LifeIsBrief

This is my favorite intro video, especially good for people who like Jon Stewart. "Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhSsIpjtzY "Is government the antithesis of liberty?""No... That is like saying that, a dragon is the antithesis of biology, or a ghost is the antithesis of a human being. Governments, and dragons, and hippogriffs, and unicorns and ghosts do not exist... There are really only people with guns, and people running and hiding from them... The initiation of force is the antithesis of morality, and liberty."

The Amish... That's why. Religion... Pacifism. A government is incapable, of exercising restraint of power, because it must always tax equally, even to the pacifists. Thus it must initiate force, to pay for its military, with the money of people who are fundamentally morally opposed to funding a military. If a "leader" was to allow people opposed to the military to "opt out" of military taxes, everyone would stop paying. So, it is inherently impossible to maintain power in the current system, without initiating force by punishing a minority who oppose your views and making them pay for weapons they don't believe in. If a social leader were to create a system, where people could choose not to pay taxes they were opposed to, a voluntary system, it would no longer be a government, it would be a charity.

I would suggest, "some poor linguistic choices", over "many bad assumptions"... because you don't even seem to be challenging my premise. If radiation makes a an electron move to a different orbital, it doesn't necessarily give us a functioning picture of time. A living organism, on the other hand, is required to do time sensitive tasks in order to survive, so how they move through time, may, or may not effect that, but we would have to prove it. I assume I've worn out my welcome on this subject however, so I'll just relax and go back to agreeing with you all that anarcho capitalism is awesome, because... It is. We agree on lots of things, I don't need you all to take my theories on Einstein seriously. I imagine that there are a couple people who read this and think it's interesting. More who read it, and think I'm an idiot... I can live with that. I'm pretty sure the last sentence of my previous response is the most damning, though I should have changed a word or two. "Once you accept that the speed of light, is what defines time... Haven't you made parts of relativity unfalsifiable?" I could really just be kind of stupid though... That's life, it's short... Peace and love.

That's a shame. What's most confusing to me, is that I actually did very well in college physics... I'm good at regurgitating things I'm told. I just then have a tendency to question why I was told them, and look at alternative views, creating my own makeshift theories. I could probably pass a test on relativity right now, I just wouldn't agree with some of the answers I would have to write in to be "correct". Maybe it's just been too many years of mixing, matching, and not functionally using physics, that makes my communication difficult to understand. Living organisms, absorb, and functionally use energy to maintain their structure over time. Atoms don't, from my understanding. Maybe I'm unaware of atoms needing to absorb radiation to maintain their structure, in which case they would operate in a similar way to organic material... If so, I'd have some reading to do. I don't think it's arrogant, to ask questions... The point would be to overcome ignorance. Irrational would be to suggest that relativity is definitely wrong, but I wouldn't go that far. I could be kind of stupid, or I might simply be emotionally refusing to believe that it would take infinite energy for us to move to the nearest goldilocks planet in less than a lifetime. Meh... What you gonna do? Life is brief. Thanks for trying anyway. Edit: I just want to add, that I asked "Is he just confusing time with light?" and "Isn't a precision clock a light clock?" to which someone responded "No, and no", with no explanation... They happen to be completely wrong in that regard, unless they were arguing over the semantics of microwaves not being the same as light, because it's not visible. Every "precision clock" we use, including all the ones in space, simply use the constant frequency of light to keep time... So, of course, when you move them, and light has a constant speed, they slow down... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock "In 1967, the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures first defined the International System (SI) unit of time, the second, in terms of atomic time rather than the motion of the Earth. Specifically, a second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields." In fact, once you accept that the speed of light, is what defines time... Haven't you made relativity unfalsifiable?

Oh, I forgot the most important part of my answer... Organic matter vs. inorganic matter. Why would something work for one, but not the other? Organic matter requires the consumption of energy to move through time. Inorganic matter does not. For a particle to move through time at double speed, it would require no extra food and water, or energy. So, in my mind, we still have to prove that organic matter would react the same way. I would actually suggest that time does not exist for light, or particles, time is a construction of organic matter. I also said that I believed your neurons would fire more slowly, that was phrased poorly. I think it's possible that your neurons fire exactly as often, but the photons move slowly. I still don't quite understand how we could prove that inorganic matter didn't age, or experience time.

