Einstein discovered that you need to change ‘geometry’ to ‘gravity’ to make sense out of a true situation/to make true sense of a situation.
So he centralized all geometrical equations around a principle of gravity (and light and all each others direct derivatives) and this left us without a fixed system of axes.
Tragically this coincides with nit know what the hell we are doing here anyway.
We can not find a geometrical frame of reference to make universal relations possible, not even sort of comfortable commonly held ones, because obviously there is objectively none to be found. I am curious how far existentialism has advance in the mind now - a solid bitter basis of it is required, I think, to understand - namely positively affirm as fact, rather than the statement of a loathed institution - the Earth as the ground of and to all further equation.
So, where to begin?
You begin with the formation of the need (the rest is pretty much already done).
Now in layman’s terms please.
When given a choice, people believe whatever they prefer to be truth. Only when they sense a deep need to forget what they prefer and get real, do they dismiss their preference of truth for real truth.
Real truth will only be known to those who feel the need to divorce themselves from their desired truth. Until they feel that need, there is no end to the speculation, doubt, confusion, skepticism, and futility.
Thus one begins by creating the feeling of that need. The actual truth then slowly begins to be accepted.
Once the need is found, standard-setting and impedance matching.
People, the “masses”, are most guided by what they feel, regardless of its possible fallacy and danger.
Yes, JSS! Emotions rule all roosts. I find living in the land of denial that these emotions are portended as fiction is mind-blowing. Not many facts exist, this is one of the few. Deny emotions and you deny your intelligence. When you’re right, you’re right JSS! 
Science tries to perform surgery to cut out the aspects it cannot easily identify rather than work with motivation when dealing with human beings.
Science accepts it has limitations and works within them
Anything beyond this is not relevant from its perspective
Science dismisses its challenges.
There are only a handful of scientists, who induce and discover things - “Eureka!”. The rest do the opposite, namely deduce.
What the universities do is not science, but processing science bureaucratically.
Science is like philosophy, it is in fact virtually the same. It sees true relation.
Then, millions of nerds try to make money off of that relation, and thereby totally pervert its meaning.
I’d say MM is right. What we’re used to calling science does aggressively disregard its challenges. But I dispute that that is what science really is, as the only common thing each single important scientist has said is that wonder is the root of all discovery. They leave no question about this, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Archimedes - Wonder is the only state of valuing that approaches objectivity. It is an active openness - an open sharpness - perfectly receptive and perfectly discerning at once. What a boy trains when he lies on his back under a starry sky.
The rest is Ontological Tyranny.
"The question is not: “are scientific laws objectively consistent with reality?” but: “with which reality are scientific laws consistent?”
As pointed out by Moreno, there are realities which rely on and support very different laws, such as the consciousness of plants. That such consciousness is not an absurd fiction but rather a necessity becomes clear when one understands all acts of life as acts of valuing, which axiom to a science independent from what we call “natural science”.
Any science can point us in a direction that is valid given a certain assumption of how things can be known (the type of things we want to know are “hard facts”), but is not thereby the only valid direction in which working, “true” science may be gathered. From this follows that the claim to “the real truth” held by scientists ultimately holds no more validity than the psychotic holding to the truth of his hallucination, using it as a basis for further identification of relations between experiences.
Scientific truth is thoroughly subjective, culturally determined, and highlight only certain aspects of reality, which it then labels as “the true world”. A logical non-sequitur, but no matter, it results in power, even if this power turns out to be of a deeply problematic nature.
It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted. People think that the scientific commitment to not value is itself value-neutral. But this is not the case - it is the imposition of a specific value-system on life, and the subsequent approach of life as if it could not exist without being understood in terms of that system. “Naturally there are no true values, our values tell us this”."
The beginning of the new science must be
What do we want it to prove?
To do away with:
What is easiest to prove?
What do we need it to prove? I know…no fun.
Pick a new name for this new venture for crying out loud.
Purpose
JSS,
That was not a new word.
checks watch. taps foot.
I just knew that I would have to explain it to SOMEone…
“We” NEED “it” (whatever it might be) to prove to US, the Purpose of our lives.
… whether you agree or not.
Clever. Intended?