From God's point of view it is clear. God's will surely faster than the speed of light.

Then, the problem. how to look at this issue from an axiomatic point of view (absolutely) which certainly does not contradict scientifically at any time and also certainly does not conflict with the principle of God's truth.

So what is the format of the rebuttal? So that the disclosure (rebuttal) is undeniable.

What is the format of the objection and what point of view is involved in affirming the absolutes regarding this issue ❓

This needs to be emphasized because this (for those who are critical) can be a problem. Atheists or other short minded people can twist this for the sake of the absurd (intentionally absurd)

It is possible that developments regarding this issue can be twisted as "the existence of God" or even "the absence of God" which is supported by science. Well once again a complicated punch, like the "big bang" issue is not true. And other issues that are abused

The fundamental question regarding the issue of "is there a speed beyond the speed of light?" is ...

Technically speaking, "is there any speed which proceeds without any resistance and greater than the speed of light which is assumed to also proceed unimpeded "

So basically... , how much does the absence of any other obstacle exceed the non-impediment of traveling at the speed of light

So what does this have to do with Einstein's phrase "God doesn't play dice"?

Einstein thought that if there was a speed exceeding the speed of light, it would be impossible. If the impossibility turns out to be not impossible, then according to Einstein the law becomes uncertain like playing dice.

It's like one insistent (Einstein), the other is also adamant. For Einstein, his insistence is a sign of truth, and other rebuttals were considered by Einstein as things that refute the certainty of natural laws, which means that natural laws are uncertain - impossible. That's what Einstein meant.

1. But the facts as a result of research showed that what Einstein thought impossible turned out to be not impossible. Is that proof of violating the laws of physics? Which means that the laws of nature are indeterminate?
2. Or even if it is considered certain, the law of certainty changes. Dynamic scenarios?
3. Or more fundamentally that nothing has changed, everything is certain, only Einstein who misunderstood the reality of the laws of physics?

Axiom

🧩 Continuity of the effect is the work of a function that consistently causes one or more effects in a sequence of events, so that if there is no continuity of effect from a function, then the function is a possibility.

Axiom

🧩 The continuity of the cause is the resistance of the function in maintaining its consistency as a function, so that if there is no continuity of effect, then the function exist as long as the continuity of the cause

Axiom

🧩 A continuity of effects emphasizes changes that show the speed at which the work of a function is completed, so that the more/less the continuity of the effects, the slower/faster the completion of the work of a function.

Mapping

📍In mapping the speed of light, the speed of light is the continuity of the effects perceived as propagation as far as the range of completion of the work of a function of light.

Axiom

🧩 A continuity of causes emphasizes changes that show resistance - consistency (age) of a function, so the more / less continuity of causes, the longer / shorter the consistency of a function

Mapping

📍In mapping the speed of change in quantum entanglement, quantum entanglement is a continuity of causes without any propagation of the effect

Axiom

🧩 Quantum entanglement emphasizes minimal changes between two things in one tap, so that there is no continuity of effects that can be perceived as propagation, but there is only continuity of causes that maintains the consistency of the quantum entanglement function itself

Mapping

📍Since the speed of light is a continuity of effects, and quantum entanglement is a continuity of causes, the two cannot be compared because of the unequal balance between them.

Axiom

🧩 Quantum entanglement emphasizes minimal changes between two things in one tap, so that there is no continuity of effects that can be perceived as propagation, but there is only continuity of causes that maintains the consistency of the quantum entanglement function itself

📍This confirms that quantum entanglement does not have the property of propagating, so that quantum entanglement is not a speed that can match the speed of light, but that the two between quantum entanglement and the speed of light are contextual differences.

Then why do the two sides insist that they are the most correct ❓Where is the misunderstanding between the two sides ❓ Or it's not a misunderstanding but a failure to understand in between both ❓

That's because each of them saw it from the point of view of a non-quantum dimension. They were not used to understanding the quantum world, and their reasoning uses classical reasoning, not quantum reasoning, not quantum logic, yet

They thought that the influence between two things that were separated by a great distance, were two things that were mutually exclusive. So Einstein insisted that separation requires propagation that was impossible to exceed the speed of light which was considered (close to) barrier-free, while Einstein's opponents also insisted that this was the case (the fact)

Whereas? It is precisely it happened as Einstein emphasized, that as long as the effect of change between two things there was separation then of course it must be through propagation, and if there was a fact that quantum entanglement then it must not violate the principle of propagation. But they all didn't understand the reasoning behind this.

The true was that quantum entanglement does not involve propagation, so it was true as Einstein said, "nothing is faster than the speed of light". It's just that this statement hadn''t been converted to quantum logic format

If this statement "nothing is faster than the speed of light" which was based on classical reasoning outside the quantum dimension, was converted to a quantum dimensional format, Einstein's truth will certainly be clear and can be accepted. This is how to do so .

Classical Reasoning "nothing is faster than the speed of light"

Quantum Reasoning "nothing is faster than the speed that propagates without resistance, unless the speed occurs without the process of propagation"

Quantum Reasoning (Detailed): The speed in one tap, simultaneous changing one to another involves at least two things, then the two things were connected to each other, so there was no change or communication through propagation

From this, it is clear that Einstein's statement "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is true as far as we understand the details of the issue.

So Both Einstein's and the opposite, they were all true, only they used a language of reasoning that had not yet reached the quantum level.

It is possible that scientists now aware of the discovery of quantum entanglement, still stuck to the old reasoning, that "it has been proven that two things are separated at great distances and can communicate almost instantly". Even though the correct format of the quantum language is "it's proven that we can put two things unseperated at any distance"

The key is thinking that quantum entanglement as instant communication over such great distances apart (separated one to another), then this is wrong. Because quantum entanglement does not emphasize separation but the continuity of communication (without pause) between two things.

If quantum entanglement is considered to be the existence of separation between two things that are located at different locations that are far from each other, it can certainly seem to contradict Einstein's statement, even though, axiomatically it is a misunderstanding.

Because they were trapped by classical reasoning, and confused because couldn't map events at the level of quantum to their old reasoning, but the facts were proven, then the impression arosed ... "this was a miracle of the universe", "destroys the world of reasoning" ... "beyond reason" blah blah blah. Whereas classical true reasoning won't collapsed, it's just that they saw things from the old point of view,

They were unable to make adjustments, which ... if they want to expand their point of view, it will be proven not to violate known principles of reasoning, but actually expand reasoning, and .. . , while still being able to feel the wonders of scientific discoveries, without being trapped in an absurd overlaps reasoning

Many of them are misinterpreted because they are influenced by "seeing is believing", then suddenly, the deeper science was involved, the deeper went inside the reality, the harder it was for the senses. It's not really that hard to figure out.

Because through reasoning, of course we can realize the logical consequences. it's just that the logical consequence, even though it is undeniably valid, is unsatisfactory if it can't be verified by the senses (out of control) this is where they get confused. 

Actually their reasoning had already given an answer but the "seeing is believing" (sensory evidence) wastoo strong to be forced on the issue.

According to the senses "The two separate things be said to be inseparable". Inseperable ❓Where is the rope or the bridge ❓They didn't see, so it's their rebuttal.