Q.E.D.

I noticed some people might be confused about setting c=1 so I thought I'd draw an example from economics. Say you had a piggy bank containing quarters and a bank account in England containing Euros and you wanted a formula for how much money you have. If P is the amount of pennies in your piggy bank and E is the amount of money in your bank account, your total money M in dollars will be something like this: M = kE + 0.01P where k is the constant determining the conversion rate from Euros to Dollars. If we change units so that we count our piggy bank in dollars and our English bank account in dollars our equation becomes M = E + P (much simpler) Even if 'k' were truly constant in nature (euros to dollars never changed) it would still be possible to eliminate it from equations by choosing units where k=1. I hope that will make it clearer to anyone who reads this in the future.

I simply make it explicit that I pay for music or movies. I am certain that anyone is smart enough to fill in the blanks as to why I pay for my things. Its also important to take into account the point of life that many people are at. Adults with discretionary money are a lot more likely to purchase art they enjoy whereas kids often do not have the same ability. It would be great for people to think in terms of principles and to not download illegally no matter how little money they have, but that requires an enormous dedication to principles on an issue that seems inconsequential most of the time.

I've rarely heard of contemporary socialists with any kind of education advocating completely eliminating market freedom. Socialists generally wish to compromise between the economic efficiency of capitalism and what they call necessary social duty. After the historic events of the 20th century its downright ignorant to suggest that controlled markets out compete free markets. Even the Chinese government recognizes the benefit of free market interaction and allows U.S. companies to seek a profit within its borders. Its an economic and historical absurdity to claim that coercive regulations promote industrial growth. Psychologically most people have directly experienced the effectiveness of threats to wage workers. You can scare people to work hard enough not to get fired, but you can't scare them enough to work harder than their peers. Peer pressure would further support stagnation and poor performance without the profit motive. Of course the regulation is morally wrong - but because its immoral its impractical. If you're immoral to people they'll respond negatively in principle. It doesn't matter if you do it with the windows open or closed or if the weather is good on a given day. The perceived benefits of irrationality pale in comparison to the legitimate benefits gained by acting rationally.

I think it would be more accurate to find a term that actually describes both parties under which to organize. Perhaps something referring to the belief in a minimal government or a proper government? Since most problems with our state involve property rights violations perhaps something concerning the 'market' should be in the name? I think its a worthwhile idea to explore, but I don't think its effective to try to change the meaning of a commonly used word.

If you want to understand relativity you need to understand _hyperbolic_ geometry in two dimensions since the x,t plane is actually a hyperbolic (not Euclidean) plane. This means that whereas a Euclidean plane has a^2 + b^2 = c^2 the hyperbolic geometry has x^2 - (ct)^2 = s^2 where s is what physicists call the "proper distance". In this geometry 'c' is viewed as one unit of length over another so many times physicists will just choose the same unit for time and space so that x^2 - t^2 = s^2. To get an understanding of hyperbolic geometry look at some of McEscher's paintings and do some googling. http://www.josleys.com/htmlgalleries/Esche...p/E103_64_S.JPG

There are actually galaxies in every direction in the sky which are mostly blocked by gas and other objects. The reason we're not blinded by looking up at the sky is that in the farthest distances we can see objects are moving away from us at nearly the speed of light (Doppler effect). The Hubble law which holds approximately across the sky says that other galaxies are moving away from us at a speed proportional to their distance away from us so that the observable universe is really only a small piece of a whole we will can NEVER see. The moral of the story is we have no idea how much matter exists within the universe and how far the universe extends. Tensorman's point is the only point that really matters for the javelin thought experiment. Consider the real numbers, every two real numbers x & y have a definite distance between them given by d(x,y) = |x - y| and the set of real numbers is unbounded. The javelin argument suggests that the universe is without end - but that does not mean that its necessarily infinite. We may live in a 4-dimensional plane or on the surface of a 4-dimensional sphere or a combination of the two (a torus).

Despite the many disagreements that have been raised to the very worthwhile original post - throughout my own readings and debates I've often run into a lot of trouble due to the ambiguity of both morality and ethics. The most widespread and most offensive form of secular altruism I've encountered (utilitarianism) almost entirely views ethics as actions which are within the social domain. Whether or not people agree on the difference between the terms ethical and moral - I think it is important that a distinction be made. In the same way Ayn Rand saw it necessary to redefine the meaning of selfishness I think it would be useful to draw a distinction between a personal code of conduct and universally appropriate behaviors. I see this post as an attempt to accomplish this differentiation. Philosophically I think a distinction may be made since structurally universal egoism in society follows from the rational egoism of the individual. Since we utilize morals to evaluate what is socially ethical, not the other way around, it seems that these moral/ethical categories should be separated. Morals are not chosen by the 'ethical' demands. The first moral principle is relying on ones own judgment - not a desired social aim. Furthermore, I think such a differentiation would be useful. As someone who likes to draw pictures and think in terms of arrows, diagrams, lists, and other structures I think having more definitions can be highly useful for clarifying important technical points which would otherwise be obscured by overly general language. In everyday conversation mixing 'moral' and 'ethical' has little effect, but a large portion of the population only thinks of ethics as applicable in social circumstances. It would be a useful didactic tool if one were to differentiate morality and ethics.

