Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

andie holland

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


andie holland last won the day on November 13 2014

andie holland had the most liked content!

About andie holland

  • Birthday 10/13/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    andie holland
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    Student of Spanish lit & Poly Sci now doing my grad work at U Salamanca on pre-reconquista origins of poetry.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Several novels and some research online regards philosophy.
  • School or University
    BA Duke, MA oly Sci Harvard, working on PhD dissertation: Ecstasis from St John to Lorca
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

2861 profile views

andie holland's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Even in the Middle Ages there were gurls such as me who would devise observational experiments to show that bigger is not faster. For example, heavy piece of plaster-board vs a small stone.... In other words, the tension between First Philosophy (abstract-conceptual) and Second Philosophy (First, observe!) has been around since the time of Ancient Greece. For example, Euclid was really a 'how-to sort of guy who absolutely hated the term 'axiom' as applied to his work in geometry.
  2. The origin of Hamas-- with its radical solution of wiping the zinonist entity off the face of the earth-is obvious. it's all about the failure of moderates to force the zionists back to pre-1967 borders. In other words, the occupation of the West Bank. This natural tendency towards extreme measures in the face of the failure of moderation is also present in American History, as well, with the Revolution and the Civil War. Hamas has gained sympathy not only within the Islamic world but also that of Western democracies because it's now widely understood that the zionist entity was never serious about withdrawing in the first place. Again, the process since 1967 has been a sham delaying tactic to ensure more and more settlement. This is what zionists have called 'on the ground reality': we'll negotiate peacemeal with respect to a developing reality of increased settlement. The Palestinian response is to rocket the settlements. Far from 'genocide', it's a simple measure to say that if you were not occupying our land to begin with, you wouldn't be at risk from the rockets falling on Palestinian land.
  3. You apparently have misunderstood your Wiki. * 'FRW is correctly written to include Lemaitre, or 'FLRW' ** As such, FLRW is not a 'theory' of gravity;, but rather the accepted basis for Big Bang. In other words, whatever you might be trying to say--and however you might be confused-- FLRW would be relevant to the conversation if and only if the arrow in question were somehow caught up in a Big Bang event. Otherwise, we're talking about fundamental GR which is, again, our only theory of gravity. *** It's more correctly called a 'metric' because it gives all of the possibilities of expansion, with respect to the initial force and the counter-force of the gravity which The Bang created. **** As a metric, it offers three general possibilities of outcome, which are the potential shapes of the universe: positive curvature, negative curvature, and none. This is what you confused as 'gravity'. ***** the 'theory' would be the arrival at the correct shape by means of measurement. Here, we refer to deSitter's elaboration of a flat model. ****** Ricci is used in the FLRW as a part of the Riemann tensor that's derived as a product of the Einsteinian and the metric tensor. This makes it a rather exotic fourth-order derivative. As such, it expresses the potential curvatures of the created gravitational field against the expansion from Big Bang. To this extent, FLRW obviously includes extrapolated parts of GR. ******* Otherwise, the Ricci in the basic Einsteinian is a basic second order. Arrows flying into a gravitational field will curve, just like anything else. What's important on a basic high-school level (yours) is that there is no place within the real universe in which arrows, or anything else, will exhibit the complete inertia that would not eventually curve back to its origin. ******** In terms of cosmology, what's interesting about the development of FLRW is that the equations now take us beyond the zero, to a time before the Big Bang. That's why it still serves as the basis for all Big Bang cosmology, as taught, for the last fifty years or so. In other words, you seriously misunderstood some really basic stuff; so you get an F. As for myself, i like to paraphrase the film 'Quigley Down Under': "I said that I really didn't like Physics enough to have gone on to do a doctorate. But i never said that i wasn't good at it." In this respect, you boorishly assumed that my admittedly 'few courses as an undergrad' were of the introductory sort that you might have taken yourself--ostensibly sufficient to have misunderstood Wiki, as it were. Well, not. Because i could understand the math (high tester) and was 'pushed' into science by two academic parents, my 400 level stuff was complete by 11th grade. 'Did grad level QM in college as electives. 'Rather boring, actually, because the theory is real easy. Either you know how to plug in the numbers derived from an understanding of the math, or not. 'No more of a skill than. say, learning a musical instrument, or singing, neither of which i can do. My love is the Linguistics of Spanish lit. Here i can use my math to derive refined models of lexiostatistics and glottochronology. How 800 AD Arabic poetry infused itself into modern Spanish poetry is, for me far more interesting than arrows flying through Hilbert Space with possible negative and positive curvatures, etc...
  4. Please post the article and I'll be happy to read it; I'm unable to access OL.
