Eyesandhands

A catalyst encouraging a nuclear reaction? No. He is talking about a compound of some sort that is causing the hydrogen and nickel to collide. This would require the catalyst iteself to be exterting a pretty extreme force on the two atoms, and would likely cause a very extreme rise in temperature and give off large amounts of radiation. Instead, we are seeing temperatures more consistent with a small chemical reaction and almost no radiation being given off. This has been done many, many times before. Note the sense of urgency to sell the product without proof of its functionality. What will likely happen is he will get hundreds of thousands of dollars in donor money, then will suddenly disappear. It may be possible that someone ahs achieved cold fusion, but I have serious doubts that this is legitimate. Remember the coffee pot cold fusion from the university of Utah? Millions of dollars were made through fraud. People like the idea of stealing money in this way and want to do the same thing.

The force of gravity on the Earth and the moon are different because of the different masses of the to planteary objects. He is struggling to walk because he has very little control over his movements in an area less effected by gravity. Imagine trying to walk at the bottom of a pool in diving equipment. It's not easy. Also, his gear weighs hundreds of pounds on Earth. Even on the moon we're still talking in the range of 80lbs.

Ok...where to start? As a short introduction, I am going to try to give the most simple, easy to understand argument towards why your theory is not possible. I have only read your first few posts (I could not continue without comment. Too much is already bothering me.), so if the issues I address have already been raised, I apologize. The first error you make is here: You give the postulate that gravity does not exist. Then you mention weights. Weight is a product of a force, specifically gravity in a non-accelerated frame of referance on Earth. You cannot mention "weight" if you deny the existence of a force. Mistake number two: Actually, the force that acts on the steel rod and the paper is the same, and the distance has nothing to do with air pressure or density, it has to do with the objects' moment of inertia. This is easily observed by noting that the exact same experiment will yield the same % difference in velocity when conducted in any non-accelerated environment. If you applied a force to the steel and paper in a vaccum, the steel would move less simply because the amount of force required to move the steel is greater than the amount required to move the paper. Mistake three: You say that gravity "works more effectively on heavy objects." and is not, therefore, a force. This is untrue. What you're seeing is an entirely different situation than what you described earlier. In your situation, the force applied is the same between the two objects. The blower applies the same force to the steel rod and the paper. Gravity, however (under Newton and Einstein's posulates instead of yours) is dependant on the mass of the object. That is, the larger the mass, the larger the force. This means that the force of gravity is greater when applied to the second object, so one would expect the acceleration to be larger. One sees similar forces when dealing with electromagnetic forces. The larger the object (whether it be a magnet or an amount of electrons), the greater the force. Mistake 4: You deny the existence of a force, then you mention pressure. Again, force creates pressure. Without any force acting on a gas, it will infinitely expand until the pressure is zero. What creates pressure on Earth is gravity (among many other factors.), so you may not referance atmospheric pressure if you deny the existence of gravity. Mistake 5: You use the terms "upward" and "downward" as absolute directions. I ask you this: with respect to what? For those values to be absolute directions, one must have an absolute reference point. Things on earth fall towards the center of the Earth. However, things on the moon do not fall towards the center of the Earth, they fall towards the center of the moon. Gravity explains this. Your theory does not. If densities and pressures (pressure already being irrelevant as I stated before, but I will go with it for this point.) are the only determining factors of what we observe as gravity, then your theory does not hold water. Here is why: You claim that objects more dense than the surrounding gas fall "downward." This is true, given that your reference frame is a sufficiently large object and "downward" is the center of that object. Drop an object in space and it does not fall. Drop an object in the ISS (relatively no gravity, but with existing pressure) and it does not fall. Therefore, the objects are not falling due to pressures. If they were, objects in space would "fall." Mistake 6: Your experiment with the balloon and the stone. Repeat it in a vacuum. (google demonstrations if you cannot personally do this) You will see that the balloon and the stone accelerate at the same rate. This happens regardless of what the balloon is filled with. Also, when you let go of a baloon filled with helium, one may still observe the effect of gravity. A baloon filled with helium will rise very slowly in our atomosphere. However, if one were to fill a balloon with helium in the ISS (at 1 atm pressure), it would rise MUCH faster due to the lack of a relative force of gravity. I believe you misunderstand the concept of "the universe." The universe, by definition, is all encompassing. Literally. The literal meaning of the universe is everything. Everywhere. Therefore, the universe cannot be "surrounded" by a gas. Any gas is part of the definition of the universe and therefore, cannot be outside of the universe. If the universe is arranged according to densities, why is it that the planets are NOT arranged in this fashion? Pluto is more dense than neptune. Why is it not near the other planets of similar density? Also, This does not explain the planets' motions and orbits. Put a basketball in the water. Now put a tennis ball next to it. Did they start orbiting each other? And finally, if the entire universe is arranged accoring to density, and gravity does not exist, why may I drop a weather baloon filled with hydrogen (the least dense balloon one could possible fashion.) and watch it cease its upward motion in our upper atmosphere? If space is filled with gas, (any gas in fact, since I released the least dense element in existence) why does it not continue floating upward? Want to know a simple answer? Gravity is acting downward on the balloon. And, if space is not filled with gas (which it is not, relatively at least), what keeps our atmosphere intact? Again, for there to be a pressure, a force must exist. This force is gravity. Finally, I suggest you brush up on your basic math and science skills, along with practicing logic problems. You made a few incredible leaps in logic which were not correct that would not have been made if you had simply drawn a force diagram or derived simple equations of your own as you went from step to step. Those derivations and diagrams would show that you are missing a force, and the logic portion would help you see why there is no universal "up" or "down" and that there is no evidence for your claims, while there is a huge amount of evidence (and no evidence against) the current theories. I do not mean to insult you, but you have some serious work to do before you start trying to theorize on such broad, overarching areas such as the existence of gravity.