An achievement which metaphysically increases the prestige you deserve is something to seek. Seeking prestige _as an achievement_ requires the participation of others. Calling the latter desirable is a little contrived as pursuing such an achievement might lead you to do other things that are against your judgment. I'd give myself a few weeks of thought to make sure I don't make any stupid choices.

Energy must be manifested in matter or radiation. Energy and mass aren't separate quantities in the modern sense. In the same way you can relate the sides of a triangle by a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in space, relativity gives an equivalent relation E^2 = m^2 + p^2 (in units where we do not need to put in the speed of light c). That is to say a particle has both mass 'm' and momentum 'p' and it can exchange momentum with other particles via different interactions (changing the energy 'E' of the particle). Light has only momentum (E = p) and a 'resting' piece of matter has only mass energy (E = m). However, if you were trying to ask, does electromagnetic radiation (light) interact with matter via charge, then yes. We attach our field concept of the electron to the field concept of light by a mathematical charge term. This charge term facilitates the interaction between the electromagnetic field and the field of electrons.

It sounds like someone has to check his premises. At worst this article will get a few people to read Rand's books. It's just another turd in the sea of feces.

Evil isn't a force to be considered by man, unless it is actually in the form of force against him. The evil is the stupid, the unable, and the second-hand. Evil is impotent in the face of the rational man.

I might be able to help with some physics. There's a rule in physics for calculating when it becomes important not to treat space as being euclidean or flat, and that's when you're in a region very close to a very massive black hole G*M/(r*c^2) >= 1. Around the earth this comes out to around 10^-9 which is much clearly less than one. The difference between the reality we face here on earth and the geometry Euclid describes is very small. So I think its fair to say that Euclid's geometry probably wasn't developed through any kind of irrational leaps of faith. In different frameworks lines might be defined differently, but this would add complexity to your geometry course that the lecturer probably isn't interested in. You can think of a line as a one dimensional plane. You can also define a line by its analytic properties, but that requires coordinate systems, algebra, and probably some calculus to do in a cool way. If you have the concept of a vector you can define a line as a curve upon which you can transport the vector so that the vector doesn't change direction relative to the line. Although, I do admit the line took creativity, just like the wheel. There aren't wheels in nature just as there aren't perflectly straight things, but some things such as light rays come close. Fundamentally speaking, your ability to imagine up concepts comes from the hardware your brain evolved to measure nature. A valid concept that you can understand cannot come from outside reality. If you can visualize a line, its because your brain has the machinery to visualize a line. Although sometimes we can't visualize things, but we can translate them into things we can visualize to dumb them down. The difference between a line and a god is that a god can take on any shape it wants whereas a line has a structure, limitations, and a proper mental image. It is a tough issue though.

I happen to know a little bit about gravity. To start off, its only a hypothesis that the universe is a hypersphere, there are a few other geometries that I don't remember off the top of my head that would also satisfy the conditions of our 'local space'. You may come close to imagining spacetime by picturing a cloth (this represents one dimension of space and one dimension of time). We understand this cloth to have an associated metric or distance between points. Curvature is the change in metric or distance between points. You may also understand curvature as the 'curviness' of this cloth. To relate this to high school math, curvature in an area of cloth implies that the pythagorean theorem for distance between points changes on that patch of cloth. Also, this cloth has the property that if you zoom in really far, far enough that we may call it the 'local space' of a point on the cloth, it should be approximately the old flat space that you're used to from algebra. As far as we've been able to tell CURVATURE IS GRAVITY. Particles moving along your cloth will follow the shortest path/distance according to the changing metric. These lines of shortest distance are called 'geodesics'. Further, mass or energy create the curvature necessary for altering the geodesics along which particles travel. A particle entering a region of curvature might leave at a different angle or be bound in orbit. You can look up all sorts of visual examples of curvature. Of course, all of this refers to curvature in a single region of local space, or in a single patch of cloth. You can't tell from one piece of cloth the exact structure of the rest of the cloth. However, physicists may consider what they consider to be the average curvature of space (which is very little curvature) and then try to find different global geometries which would allow for that large scale average curvature. A hypothetical but ridiculously expensive test to identify the global average curvature in a region of space would be to fly in a very large circle in space and then to find the difference between your starting point and your ending point. Also, Quantum Physics isn't incompatible in principle with the concepts of general relativity I described so far. The difficult arises in that unlike the quantization of Electrodynamics, the quantization of gravity doesn't have spacetime as a background for the particles to move around in. Quantum Gravity must describe both the dynamics of particles and of the spacetime dependent on those particles. There are a lot of difficulties that pop up, just as there were difficulties in Quantum Electrodynamics that people like Richard Feynman resolved with some tricks. So gravity is a lot more complicated and might require a couple of genuises to figure out how to get rid of all the infinities other mathematical difficulties.

Hilarious. Tell us another.

I'm disgusted by all parties described in this article. There's not much else to say.

