Thanks for your post. I was not very clear with that, and if you wouldn't have pointed it out I might not have noticed.

so to clear it up...

On 1. That is not true, and it is also very misleading. 2. is also misleading. Google is a good start for searching for current status and specifics, but Aether is not in the same category. The others are science because they are plausible (expected in current theories), and/or detected. Whether or not something can be detected by use of the visible spectrum is irrelevant. There are more ways that "stuff" interacts with other "stuff" than by means of the visible spectrum. Aether was once science, but was ruled out. Much like the ancient field of alchemy, or early theories about the earth or Sun being the center of the universe. Once there is evidence against something, it is no longer science. Until then it can live on unless something else better comes along. Continued belief in disproven theories is not science. The words that people use to describe these no-longer-science ideas varies from person to person. Personally, beliefs that people hold on to after they've been disproven, or beliefs in unfalsifiable claims, are under the category of religious beliefs. But that's just how I use the term.

That being said, it doesn't make those ideas wrong. (ok, hear me out, lol) If God existed, for example, then all theories can be true at the same time (or false at the same time... or both). And that goes for all religions and ideas, no matter how disproven or impractical. Why? Because if God exists, he simply has that power. If he didn't, he wouldn't be God. Yes, science and religion are very close. In fact, they can be parallel (different explanations of the same event). But, even so, one does not necessarily contradict the other, even if it seems like that at first glance.

For example, look at a sine wave. If you see a graph of one, what is the formula? Most will give the simplified version. But you could also offset it by 2pi and it would look identical (same results). In programming, you can write two different codes to have the same results exactly. If you look at the results of the code, maybe you will find the simplified code, but not all possibilities (which are usually infinite). For example, Here you will find over 1000 codes that do exactly the same thing, down to the individual character (which can be found Here). You cannot tell which code made the result just by looking at the result of the code. Perhaps something like this could happen with reality itself. Personally, I think there is one set of rules, and that science will find it. But, I cannot rule out religion... it is unfalsifiable. And since I don't like believing in things without evidence to back it up, I cannot believe that God doesn't exist. But, I can be (and am) pretty confident that he doesn't.

ok, sorry for the interruption, back to the topic