Then if I take an aircraft and build it out of a slightly different material and move the flap positioning, it should be considered a new creation? The stripe on the aircraft wasn't important, it was just my tool for the argument. And again, it depends on the amount of changing that is done, which only matters in a legal sense, and is a matter of judgment. If you used identical lyrics and rearranged it, you are feeding off of the success of someone else. If you take the lyrics of a song but give it a different musical composition of your own, you can take credit for the music, but you may not take credit for the song as a whole and should ask permission to use the lyrics. Saying, as you did, that changing a few words around in a song makes it yours and that you created it is like changing the tires on your car and saying that you built an entirely new car. Property is ownership. If I create something, what right does anyone else have to that thing? That is what makes it property; when you create something entirely original, it is entirely yours and no one can take it from you unless you willingly trade/give it up or it is taken by force. Force, in this case, includes taking without consent. Again, copyright is something one can voluntarily use. If I do not care if others use my creations, I do not need to protect myself. If I create something solely for private use, no one can even steal it. However, if I do not want a person taking my creation, most often because I intend to benefit financially, I can use copyright to protect it. Arguing that copyright should not exist is arguing that every product of my mind (until I make it into a physical form, since you're fine with patents) belongs to everyone else. The only difference between copyrights and patents is that patents deal with material objects while copyrights deal with less tangible ideas, but they are still products of one's mind. How can you even draw much of a line between the two? Both can be sold, and benefited from financially; both require time, thought, and effort to create; and both, being creations of one's mind, are automatically property of the creator. You say that less tangible ideas should not be protected by law. I've said this before (without response): why is it that something will absolutely belong to me when there is no one to take it away, but if someone has the ability to steal it, I should no longer own that object at all. It's like you've already done the thief's job for him.

