the causative of the verb stare, meaning "to stand").[5] In a technical sense, this refers to standing out of both being and becoming, thus having the qualities of both.[6]

"to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be" and "To Stand, To Stand Out", infers causation.

In order for "Anything" to exist, in this dimension, (if you like), in the universe, or the Cosmo, their must be Magnetism and electricity. Magnetism and Electricity governs everything in what we know, see and experience in existence; that is the cause for anything to "appear, to arise, to become or to be.

To believe that something is true is not a matter of semantics. The question is how one knows. That is not resolved by analytic philosophy and "semantics".

"Knee jerk reaction" adjusting "constants" does not characterize mathematicians.

There is rarely something not right "in the math". "The math" is how physical laws are formulated with how quantities are related and solved for. New phenomena require new mathematical formulations of new laws, not correcting erroneous mathematics. Discovery of new physics can be aided by looking mathematically at observed discrepancies and looking for new kinds of entities that may account for it. The discovery of the planet Neptune is a simpler example of what lrshultis is talking about. Other new physics requires more fundamental additions.

Scientists are still taught Newtonian physics because it is correct. It doesn't preclude the later discoveries expanding on it.

The process you describe is the correct approach, but there is some bad rationalism with arbitrary mathematical "constructs".

Blarman's illogical floating abstractions, arbitrary assertions, and contradictions in his circular arguments trying to rationalize taking him seriously are in fact "word games". That is direct observation of what he writes in his posts, not "ad hominem".

Peter did not "claim to know" what Blarman "knows". He rejected Blarman's invalid reasoning and invalid concepts.

Blarman telling us he could "cast pearls" is another contradiction in terms, best taken as a joke.

There are five senses and no evidence of a 'sixth sense' warranting faith. There is no evidence of "divine force". Scientific discovery does not include mysticism.