Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About th3ranger

  • Birthday 10/16/1985

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    charleston, sc

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

4748 profile views

th3ranger's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Yeah that is strange she was never talked to about these things. Peikoff podcast question? Evolution is nailed down quite well, especially now with all the DNA evidence, not so much other than fossils back then. More or less the same story with relativity, as GPS satellites use it all the time to correct their clocks as they travel around the earth at relatively high speed outside of the gravity well (or more so than us on the surface). The Big Bang has some evidence, mainly "everything is redshifted away from us more so the farther away you look" so, it follows that at one time the Universe was all together in one place really. This is true, but it's no fun calculating chances if you don't assume that! :-D Plus, we're the only example of life we have right now, so it's not completely fallacious.
  2. It's a binary system, Alpha and Proxima Centauri orbit each other. I'm guessing Alpha is the larger?
  3. Have you ever noticed that even when it's a digital signal less vulnerable to EM noise than analog, sometimes you can't quite get a signal and the news broadcaster keeps getting violently disassembled into pixel chunks? That broadcast tower is probably within 50 miles. You are barely receiving the TV signal. Now multiply it by 4.703×10^11. The result is how far Alpha Centari is, the closest star besides the Sun. Signal strength at 4 light years away from a 50 MW broadcast is 1.05141817 × 10-10 watts per meter; 367 dB of loss just free space path loss. NO ONE WILL RECIEVE IT THAT FAR AWAY, EVEN IF THEY ARE TRYING TO RECIEVE IT. Unless they have some absurdly large antenna I suppose? Like hundreds of miles across and know where to look? The statistical estimations based on surveys of only a few thousand stars that we happened to be able to detect planets around. Just because a planet is "earthlike" does not mean much. Hell, Venus is considered "earthlike" and probes specifically designed to survive there last minutes. .
  4. Yes, there's that too. What he said!
  5. I've been following the search for extra-solar planets, and intelligent life, and apparently: F, G, and K class stars make up 22.7% of all stars, so 4.54% of all stars at lowest, 10.896% at highest have at least one terrestrial, habitable zone planet, but that's not anywhere near the end of this game, as I hope to demonstrate. I think a basic requirement to even attempt interstellar travel is very advanced, widely accepted philosophy. One cannot travel among the stars if one does not understand how to live one's own life. Just the expenditure of energy involved, the necessary reliability of the engineering involved is mind numbing! Just to be able to have radio to transmit or receive anything, so many hurtles, in planet formation, in direction of evolution, in philosophy, in economics, in discovery, is amazing. To say the least, there is a great deal of opportunities for intelligence (or civilization!) to never develop. Consider that even though earth is around a stable star, and in a decent orbit, with plenty of water, humanity has only been around for 0.00419% (190k/4.5 billion) of that time, and we have been transmitting radio (weakly for most of this) for 0.0000022% (100/ 4.5 billion years) of that time, let alone being able to receive an interstellar radio signal. It may very well be that even if life is around on any of these habitable planets, and even if conditions are ideal for life to evolve intelligence, we'll have to wait far too long to co-exist with any alien civilizations to have a conversation, much less visit each other. Add to all this the fact that civilization is not irreversible once achieved and that space is just really, really, huge. Intelligent life may be out there, but the odds of superior intelligences existing, knowing about us, maintaining complete electromagnetic spectrum silence even before they discovered us, and observing us without being detected, and deciding to not contact us (Why not? What could we possibly do to hurt such masters of the universe? We can't even leave our own planet for long!) is complete madness. You might as well believe in god. I wouldn't assume a more advanced civilization would destroy a lesser civilization upon discovering one. That only happened in the New World because the Indians never discovered reason and philosophy, and, hell, for that matter, their whole civilization was a house of cards built on ritual human sacrifice! (In one word, context!) Does anyone really think that after traveling for hundreds of years, manipulating vast amounts of energy just to goddamned get here, and raw material in the galaxy being virtually limitless (thus aliens wanting to mine the earth for resources complete nonsense, never mind the idea of transporting resources), that an advanced alien civilization would exterminate us? What in the hell would be the point? It would be like using a hydrogen bomb (and all the respect for reason to make one in the first place) to kill a mosquito! (edit, spell check. should have done that before posting the first time...)
  6. One thing I like to do to encourage friends in perusing their dreams is buy them small gifts (or large depending on how close) that they cannot actually use until they have fulfilled their dream. Example: One has a dream of owning a small "weekender" type of sailing boat, so, for her birthday, I got her a small keychain that on submersion in water, inflates a small buoy and lights up internally. Very neat! But completely useless until she has her boat. Perhaps a bit mean? The point is, I'm encouraging her dream, and at the same time telling her I think she can definitely achieve it someday soon. As for people who drift though life like it's a lazy river? Don't be friends with them?