"an aircraft producer copying another producer's plane but adding a stripe down the side does not make it a new product" If you believe what you just said, then patents are just as invalid as you believe copyrights to be. I understand that you may disagree with me, but did you read what I had to say? It's beginning to look like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, not to have your questions answered. And to answer your "inspiration" point, this is again a matter for a judge to decide. Inspiration is not a violation of property rights, but it also does not give the original person (the one who inspired) any rights to the new invention. If I inspire someone to build a skyscraper by drawing a tall building, I have done nothing with my own mind to create that skyscraper, and can therefore claim no credit. If I complete an entire design for a skyscraper and someone else builds it without my permission, they are attempting to benefit off of the product of my mind. Anyone judging the situation can try to figure out if it was mere inspiration or if it was a copy. (Again, refer to my post on judgment and why patents and copyrights fall in that category.) Edit: As an answer to "?" : "can not fall under the legal definition of property (as in, not protected, though whether or not it is property in the literal sense is something I might come back to)" "Some of your property cannot be stolen; like you said, nothing stops someone from creating a song and never sharing it with anyone. For the property that can be stolen, we have copyrights and patents to protect the true creators of whatever the property may be. Some property, like your two page story, falls in an interesting category; it is still your property, but the simpler the property is, the harder it is to prove it is your own design, and the harder it is to protect. And, in fact, most of these simple things do not need protecting; if anyone can, and many people have, come up with the same idea as you, no harm is done if someone else happens to create the same thing." Any and every idea you have is your property, but some do not need protection or simply cannot be protected. The fact that you intentionally try to find errors in the arguments of those arguing against you is good. But when you take pieces out of context, you only weaken your own argument. Please, before responding, make sure you aren't asking questions such as "why not?" when I give the answer only a sentence later. Instead, if you disagree, say "Point A is wrong because ____" or concede; don't use circular logic, especially among those in this forum. (This is not meant to be an insult: just advice in hopes that we can communicate more clearly.)

There is an interesting line between what can and cannot be considered property. I haven't fully explored this line yet, but from what I have thought through, I think I have established where I think this line should be (though I'd have to refine it for any legal situation.) One point I would like to make is that when Rand argued that all property is intellectual because we survive by using our minds, I don't believe that she implied property should be limited to things related to survival only (and if she did, I would not agree with her). What makes all property intellectual is that anything created or manipulated requires a process of thought, which also is our differentiating survival mechanism. Without this way of survival, the concept of property would be akin to property in an animal's world, in which whoever has the most brute force controls the most land. She was making a point that property is not acquired by brute force among men when rational, thinking minds are involved, not commenting at all on what is or is not property. Our tool of survival is how we acquire property, but this does not mean all property deals with survival. It's similar to how a circle is an ellipse but something being an ellipse does not mean it's a circle, and that sort of paradox can lead to slight errors in a train of thought. On to defining property a little more clearly. To put my opinion simply, if you make a simple design on a piece of paper, it is your property. As is a two page story. Fashion design is...well... I began to type out my opinion, then retracted it because I honestly have not put enough thought into this to discuss it, though my general conclusion was that mixing and matching clothes