aleph_1

Okay, I was compelled to see this movie by my wife who has read all three novels in this series. However, this movie struck me as based on values exactly antithetical to Oist values. The main character, Anastasia, was a mouse-like college senior that a billionaire fell into an obsession over because he felt he could dominate her. She didn't bring much to the relationship except submission. What he saw in her is beyond me. He, considering the relationship as a contract, didn't seem to bring much of value either. Their relationship was certainly not a celebration of values. My wife has asked me before to read the series in order to better understand what women want. The only lesson I take from it is that women like fat wallets that can bring them a measure of escape. What am I missing?

Locally, Euclidean geometry works quite well. However, for things like GPS and the motions of the planets Euclidean geometry is a poor approximation of what is observed. We can only deduce the intrinsic geometry of the space around us by what is observed, and these observations are at variance with Euclidean geometry. We cannot be sure of the large-scale structure of the universe. The fate of the javelins is truly beyond what can be said with any certainty.

Alternatively, the universe could have the topology of a torus so that on certain opposing trajectories the javelins would wind about the torus coming close multiple times and yet never colliding.

Arn, I am not personally familiar with that text, but have read that a minimum of Calculus 1 is essential for getting through it without too much distress and much more math would be helpful. Many high school students are taking calculus now. I wish you well.

SL, How do you apply this reasoning to heterogeneous mixtures? You might suppose that sandstone, being composed of grains of similar materials, might have parts that fall at equal rates, but balls of feathers and balls of lead might fall at different rates. How can you tell a priori what a heterogeneous mixture would do? Don't you just have to perform the exeriment?

Andie, Perhaps you should stick to spanish lit. You made several false statements above, Yes, the Ricci tensor is the trace of the Riemann tensor, but it is not a product of the Einstein tensor and the metric. In fact, the Einstein tensor was discovered after the Ricci tensor and defined in terms of it. By the way, the Ricci tensor, being the trace of the Riemann tensor, involves second order derivatives of the metric. (Epic fail on your part and revealing that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.) In fact, if you assume spherical symmetry, the Einstein equations reduce to a system of first order pde's. I ought to know--my books, which are available on Amazon dot com, deal with this case. This post, Andie, is not for you since you are not a worthy partner for discussion. Rather, the record must be set straight. Also, I wish to add that only in the case of positive curvature do the arrows meet. If they do not traverse to the back side of the universe, then they will find themselves together when the universe undergoes the big crunch. Yes, should the universe collapse on itself then the arrows will indeed be at one location. However, time will cease to have meaning when that happens. In the other two cases of frw theory the arrows will forever float apart as the universe undergoes heat death. I might add that any theory that determines a value for the Einstein tensor is a theory of gravity. Frw cosmology concerns gravity on a universal scale.

More importantly, to which tenets of Buddhism do you refer to in the OP? By the way, most buddhists in countries today where Buddhist monks still beg also hold down jobs. Monks in the west also usually hold down jobs and I am personally acquainted with a monk who does. What idea or practice do you question as possibly in conflict with Oism? You mention helping people with pain. I know of no group that has a monopoly on counseling. Could you be more specific?

..just like good Catholics of their priests.

No, I refer to those bhuddist monks who do beg for food. Perhaps you should read this http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/foodoffering.htm There you will read "The first Buddhist monks did not build monasteries. Instead, they were homeless mendicants who begged for all their food. Their only possessions were their robe and begging bowl." Also, "Today, in many predominately Theravada countries like Thailand, monks still rely on receiving alms for most of their food. The monks leave the monasteries early in the morning. They walk single file, oldest first, carrying their alms bowls in front of them. Laypeople wait for them, sometimes kneeling, and place food, flowers or incense sticks in the bowls. Women must be careful not to touch the monks." There are many other sources that refer to monks begging, including in reference to Bhudda himself.

The error in your thinking is that I ever presented such a false dichotomy. That was his invention and the source of his non sequitur. I never said nor implied that there are only these two categories of people: rice farmers and bhuddist monks. That was purely his invention.

He never said or implied any such thing.

Let me see if I can bring the argument down to your level: Am not...

You apparently have very little exposure to the Ricci tensor since you seem completely unaware of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker big bang cosmologies. Yes, that's plural since there are three cases depending on whether spatial cross-sections of the universe have scalar curvature that is positive, zero or negative. What is more, these are not the only cosmologies possible via GR. You seem to be aware of only one case and ignorantly profess certitude that there is only one. Since you, by your own admission, were never schooled in GR, perhaps a little more humility on your part is in order. Have you heard of the post-Newtonian formalism? How about inflationary cosmological models? I didn't think so. Learn a little before laughing at those who know more than you do. Otherwise you just sound like a flat earther--hilarious.

