There is no chance that we can know everything.
Right. So what?
There is more to know than can ever be known.
Probably. So what?
The constants that we have so much faith in are simply what we understand. What if something changes?
This has happened before. Many, many, many times. What do you think happens?
Take something simple like the kilogram.
en.wikipedia.org
It started off as the weight of a litre of water, then they added a temperature specification onto that, then they defined it as equal to a very specific special metal weight that they made, and currently it's defined using mass equivalency which then requires reference to the definitions for energy and the speed of light.
For the vast majority of people, even scientists, none of that functionally changed anything. Constants generally get more accurate, but well beyond the point where most people use them. Most of the time, anything beyond the first handful of significant figures doesn't matter, and so when a constant "changes" it's changing in the parts of it that aren't used. And it doesn't change the understanding of the actual processes going on, it at best maybe makes some of the outputs more accurate than they were before.
It's possible that something could change massively. If that were to happen, there would be a massive hustle as everyone rushed to redo all the work that involved that constant AND figure out how we managed to get so far without noticing that something was massively off. Realistically, a massive change in a constant would be a sign of a fundamental breakthrough in our physical understanding of the universe. It could happen, but it's much more likely to fit in with what we already know than to turn it arse over teakettle.
What evidence would prove anything?
You might want to read up on philosophy of science. It may just confuse you because I'm not sure you have the baseline understanding of basic scientific procedure to be starting to interrogate the foundations of things like "evidence" and "proof". But that's the field that discusses that sort of thing.
The short answer is that nothing is "proven" in the sense that I suspect you mean, in that it's known absolutely. Everything is based on some sort of observation about the world or the universe, and that observation could later be shown to have been misunderstood or incomplete. Everything is the best understanding that we have at the moment based on current observations and knowledge.
Religious types tend to see this as some sort of gotcha moment, as if science was claiming the same sort of absolute knowledge that religion claims. That isn't the case, and is a big part of why science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Science knows that everything is a best guess. It's just that an informed, rationally constructed and openly shared best guess about anything is about as good as anyone can reasonably be expected to do, and it's a lot better than basing your decisions on millennia old texts attributed to divine inspiration.
The more I understand about engineering and science, the more I respect what it took and takes to create things.
I understand that I don't know a lot. But I do know enough.
Do you? How do you know that you know enough? Because so far you seem unable to answer some pretty basic questions about the statements you've made, and you have some pretty glaring holes in your knowledge of basic science.
What exactly is it that you know enough for? Enough to make broad statements about how science can be improved?
)
www.familylife.com
