Ether continues, day 2

I am a simpleton. Unable to read more than half a page of Einstein at a time, I fall into adoration or irritation almost immediately. For instance, today on this rainy unusual january sunday, I open to the writer giving an analogy of light speed versus sound... the light would carry faster if the vessel was hurtling toward you at 10 miles an hour, the light would go ten miles an hour faster.. but the same is not true of sound... if a firetruck is racing toward you the sound does not carry any faster.... And I am of course paraphrasing here. But that can't be true. If a firetruck is half a mile away and screaming, you hear it faintly. If it is racing toward you, you hear it louder. is not LOUDER the very sound coming faster toward you? I say yes. But I am a simpleton.
The other issue I had in this brief reading is that the light would not actually be going any faster if it was in a vessel which was itself going ten or a million miles an hour. Despite the speed of the vehicle carrying it, the light would be going the same speed. the vessel would be also going, and how can one add them together and say one is the same as both? I suppose though, on reading it again, that the writer meant relative to an observer... In that case, how can one measure light at all? If it is coming from some THING then isn't the speed relative to the THING and not the light itself? If starlight travels at a certain speed, does it have anything to do with the stars movement? Well, since this has all been factored in and already figured out, I am a simpleton for wondering. It is as if a dim wit were asking me how I know one word on a page from another, if that dim-wit could not himself read. If I explained the word STEIN had four letters which each carried an individual sound and together made the word STEIN he could then say that NIETS was also the same word. Or EINST. And I would have to explain that only in ancient Hebrew mysticism was that a possibility, but otherwise LIVE is live and EVIL is evil and the two are not the same. "But what about Anna?" he might say. "Or what about Eve? What about, 'a man a plan panama'"? The dim-wit has a point. Nothing it seems is absolute or without variables and exceptions to the rule. Does this mean then, that the theory of relativity, which I do not understand at all, is possibly with its own exceptions?
I have not read the whole book yet, obviously, but I already had formed an opinion of Albert Einstein long before I began it. Several years ago it occurred to me that "universe" is a compound word One Verse. Einverse in half German. And Paradise is pair a dice. and that while making things secretive and hidden so that only the chosen few could figure it out, the master architect threw in the letter H to mix it all up when in fact H is rarely sounded. The Cockney English knew this from way back. But we persisted in believing it was an essential letter. Any brickie in the British Isle could tell you Hell was Ell and Heaven was Even.
Simpleton as an anagram by the way is limp stone, which is how this is sounding. Limp and without form. Formless and without meaning. This is what I meant yesterday when I mentioned my ability to write compellingly was lost in the ether..Which brings me back to UNIVERSE. one verse. One. won. pair of dice. Even. a long list of words which coincidentally all sound like they are part of a game. Alpha and Omega as an anagram is Oh Plaa Game. But how does this relate to Einstein? He said "God does not play dice with the universe". Then with what DOES he play? a deck of cards maybe. Would he have a full house? Would he lay down a pair of aces? Would He always win? And we his fold. Did he fold when he got us??? Afterall, he's got the whole world in his hand. But what has this to do with the theory of relativity? Theory comes from the root Theo, meaning of God. Theology and all... and relativity must be relative, which is relation, kin, cousin. So the theory of relativity is nothing more than the understanding of our relationship to God. our lineage. Atom and Adam. Which leaves Ether...or that which we cannot see but is there, that which is solid but allows matter to pass through. The veil. or if you are the dimwit, the anagrams that are made from it.
It is obvious that the average person cannot fathom Einstein. I take his name and mix it up, his words and break them down to simple things. This is a poor attempt at learning science. To lead it like a sheep back to magical properties and code words for supernaturals. But today when I read that Einstein imagined two bolts of lightning, one striking point A and one striking point B and a person observing in the middle that both hit simultaneously... and then another observer on a fast moving train just between the points seeing the lightning strike point B first and then point A, thus making time relative. That there is no absolute, is what the deduction was...But I say if a timer put in both striking places measured the exact moment of impact, then whatever the observers saw was irrelevant...the timers would say whether the impacts were simultaneous or not. Afterall, if a person with 20 20 vision saw something and a person with poor vision saw the same thing, one would describe it differently but it would not make the object two different things, it would merely mean that one person had lousy sight. or would it mean that the object truly was two different things? Is lousy sight not really lousy sight but instead ALTERNATE sight? a different sort of sight? Maybe the world actually is blurry and at first we correct that and after we get older we stop bothering to correct that and begin to see it for what it really is...blurry and without all that glorious detail? maybe we grow closer to reality rather than farther from it. But this is impossible to know. As impossible as Einstein's calculations are for me to comprehend. Although sometimes I think I do, and sometimes they seem as simple insights... but of course that too is impossible.