Do yourself a favor and put down that Mark McCutcheon book for a while. Read about redshift.
Redshift is in the book. In the common physics understanding it's believed to be the Doppler Effect for light. But according to special relativity light travel is constant relative to the observer. It's one of those anomalies of relativity.
I'm just curious as to why you're so non-specific about them. If these "anomalies" are the basis of your objection to relativity, you must be able to articulate them.
Redshift is one. "Spooky" entanglement another.
Copernicus and Kepler and Tycho didn't lie to the rubes on the street. They just didn't publish them in wildly popular books. The rubes on the street didn't really have access to the correspondence between the leading scientists of the day. They couldn't just go down to the magazine shop and buy an Astronomy Society Journal.
True. How many could even read? But the way I see it is there were scientific advisers to the court and the incarceration of Galileo was not done out of an absence of advice and perhaps even refutation from them. After all, they had propagated the Ptolemic theory for most of their scientific lives. Perhaps they were lenient on Galileo and only sentenced him to house arrest for the rest of his life instead of having him drink the hemlock because they knew he was right. The fact is the Ptolemmic theory stood longer than it should have precisely because of...well...politics and the established hierarchy.
I don't plan on climbing Mt Everest because it would be a highly inefficient use of my limited time and resources. What about you? As a liberated spirit-being with unlimited potential, you must be planning to climb Mt Everest any day now, right?
Not on my agenda, either. At least not in this life. Some risk their lives in space, some on Mt. Everest but to claim there are not those that feel our money and efforts are best spent on starving kids in Africa than a trip to the moon and that we need to stop drilling for oil or driving our vehicles is rather disingenuous an argument. It is when someone else is concerned about and granted the responsibility to look after your welfare that you must become concerned. Your choices will become limited and you will be advised against climbing your mountain, whatever it may be for the good of all.
What a bizarre rant. The notion that disbelief in an afterlife inevitably argues for for some sort of restricted code of behavior state interventionism is inane and disjointed.
It is quite bizarre a thought but the simplicity is that attention fixes on problems. Once the problem of an afterlife has been done away with we can knock down the church spires and erect health spas in their place. Care of the spirit is no longer a concern thanks to people like yourself. Not only that but we can know concentrate our resources where they should be - studying the brain. Perhaps the right chemical balance is necessary. I know you will support that.
Bizarre? What do you think will occur in a society dedicated to the welfare of the body? And what bodies should our resources be expended upon? Are they all equally valuable or are there some that are more equal than others. After all we are only concerned about some electro/chemical reactions.
It should be pointed out, however, that every formalized belief in an afterlife (that I'm aware of, at least) imposes restrictions on your behavior in this current life; if you don't follow the rules in this life you don't get the big present after you die (or, as you put it, "you've got to earn it.")
Yours is not a formalized belief in anything, of course, it is fact. Many scientists agree. Now when things go bump in the night there is no reason to fear. It's a relief. There is no magic hand divining our future and everything has a scientific explanation. Only other men and only a balance of electro/chemicals in them is necessary to ensure such bizarre ideas as an afterlife are entirely forgotten.
A formalized belief is not what we are looking for. I prefer you maintain your integrity, not to any formalized belief or claim to truth, but to your own understanding. That way we can escape the imposition of restrictions on behavior that a formalized belief places upon us. There is no doubt they have been utilized as control methods. The problem is that some feel others need a formalized belief.
Like you need to be a vegetarian. If you are there is no problem. If you aren't, there is a problem.
You can't deny the move by some to argue the use of ranchlands is a waste. Is that a formalized belief or is it valid or perhaps it is an evolutionary step?
Your education empowers you but you must ask empowers you to do what - perhaps further a formalized belief? What is the purpose of education today? To prepare you to make your contribution to society?
Or, better worded, is it to allow you to reach your potential in society? Or is it to foster independent thought that benefits society but then you are in control of yourself - who knows what you will do to society then.
Due to certain experiences in my life, experiences not yet explained, however, theorized about from the scientific view but inadequately in my view, I have made different decsions than you.