If there is any such thing as "corporate capitalism" it is socialism wherein corporations may employ government intervention for the conquest of other men and to gain the unearned. Government subsidies for certain corporations make it very difficult or impossible for competitors to enter the marketplace and to undo (possibly unfair) monopolies. Government bailouts give corporations the ability to act irrationally because there's no threat of the natural repercussions. LFC on the other hand stresses separation of business and state for the same reasons there is a separation of church and state. Its an absolute perversion of facts and language to attribute corporate influence of government to unregulated capitalism. Whom other than a few corrupt CEOs would politicians consort with before enacting regulations in a field?

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/psuaaa/Our_Pho...an_Atheist.html The Atheist Club here also has an Ask an Atheist event. They also regularly protest / debate Christian speakers, but they do it from a subjectivist perspective and never actually make any headway.

I don't think anyone argues with the principle that the public institution should attempt to maximize the amount of value gained from tax payer money. What people disagree on is the value of this room on your campus. While Christianity may be ridiculous nonsense, I'd be willing to guess that this room is of value to the mostly Christian population which inhabit this university. I think you should let the Christians have their room, and not waste your time worrying about it. The Atheist Association at your campus sounds a lot like the bunch of subjectivists at my school. They're not trying to succeed, they want the Christians to fail. They don't want to establish a sanctum for reason, they want the Christian chapel to be desecrated. I've realized that its counter productive to try to work with irrational atheist/agnostics because they've no interest in building up a rational world view and instead concentrate on bashing extremist (known to be crazy) christians.

The problem in this assertion is not in reversing the meaning of causality from "it happens because" to "because it happens" (i.e. it doesn't affect causality whether it works forwards or backwards, because things still behave according to their natures). It seems the phrase "Everything happens for a Reason" implies moreover that existence itself implies consciousness (in other words primacy of consciousness). The phrase implies that all events have significance, and that implies significance to a consciousness, although events happen independent of conscious entities. They are able to believe this muck because it arises from the same fallacy as the first mover argument. They say that something exists so therefore something has to be conscious to make it exist, and that is baseless. NOTE: My view on causality is a little different because I view things from the physical perspective that the observed laws of nature are independent of time translations and reflections (reversals). The past, present, and future of an entity all come together as a fixed spacetime package. Some people might say that they cannot have free will if they have a definite future 'already', but that's nonsense, because you're stilling making decisions whether your body is made out of physical particles or not. The ability to make what you perceive as a decision cannot contradict causality.

In some cases verbal abuse may constitute implied initiation of force. These cases are generally referred to as harassment, wherein a culprit utilizes implied physical force to emotionally harm a victim. Its harassment if an assailant makes it impossible to escape repeated verbal abuse (without engaging in violence). In many valid cases harassment is equivalent to stalking. If rational thought leads you to believe that you must defend the pursuit of your values from physical force, by physical force, I think it is moral. Usually this moral sanction falls upon the police.

Even though I grew up in a family which would claim to be Christian, we never went to church, never mentioned Christianity, and always made Christmas about togetherness and gift giving. Because the only real love is selfish love, I think this kind of commercial Christmas which most Americans practice undermines Christian culture and promotes virtue. The immoral is the impotent. There is no need to fight against Christianity, one simply needs to fill its death void with value. If you really want to make some sort of critical change though, you may want to gather pictures, report cards, trophies, documents and other marks of productive achievement / happy memories and try to start a tradition of celebrating the years achievements on Christmas.

HAH! The witchdoctor strikes again!

I recall Galt referring to himself as a physicist and not an engineer, although he did seek employment as an engineer. Further, the engine Galt constructed was only possible due to a breakthrough in theoretical physics (or a "new concept of energy"). Although, I think for an objectivist the lines between an engineer and a physicist are more blurred because there is no practical/theoretical dichotomy.

Another way of thinking about the nonsense of the supernatural is to understand the objectivist definition of a concept. A concept refers to something that exists in reality. The alternative (and comparatively worthless view) is that a concept is just a definition. The problem with the second type of 'concept' is that it allows things that haven't actually been conceptualized to be a concept or in other terms its just wrong. When I say 'walrus' you don't picture a walrus in your mind because of choice, a walrus is a thing in reality. Even if I don't know the anatomy of a walrus, I can still talk about walruses and know that I mean the walruses who live here on earth. I also know that I can mean no other kind of walrus. When a mystic says 'god' he could mean anything or nothing at all. Further, one does not picture 'God' when someone mentions 'God'. A concept which is not gained from interaction with the real world is invalid. From this perspective, a theological argument is invalid from the moment 'god' is mentioned in any form, because its an anticoncept.

In your first post you discuss an image from the particle accelerator at Brookhaven. To make a scientific argument its a lot more important to have the charts and physical data accompanying that picture than to be able to imagine why it looks the way it does. As I understand it, you're asking why there are so many particles if there shouldn't be that many quarks in two gold molecules? First, individual quarks are not observed, baryons and mesons are observed. The majority of those particles however, are created from kinetic energy on impact. The annihilation/destruction of particles follows from relativity and quantum mechanics.