"So if we've proven that relativistic effects can slow down actions at the atomic level, then why would you suppose that that same physics, at a more course grained level (biology) would be any different? If every atom that made up a man performed all of it's actions at half speed, then why do you suppose that the man, which all of those atoms collectively make up, would find his body chemistry (which is just applied atomic level physics) is not affected in the same way?" First question first... and seriously, I know I might sound a bit obstinate, and I truly appreciate you taking this time to deal with me anyway... I totally understand that there is a 99% chance I don't get this, but I want to, so... This is what I would say if being totally honest... Any number of unknown variables. The reason I'm willing to pull the Aether out of my bum when talking about the moon getting smaller, is simply that... There may be any number of unknown variables, that humans have yet to come into contact with. Dark matter, and dark energy, are both purely theoretical, and exist solely to explain why relativity is wrong about entropy... How is that any different from the Aether that the scientist I have a bit of a man crush on (Tesla), proposed? Obviously at the top of a mountain, there is less air pressure, less oxygen, a different consistency to air, temperature... You may say, "Well of course the tests account for that", but http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm these are the same criticisms levied against the Miller experiment, and he believed he had accounted for such things. Miller, in case you don't know, was the person who tried to replicate the Michelson-Morley experiment and failed, over, and over again, instead proving that the Aether existed. Also, how did they design a clock that accounts for all that? It seems like people just assume that machines work the same way everywhere. Why does movement effect clocks?... I agree that light speed is a constant, so if all of our modern clocks involve the movement of light in relation to specific atoms, or the movement of light generally... of course they will prove that time is light based. Even if the atomic clocks have nothing to do with light, once you accept the idea that relativity might not be correct you almost have to assume there is an alternate variable effecting the results (the most popular of which, in scientific circles, has been the ether/Aether). It almost seems as though relativity uses Occam's Razor, as a proof, rather than an argument. If the Aether exists, then there are alternate amounts of energy passing through each clock depending on the consistency of the space earth is moving through at any given time. I realize that this is conspiratorial in nature. It sounds like I'm saying that everyone is intentionally using variables that they understand to prove something they know to be wrong... but, I promise, I'm just suggesting that we don't know everything about physics. The Aether could be a real thing, or there could be a new force, completely undiscovered, which interacts with motion in a way we do not understand. Finally, that is the more crazy answer... In my mind, the slightly more sane answer, and I do mean slightly, because I still believe that I am likely wrong... The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We're just measuring wrong. You will continue to see changes, but they won't really exist, because it's impossible to know the speed and direction of anything, at any time. I'm actually not entirely sure I believe in this principle either... but it entirely explains why light might be giving us objectively incorrect results to our experiments. Maybe... just maybe, the neurons in your brain fire slower, but the atoms in your brain experience time objectively. I know I've said this numerous times, but I really do realize I'm armchair quarterbacking the infinite nature of reality, without the proper physics degree. This is probably dime store literature more than it's physics, but the fact that my favorite scientist died believing it, gives me that tiny 1% hope... Also, I'm not sure if you realize this, but, if relativity is correct, we can never leave the solar system. Earth is it for humanity... I find that very sad, and I don't want to believe it, which again, probably creates my confirmation bias, but if you're willing to try to explain it, thank you so much for your time. I hope, more than think you're wrong...

I apologize for not looking through the forums for a similar topic, as I didn't realize that it had already been discussed here. I thought this was an interesting place to broach the subject, because very few people at FDR believe that perception is reality. In a typical physics forum, you may get some interesting answers, but you will also find, that most of the people who believe them, don't believe reality exists, which makes it very hard for someone like myself to take them seriously. Also, when I bring this subject up in a physics forum, I get lots of links to a definition of relativity... If I didn't understand it in Einstein's own words, what are the odds Wikipedia is going to straighten me out? Having someone of a similar mindset to myself re enforce the idea that this is a legitimate scientific theory is helpful. My experience with universities, is that they tend to encourage belief in all sorts of insane nonsense, and thus I have what could be classified as an unfair bias against their students. It's lots of "go back to the 18th century", or "if you read the same thing I read, and don't believe it 100%, you think you're smarter than Einstein, so forget you". The idea that I could be comfortable living in the uncertainty of "Am I on to something, or completely ignorant?", is baffling to most. To be clear, you're saying that as the person on the spacecraft slows through time, the person on earth, has to eat double the calories, not the person on the spaceship? I still find myself asking "Why?", and "How did we prove that?". The fact that the largest time dilation experienced by a human, falls into the realm of minutes, makes me think that this is the part which is theory. Maybe there have been viral, or bacterial studies which prove that growth rates, and calorie consumption are slowed by relativistic movement in time? I googled that only once without finding anything conclusive, but I'll do so again. If you happen to be able to link to such a study it would likely put the final nail in the coffin for me. Finally, I do think the idea of matter being a naturally expanding self replicating phenomena, is a bit terrifying for people who believe in god, even though, in my mind, it shouldn't be. You still have the "gap" of "Why does something exist rather than nothing", and no Lawrence Krauss, has not completely sold me on the idea that the random chance of quantum physics is the answer to that question. It is an interesting and compelling argument, but I'm not entirely sold. I really appreciate the time you've spent ironing out and refining some of my nonsense, though.