Your false alternative is an example of a formal logical fallacy. Try again without the non sequitur.

Who has more virtue, the bhuddist monk who begs for rice so that he can sit, meditate and achieve enlightenment or the rice farmer whose virtue sustains both? In my book, the bhuddist monk is a parasite. The rice farmer has a better understanding of life's imperatives.

General relativity necessitates no such thing. More generally, gravitational theories involving curvature do not necessitate such an outcome. There are many such cosmological models where said javelins part and never return to the "source from which it was thrown", as if that phrase has any true meaning.

The problem I have with "destination" is that it seems to presuppose a will that things like asteroids do not have, and for all we know some things may depart from us and never arrive anywhere. In this case there is no objective basis for a discussion of destination.

This statement disregards 150 years of research into the subject. Perhaps it is better for you to think in terms of "unaccelerated" paths (many of which are manifestly curved) versus the curvature that results from certain potentials that arise through mass, energy and momentum. Perhaps you should not talk about "straight" paths and instead speak of unaccelerated paths since that seems to be the source of your confusion. The curvature you speak of results from the way mass, energy, and momentum affect measurement. This curvature has certain physical consequences that have been observed. That mass-energy-momentum potentials affect measurement is far removed from an epistemological error. Any Euclidean framework is irrelevant and assuming it's existence is an epistemological error.

This comment presumes there can only be geometry from an extrinsic point of view. This ignores whole sections of libraries devoted to intrinsic geometry-that which is discoverable from within. Dream weaver's comment about destination is unnecessary. Objects do not have to have a destination. Shine a flashlight into the night sky at a random angle and ask yourself if the light has a destination. It will have a relative motion but there is no objective destination. Andie's assertion that the universe is finite is is not meaningful since there is no objective way to validate such an assertion. Reduce this to perception. Until then I will take Andie's assertion as meaningless gibberish. Whether the universe is infinite or finite is not currently reducible to anything perceivable. Therefore, such questions are like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Rand's razor leads us to shun such speculations as not meaningful.

Andie, This is war-criminal mentality. A lack of concern for who gets killed due to your own actions is inhuman and beneath you. Anyone, including yourself, who truly subscribes to the doctrine that you have stated is a sociopath.

That's funny AndieH. I had to laugh at almost every word you wrote. Let's just look at the phrase, "Political power authorizes the creation of markets...." What is this "Political Power" that you speak of? It seems that you use the phrase as a disembodied motive force capable of acts of creation. By an impersonal will, Political Power desires and creates markets. Somehow, this Political Power desires income equality, and while in possession of the power to control markets, will not use that power to further its own privileges but will instead implement policies that strive toward income equality. Ha, Ha Ha Ha. It's never happened in the course of history, even by those possessing the greatest economic planning apparatuses. In terms of a metaphor for the role that governments play in markets, perhaps you might appreciate this: Businesses are the race cars that run on 104 octane fuel and government is the mobster choosing who gets the racing fuel and who gets stuck with 87 octane fuel in order to maximize the bookies rake.

It is amusing how one can be accused of lumping "them" together by one who is at the same time lumping "them" together. I might also suggest a more judicious use of the word "you" in polite company.

The discussion on this thread ignores what appears to be long forgotten history. When the Comanche’s roamed 50,000 acres of the plains striking fear into Apaches and whites alike, riding through farms, snatching babies and while riding at full speed smashing their heads against tree trunks some would take notice. While Caddo’s would weep over how they would miss you while preparing the stew with which to boil you and serve you up as a feast for the tribe, some would take notice. While some coastal tribesmen in Texas would take filets off of you and roast them, eating them before you so that you could see yourself being eaten, some would take notice. We are not exposed to frequent atrocities like this in our own neighborhoods so we seem to have no clue as to why history evolved as it did. Forgetting the constellation of crimes and remembering only the modern, perceivable fact that the various tribes were dispossessed of their lands, we reinvent causes that seem plausible but have no real historical basis. Go back and read newspaper accounts of what white settlers had to face and perhaps you might understand how Andrew Jackson could have an adopted Native American son and still bring about the trail of tears.

There is little risk to you from taking a class at a community college. I have known students who started with a class in basic arithmetic, advanced through calculus 3, transfered to a university and have achieved great success. Just don't overextend yourself by trying to work overtime and go to school carrying too many credit hours. You only have so much virtue to allocate. Do so in the way that achieves the greatest value to yourself.

DonAthos, May I ask one point of clarrification? If according to my values I weigh each of the building sites as 20% desirable, 50% desireable and 30% desirable, I could make my selection as follows: I could make a pie chart with the given area proportions and attach a spinner. Then I could spin the dial and wherever the arrow fell I would choose to build. Would you classify this method as rational but not volitional? Is it irrational?