can not fall under the legal definition of property (as in, not protected, though whether or not it is property in the literal sense is something I might come back to), because you cannot and should not be able to prevent someone from buying others' products and matching them in the same fashion, while a new dress being created should be legally considered property. After looking back a few pages as you suggested, "If concepts shouldn't be property (like fashion styles, because it's unenforceable), then wouldn't that mean there should be no copyrights? The only way to practically enforce copyrights would be to treat them like concepts. Otherwise, someone can alter a song very slightly, and it will no longer be the same concrete original. " I don't think this is necessarily true. I think you may be looking a bit too specifically at these individual situations, and it's hindering your ability to see the whole picture. A song is clearly not a concept (and should, therefore, not be treated as such. We do not fake reality.) A song is a very specific arrangement of music and/or lyrics produced by a thinking mind. This does not, however, imply that someone else can change a few words and claim it to now be a new product and attempt to leech off of the products of the song's creator, in the same way that an aircraft producer copying another producer's plane but adding a stripe down the side does not make it a new product. Patents and copyrights should be approached in the same manner of judgment I discussed before. This was not what I had intended on discussing. I digress. Next piece to address... "just because some ideas should be property, that doesn't necessarily mean all (or X, Y, but not Z) ideas should be property" Why not? All ideas are property. Allow me to use a very common, but effective method to attempt to prove this to you. Imagine a man on a deserted, completely untouched and unknown island. What does this man own? He does not own the island unless he alters it; it is simply there. The one thing that is his property, in the entirety of the word, is whatever he creates, including ideas. If he did not own the ideas, they would have had to come from some other source and have already existed (and...there's no need to say how ridiculous that is.) When there is no one to take away the man's property, it is very difficult to attempt to define it as anything except creation. So now, after both of these posts, I have a somewhat firm foundation of the definition of property and can address what I think is the issue at hand. You are having difficulty recognizing some things as property because it is legally difficult to enforce, or entirely unenforceable. Why does this exclude some things from the definition? Because someone can easily steal a song from me, it is no longer mine? What about a two page story? Or a simple drawing? Anything a human being creates by a process of volitional thought is that human's property. Some of your property cannot be stolen; like you said, nothing stops someone from creating a song and never sharing it with anyone. For the property that can be stolen, we have copyrights and patents to protect the true creators of whatever the property may be. Some property, like your two page story, falls in an interesting category; it is still your property, but the simpler the property is, the harder it is to prove it is your own design, and the harder it is to protect. And, in fact, most of these simple things do not need protecting; if anyone can, and many people have, come up with the same idea as you, no harm is done if someone else happens to create the same thing. Remember that patents and copyrights are something someone can voluntarily use. You spoke about how some products may be just as successful by using donations as their financial support; many products do this already. The software industry comes to mind, in which many designers choose to include the source code of their product, encouraging others to improve on it and still turn a profit. There are many, many people in the world who would rather kill an inventor for his product than to create for themselves or pay for the product, and that is why we have patents and copyrights. The problem with copyrights and why they are so difficult to enforce isn't that property is debatable, it's that those people who would rather kill are not only common, but their behavior is encouraged.