  5. Yes, corruption and favoritism is always an issue. There's far more in Somalia than in Sweden, whereas Spain and USA fall somewhere in the middle. So if in the next American elections it isn't, that's too bad, because it should be. Failure to regulate is not a viable reason to eliminate regulation. Parenthetically, permitting kids to sell lemonade w/o a licence is 'corruption', too, because it means they--unlike the far larger adult companies, pay no taxes. As for Atlas, the story loops around the real history of American capital in the so-called 'gilded age', Chilean copper mines notwithstanding. Large industrialists and bankers were given cheep land and huge credits by the government which, in effect was practicing triage to obtain an oligopolistic means of production fit to a large scale-- that could compete with European industry. Fine. This is what is called 'state capitalism', a partnership. What's disgusting is how the benefactors--boorish low-rents such as Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al, took all the credit under the name of 'free' enter-prize and 'inititive'. A complete lie. With the notable exception of Ford, workers failed to benefit, thereby requiring the government to intervene, based upon its own role in the economic boom caused by large-scale industrialization.
  6. You write as if there's more than one 'gravitational model ("many such cosmological models"!!!)...hilarious. So please, tell me about them because my poor college courses only taught one,the Newtionian, which was proven false by GR. As for the equation, it's the 'R' (Ricci) on the left side which describes the natural curvature of space with respect to several other coefficients. To this extent, the trajectory of said arrow in real space will never be straight--ostensibly the only state in which it would not return. Think about walking on the earth's surface. Now make the assumption that the surface is flat....
  7. The red-line is that of Varo; the thread is about explaining what he meant. To the extent that you feel it's nonsense, go take it up with him. Otherwise, it's rather clear that you don't understand Kant.
  8. let's just agree to disagree about the extent to which the shock blast of ordnance kills at a distance far greater than the specs--which are about assured radians of destruction. Moreover most accounts that i've read of Gaza indicate that tere is no place within that's 100m safe. In short, i'd call any zionist a liar to his/her face (including that bimbo Natalie Portman) who claims that their state-entity is not waging systemic genocide of the type that Rand approved of as the befitting fate of the lower evolved. Hamas knows it can;t win. Rather, it's aim is to provoke the rest of the Arab world to commit itself, and let the rest stand as sympathetic. 'Palestine' was a entity under the Ottoman Empire. Then prior, Palestine was a part of the Mameluk Dynasty of Egypt, prior to that the Byzantine, then the Roman, then the Alexandrain, then the Persian, then the Assyrio-Babylonian, which takes us back to 800BC. We derive the word from 'Philistine' which is even cited in the Old Testament s events of 1000BC. Archaeology indicates dwellings art An'natuf going back to 20,000 BC. Yet the zionists claim a right to seize the land because they did not have their own state. Small wonder they're hated by anyone who doesn't consider the movee 'Exodus real history,
  9. With all due respect, you have every right to justify your strong sentiments by publishing what made you so angry. Otherwise, Marxists are such because they believe in precisely what you assert no longer exists: exploitation based upon class. Moreover, the dynamic they 'see' is a shrinking of the middle class back into the proletariat. To this end, Piketty labeled his work after Marx--"Capital in the 21st Century", although his own analysis is somewhat different. Owners of the means of production increase inequality because they pull their own profit out prior to increasing production itself--the basis of increasing salaries for workers. Here, the solution is different than that of Marx: simply tax profits to ensure a fair distribution of production.
  10. The major problem with your first statement is that you assume to be the only possessor of said moral laws; in reality, this particular is open to the same genre of public debate that gives us democracy in the first place. Freely translated: everyone who's even half smart can make their own pov seem 'philosophical' by using the word 'moral'. It's as good as putting lipstick on a pig or saying, "Look Mom, I'm talking philosophy (weeee.....)"!! In other words, 'social justice' is justice that's arrived at through discursive practice with those who would openly challenge your ideas. Yes, even Aristotle said that markets were 'natural'. It simply means that exchange rates are a matter of haggling, not fixed by custom or need. This is always an alternative within the species homo sapiens, and is done in some measure by everyone. This is not the same as saying marketing is an economic 'law'. Rather, what is is to say that markets broadly conform to either 'Say's Law, Marshall's Supply and Demand, Jevonian Marginal Utility, Veblin's status consumption (S/D inverted), Nash equilibrium, Pareto Opthomality, Euler's Theorem (Krugman), Rational expectations, information a- symmetry ......none of which are like 'gravity'. What Aristotle also said, however, was that everywhere markets were under control or sanction.. for example, in his time, you could haggle (kapeleke) only at a certain place (Agora), time, price, and licensed content. For example, since Athens overproduced pottery, it was sold at a subsidized price to keep potters pottering. Lemonade stands run by children continue to be treated with non-licensed indulgence to the day arsenic is discovered within, or that said stands serve as a front for the local teenage drug pushers.
  11. Boldfacing 'never' and saying that I need 'simple' terms only emphasizes the thin quality of your conjecture, as if you were gazing into a plastic crystal ball made for children, In Wallmart. Americans may or may not see inequality as an issue.
  12. Reality bends to people's whims to the extent that whims effect outcomes. In other words, if people believe enough that inequality is an issue, they'll vote for a party that promises more equality, ostensibly by taxing wealth and redistribution.
  13. In terms of QM, a basketball is not, as you claim, a 'complex system of interacting particles'. Rather, for de Broglie's equation, it's nothing but a wave function. i believe that I detailed this in my last post. Likewise, subatomic particles do not tunnel. The expression was/is limited to quanta, or photons. In other words, the science is easy to understand, the math difficult, and the probability real, but tiny.
  14. Whether you're 'trying' to understand GR is beside the point, because it's not about you. Rather it's about Gr being the explanation of record of movement on a cosmological scale.
  15. The objective way we validate the finite-ness of the universe is through basic astronomy.
  • Create New...