  7. I would answer this question, but first I must burn a calf in Ayn Rand's honor, and then repeat it for my Peikoff altar, They Who Have Done No Wrong, Amen. Objectivism isn't officially a cult, but as you can see from some of the first answers, and the trouble some of those people have answering your simple questions, clearly it is to some extent for some people. Some people want an Icon to follow apparently, and can't think for themselves. When Peikoff fired that guy from the ARC (for individual rights) there were many who were like "Peikoff can do no wrong. Worship him!" Those people are your cultists. Some people who were a bit more honest, like me, said things like "Peikoff is handling this poorly, and from what I can tell, (early in the situation) literally used his position to silence a critic of his protégé's book. What a scumbag!" (of course, as it turned out, although I don't remember the particulars, the situation was something less disgusting.) I'm almost sure this post will be deleted by the moderator. If you are one of them, I shall at least give this post a slight purpose: Hi? How are you? Have a good New Year's Eve? I'm sorry, you're right, I should have said Mrs. Rand not her full name, I didn't know her personally. Have a good New Year Mr. Moderator.
  8. Haaaaa loved that too. 300 is just awesome.
  9. I thought his mistakes were not taking Hyperion seriously, and negotiating with a man who states that he wants to destroy humanity. I'd have to rewatch to be sure, I was mainly examing Perseus and his choices.
  10. Just wanting to discuss the movie, not really argue, fyi, so take this post as good natured, not trying to character assassinate or anything! It was made by some of the same people, so I'd kind of expect it to look similar. It's not a carbon copy; like that one year 4 or 5 "thingy from space is going to hit the earth" movies came out all from different studios? It's more like Sin City and the Spirit. Both by Frank Miller. One is not an imitation of the other. a. I know we all expect about 7 plot twists per every half hour of movie like a Twilight Zone episode on steroids, but this movie told a solid story. That for once! Didn't try to attract viewers based on special effects (transformers) or extreme gore (any new movie basically), or sexual content. I mean, I was stunned that for once the sex scene was fairly tasteful! (they didn't show anything pointlessly it seemed like to me) b. Yeah... I don't know what was up with that. There was definitely an unequal level of power there that was not explained. There also seemed to me more titans than were actually in the cage... (I guess there was a reason why they lost before the story began? lol) c. How else would you know which gods they were? There would be almost no way to know unless they acted really stereotypically like in Xena or something, but I'm pretty sure that would not be an improvement over golden symbolic hats... d. I think also they were trying to make him seem unpredictable, seeing as how they had to change the whole story of Perseus so you couldn't guess the end. If King Hyperion seems like an unpredictable mad man... e. It was the same producers. It’s not like you can make 301... they kind of all died. This movie has modern special effects but things that happen in the movie and the character's motivations are very.... not modern in character (modern in the negative sense ha ha) in a way that is very pleasing to see on the big screen. I mentioned earlier they had to change the story of Perseus so it wouldn't be predictable, but still easily understandable. Therefore, King Hyperion! (Btw, I just did some IMDB surfing and there is going to be a 300 sequel... "300: Battle of Artemisia" (The Battle of Salamis I'm guessing))
  11. I mean, seriously, don't see it for all I care, I think this movie was overlooked by most people, and it was quite good. It's really not the same movie as 300, but it is a somewhat similar style.
  12. It was directed by the some of the same people as 300, but no, i was not talking about 300. What was your point? Were you trying to be funny? It's not quite as gratuitously violent as 300, So if you liked that movie except for the over the top violence, you'd like this one more.
  13. Oh forgot two juicy details that you all would like: At one point a leader tries to negotiate with evil, and is killed immediately by that evil, who had open about his intentions. Have any of you read about the crazy details of the Parthenon back in its full glory? The giant statue of a man, the general glorification of knowledge and the human form? The unbelievable precision accomplished so far in the past? All that? This movie, at times, gave me the same feeling.
  14. Ok, this is a really good movie. Any Objectivist would like this movie a lot. I really have no idea how it was made in this age! -It glorifies the human body in a way unlike any movie I've ever seen. Examples: (without giving anything away) Classical style statues are shown throughout, in a serious manner In the Titans' prison, the entire giant room is held up by four giant human bodies (male) with interlocking arms. Human statues depicted as strength incarnate are housing a prison for titans. -Fairly decent ethics message: The hero exemplifies pride and integrity, not sacrificing himself, sole goal is revenge. The villain is depicted as dirty, ugly, he kills his own men for little reason. His explicit goal is to destroy humanity. The gods (great costumes btw) love humanity and want to save it, but chose not to interfere. Great things are achievable in this movie, as are morals in general. Quote at the beginning and end: "All souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal AND divine." (emphasis theirs) This is narrated in front of a Greek classical style mural. This is a really good movie. It is worth watching, in my opinion, unlike any movie in years. It's a serious romantic (like how Rand meant it) movie. Link to trailer: (which I admit doesn't show much of what I'm talking about, but you have to imagine, it was marketed to the 99.999% non-Objectivist world, and as a result shows almost nothing but brief (in the movie) action scenes) On that topic if it was marketed to Objectivists, it would be a completely different trailer. http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1360370713/
  • Create New...