Before making my argument, I would like to note that I have not read the entirety of these fifteen pages, and am therefore somewhat misinformed on what has and has not been said. Normally I would not attempt to make a point under these circumstances, but I would like to offer my opinions to the original poster (as opposed to continuing this debate as a whole.) Much of this thread has strayed far off point, so I will attempt to stay as concise as possible. "Why should ideas be considered property?" (paraphrased, referring specifically to songs, books, etc, but also to ideas as a whole.) To begin, the most basic definition of property, by its root, proprius: One's own. Now I have read it asked (in some form or another) "Yes, but how do you define 'own' or 'belong?'", which has been correctly answered: "To own is for a volitional being to have created a thing (an original thing to be specific)." Ownership also includes ownership by trade, which is simply a way of exchanging items of equal value (I may come back to this, but it remains a tangent for now.) The only rebuttal to this answer has been "but you create a child, is it not now your property?" (admitting that children are not property, but used in an attempt to invalidate the opposing argument.) This argument by the original poster does not invalidate the definition of ownership, and this is why: if the "child" the parents created were not a human being, but nothing more than a lump of matter, then yes, the parents would own it. However, because the child is, in fact, a being a volitional consciousness, ownership does not and can not apply to him/her. The child makes his/her own decisions and lives his/her own life, and the parents have no claim on the child's life. If humans in matter and humans in consciousness were divisible, then it could be said that the parents own the child's body, but this is not the way a human functions, and because a human is an indivisible being of matter and consciousness (taken directly from Rand), the parents can't own the human. So (unless to OP would like to refute any of the above arguments), it is undeniable that any tangible thing a human creates by a process of volitional thought and action is that human's property. The OP, however, seems to believe, or at least wants to hear a strong argument against, that an abstract creation, such as a song, does not fall under this category of "property." The main (and unrefuted, from what I have read) argument the OP made was that pirating a song from the internet does no harm to the creator of the song. There is direct, immediate harm that the thief has done to the creator, and it is the same harm that would have been done were the object more tangible. The thief is benefiting, while the creator is not. This is exactly the same as stealing a car, as the owner is no longer benefiting, while the thief is benefiting. When a rational human creates a song and publishes the song, he/she put time and work into the creation of that song, and intends to make it accessible to others in exchange for their money (the amount spent being an amount agreed to be equal to the profit of enjoyment experienced by the listener.) If someones steals this creation and gives it out for free, the benefits the creator would have reaped are now gone. "How is telling someone they can't use an invention someone else came up with not an initiation of force if the person who invented it willingly told other people about it?" The initiation of force was when someone else claimed the right to use something he/she does not own. Willingly telling someone about an invention does not give that person the right to use it. Using or reproducing an invention without the approval of the inventor is an act of force against the inventor, as you are claiming the right to someone else's property (see def of property above, and if you disagree, please give a valid argument against it). Referring to point number 4, as it is too long to quote: Yes, it is an issue for the courts, but yes, philosophy does also have guidelines to how the subject should be approached. What are those guidelines? The system of judgment itself. To attempt to determine whether or not copyright infringement has taken place or not, the human judging must synthesize all the facts at hand and make a rational decision about whether or not infringement has indeed taken place. According to you, "there's no way (I can think of) where you can demonstrate a copyright violation." Let me set up a few parallel scenarios, dealing with murder instead of copyright laws, as they are approached in the same manner, being matters of judgment. There are obvious cases of guilt in both scenarios; if the murderer's fingerprints are on the weapon, blood was found on his clothes matching the victim, etc, the evidence is just as incriminating as if there are sections of a copy-written book that are exactly identical to the book suspected to be the copy. Then there are less obvious cases, such as if the murderer can only be placed in the general area, or if only the plot elements of a book are identical. In either case, it is the judge's job (whether the actual judge or any other human judging the case) to rationally determine whether the evidence is strong enough to all but eliminate the element of "chance" and incriminate the person being judged. If, by dramatic coincidence, you somehow happen to create a book nearly identical to another and are sued, then the error is not in the copy-write system, but in the judgment of whoever oversaw the case. If your situation were all it took to make a law invalid, then it would be wrong to accuse anyone of murder, because what if, by dramatic coincidence, you touched a knife that was later used to kill someone and soon after walked through the future scene of the crime, leaving your shoe prints at the scene? This post actually ended up being fairly long winded, didn't cover half of what I had wanted to cover, and didn't go deep enough in what I did cover, but I think I'll wait for any response before continuing. Actually, one last thing I would like to address: your hypothetical of a man who invents something that will save the entire world but decides not to share it. No rational man (who valued his/her own life) would do this. If the world were about to end, this would mean his life would also be coming to an end and not using his invention to save himself would essentially be an act of suicide. If, in a more likely situation, a man invents something that could possibly save a nation, but chooses not to save it, that nation has no right to take it from him if he chooses not to share his invention. This situation is actually seen today. The inventor of a water filter does not produce at a loss and give away every one of his filters for free, does he? However, if someone is able to exchange his/her own production for that water filter, the inventor would be glad to make the trade. Just because someone needs something does not give them the right to it, even if that person needs it to survive. In your hypothetical situation, just because the people need something, they should have the right to seize it. The same principle you apply here would be applicable to any other case of need in the world, and those who produced would receive nothing while those in need would receive everything: the less you sow, the more you reap. Need is not a claim.

