Quotations from Lymerick and my responses:
“Thank you for taking your time to create an ‘explanation for the masses’".
You are welcome.
“I realize that physics "blunders" get your hackles up.”
Not only physics blunders but all kinds of deception: hoaxes, lies, propaganda, brainwashing, manipulation, etc. For me physics blunders are the easiest to debunk, because I am familiar with the subject, and it is not too difficult to prove in this field that a hoax is a hoax. It requires little time and effort, because the laws of physics are very strict, and mathematics don’t lie.
My main focus is still the unveiling of spiritual disinformation, and offering a sound alternative that rests on solid grounds, and makes good sense. There is nothing more valuable to a true seeker of eternal freedom and happiness, than avoiding traps and finding the true path. People rarely realize this while life runs smooth, only when the time of death arrives, will they regret not preparing themselves for the escape. The punishment for the disinterest and for neglecting (or ignoring) the subject is the rebirth into another physical body by forced reincarnation, and starting everything over again from the beginning.
Those who write disinformation deceive people, and deception is a crime. But they can not really harm anybody until people don’t know about its existence and don’t read it. Their toxic content gets activated only by advertising, spreading the news about it, and sharing the links where it can be found. I consider this irresponsible spreading to be just as harmful as writing that material in the first place.
The reverse is also true. The true information benefits people, but such information can not help anybody as long as people don’t know it exists. The responsible spreading of links to such true information is just as beneficial to all as writing the text. Therefore it is very important to develop strong discerning abilities and use them responsibly, especially for those who aggregate and share links with many people.
The expectation that each reader should do his/her own discernment, will not remove the responsibility of sharing true information, and suppressing and ignoring the disinformation. Nobody has got perfect discernment abilities, and mistakes are expected. But we should still do our best to discern, filter, and share only the stuff we consider good, and most probably true. If everybody would act like this then the masses could overwhelm the disinformation agents and PR propaganda by their sheer numbers.
“I really like your droll and to-the-point analogies… In all sincerity, perhaps you could write a physics book, for the masses, that contains droll and dry humorous "It is Like" examples similar to the ones in your response - or not.”
Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Such popular physics lectures already exist; one of them is “The Feynman Lectures on Physics” which you can read also online at: http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ .
It may not be very funny and humorous that you would perhaps appreciate more, but they are meant for general public and are presented in a very interesting and unique manner.
I would rather write a book about common sense spirituality to the masses, because this subject is so much more important and beneficial than the mere knowing of how the matter behaves. Is it better if they contain “droll and dry humorous ‘It is Like’ examples”? So far I was not focusing on the style of writing, to make it an easy and entertaining reading. I could surely use an editor to fix the grammar and perhaps lighten the style of my articles, but as long as I am not making money from it, there is no reason to pay for an editor. The goal was only to express my thoughts as clearly as possible in a concise manner, avoiding unnecessary filler material. Perhaps it is time to lighten up the style a bit, but changing style is not an easy thing to do.
“Anyway, I truly shudder to mention, that Dutchsinse has the second part of his theory up at: http://dutchsinse.com/dutchsinse-true-universal-time/ It starts after - Read on, don’t scoff yet!
I truly am interested in your comments on Part 2. Perchance you may turn me into a physics buff yet!! LOL”
I don’t enjoy kicking a dead horse, so it is better just to ignore this article, because I have already shown how big blunders constitute the basis of his theory. No amount of extra explanations can fix the false claims he made. By the way I don’t see any “part 2” on that page, and some of the text below the “Read on, don’t scoff yet!” has been already included into my critique.