The man on an island hypothetical situation would work. When there is no one else to recognize a person's rights and no one to "grant" him his rights, does he suddenly lose his rights? No, his rights to life, liberty, etc are most noticeable in this situation. Also, when refuting his argument, remember that his definition of rights is one which relies on force. His argument is often founded on the idea that if others force a person to give up his/her own life, his right to life is gone. However, he still chose to give in, no matter how despicable the forces against him were, which is the epitome of his right to life. He can still make the choice, up until the "others" literally murder him. Confront him with this situation. Is man meant to live in a place in which others decide his rights; one in which, if he chooses to excercise his right to life, he is murdered? (This is, of course, a very extreme scenario, but is applicable to even the most moderate situations.)

This is the kind of answer I was looking for. Though I didn't suggest they had found a contradiction in my philosophy, I couldn't pinpoint the reason for the reversal. Thank you for giving me perspective on their behavior.

This is exactly what I see most of the time.

It was just a general skyline using familiar shapes of a city. There is one building that is based off of the CN tower, but the importance of the background is that it is a city: any city.

Uncertainty of reality or uncertainty of how we percieve reality? Reality is certain by the law of identity, not only because Objectivism demands it. Perhaps there are things I believe to be true based on deductions I have made that aren't, but that doesn't make reality any less certain. If reality were not certain (and therefore at least in part, not real) it would not be reality, and the premise that would be incorrect would be the original perception of reality, not reality itself. So to clarify my original question a little bit: The person I reference is now a collectivist and is very hostile to the objectivist philosophy. Multiple times I have met nihilists and collectivists who claim to have once been objectivist. I'm not saying anyone should be omniscient, only rational and, if they find themselves to be irrational, correct his/her mistake. If, in these people's minds, their philosophy is rational, I am not the judge of who's philosophy is correct: reality is. But this specific person is the classic case of "I know what I believe isn't rational, but that's because nothing is rational and no one can know anything." So I want to know what could possibly make a person go from objectivist to nihilist? I simply don't see it possilbe for a rational person to consiously choose the irrational, which is why I doubt the person's rationality in the first place. About half the people I know who claim to be objectivist do not live their life according to their facade of a philosophy. Most of them, in my eyes, either have a different philosophy, or don't even have one of their own in the first place (one of the drifters who will pick up any thought that "feels" right.) In your opinions, am I right here, or are there really people out there who choose a philosophy that rejects their ability to make choices with full knowledge of the implications of their choice, after having already realized the philosophy of objectivism?

Yes, this is just a sketch and the lack of color and detail is on purpose. I've considered making it into a complete piece, but I have almost no experience in creating art (as in visual representations of things,) although that would not stop me. As it stands, this was simply a quick practice of CAD skills in the form of art to convey a message. The posture and form of the woman was by far the most time consuming part of creating this drawing. About half the time creating the drawing went into positioning rather than detail. (if you'll notice, there are a few minor mistakes in detail -at least that I see- such as the woman's leg. It's a little bit off as far as proportions.)

Someone I know recently noticed I owned Atlas Shrugged and commented, saying "I read that once and was a 'Randian' myself- that is, an objectivist- but later realized it was just a childish phase." This is not the first time I have come across someone who claims to have once been objectivist but is no longer. I have strong doubts that these people ever truly understood what philosophy they claimed to follow (follow is not the correct word- I mean something closer to 'own' but cannot think of a decent word at the moment) but have never recieved a straight answer when confronting them directly. Whenever I confront them with a discussion of objectivism, they immediately make ad hominem attacks against Ayn Rand with little to no support, and refuse to continue the discussion. Is it possible for someone to value reason and thier own life above all else and, while under that philosophy, reject reason? Perhaps these people are the Robert Stadler's of the the world and rejected what they knew to be true, but I have reason to believe that those people are much rarer than those who simply never understood at all. Am I wrong to think this; is there evidence that there is a significant amount of people who will reject reason when they encounter it?

This is an original drawing I recently created using Autodesk's Autocad 2011. I limited myself to 45 minutes to complete it as an excercise to improve my CAD skills. I would appreciate any input, criticism, or suggestions regarding either the visible CAD techniques or my aesthetics involved in its creation.