I think I'm starting to understand, so I've been trying to remain quiet, but this part really confuses me. If you will need twice the calories, and water, to move at twice the speed through time, of someone on the planet earth... Why won't you age? How is this not the same as having lived the double time? I still find myself wanting to say "light on your ship is younger, your computers might be, your thoughts may have been slowed by your relativistic movement, a cesium atom might react a certain way, but if you still ate and drank etc... double time... Aren't you going to experience the same effects of age?" If I should pay attention to what I would call the "earth clock" in order to maintain a calorie and water schedule... that seems to suggest that for organic matter there is an objective time, outside of relativity, connected to where we evolved. It's almost seems as though relativity works from the perspective of a robot. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Edit: My phrasing here, catches me "for organic matter there is an objective time". I find myself wanting to correct "No, there is a subjective time"... then wanting to say "No, because it is of real consequence for all organic matter, it's not dependent on an individual organic perspective, so it's objective"... Interesting, I'm going to have to dwell on this a bit, maybe it pulls me out of my relativity spiral. Thank you for all the responses thus far, by the way.

"bright minds"... unfortunately it looks like I'll be the first to respond. This reminds me of a phrase I used to use to describe myself, before I leaned anarcho capitalist, "I'm a statue of liberty Democrat, and a John Dillinger Republican". What I meant by the "John Dillinger Republican", was that it cost more for the FBI to catch Johnny, than he ever stole... So my theory was "If a problem costs more money and effort to solve, than it costs to have... don't bother". In essence... You can't structure your society around the tiny number of people bent on it's destruction, you have to set it up to benefit the 99.9% of people who just want to make a living, and raise their children. In doing so, the fringes fall in line naturally through social pressure, or simply constitute a "cost of doing business" which is very manageable. If the incentives are set up to solve a problem, and it isn't being solved, then humanity, as a whole hasn't figured out how to solve that particular problem yet. Keep the incentives there, and eventually we will... remove them, or initiate a solution before we know how to solve the problem and you're destined for trouble, in my humble opinion.

I think this is where you're confused... Steal, is the opposite of reason. I already refuse to give maniacs any fire. If 20% of the population (especially the most intelligent and productive individuals) were to refuse to pay taxes, maniacs would immediately begin capitulating to their demands. Maniacs have never created or improved anything, everything maniacs do, comes from the sanction of regular people. If anarcho capitalists made up a significant percentage of the population, maniacs would be terrified of us, rather than the other way round. People who work for a government can't survive on their own, thus they have no real power.

Maybe it's just me... but, if I saw the earth spinning around, and travelling around the sun at double speed... I'd say "Oh, my clock wrong". I would then adjust the clock so that 1 day, is one rotation of the earth. If I didn't... Have we proven that organic matter moves through time, the same way light does? Meaning, isn't it entirely possible, that moving at double speed through time, requires more calories, and water? Have we proven that you wouldn't die of thirst in one day, instead of two, simply by misinterpreting your movement through time?

Okay, that's fair... but, my original idea, was to organize around the concept of stealing their fire (really, stealing our fire back from them). Whether or not a concept is "off putting" has no bearing on truth... but it does have a large impact on the success of a movement. I know it's almost strange to call anarcho capitalism a movement, because to an extent our argument is that you don't need movements, you don't need unity, people just naturally work together when the psychopaths stop being listened to... still, I feel like a lack of an appeal to emotion, somewhat stifles growth potential. Just a thought though, I completely agree that the people wielding power right now, can be classified as nothing short of "maniacs". I just wanted to be clear that you were talking about that relatively small group, not everyone who has ever voted for one.

Okay... See... One of the problems I have, and where I really get confused, is... Did Einstein confuse the movement of light with time? Isn't a precision clock a light clock? I believe light speed, is a constant, for light, so if you move a light clock it will slow down... On the other hand, if you were to go into space and just fly in circles at 90% the speed of light for two years... How many times would the earth go around the sun?

I just have to ask... What percentage of people are you calling maniacs here? Everyone with 1 ACE or more? Everyone who isn't already convinced? Everyone not in this forum? 99% of people? That's very off putting to an outsider interested in learning more.

I definitely can't spend another day goofing off on science forums and reading papers... but it was fun. "Not to worry, sanctioned and well-qualified experts are sorting this complicated stuff out and will deliver their writs as soon as their complicated, inacessible and incredibly expensive and impratical experiments are verified by other sanctioned and well-qualified experts." Have you seen the modern university system? I know it may seem tangential, but the reason I thought this might be an interesting subject on this particular forum is because the government so lionized Einstein, and I assume lots of people here think/know that government funded school systems don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. I know, it's a bit paranoid, and maybe I'm just a Tesla fan boy, giving me a confirmation bias. If I had to bet money though... until anarcho capitalism is instituted, we're never going to invent anything that doesn't help the government control you again. Anything you can stare at while they steal your money, anything that can read your mind, anything that can encourage you to spend less time with friends and family, anything that you'll want to carry around with you and tells everyone exactly where you are on the surface of the earth, and anything that convinces you of moral relativism... That stuff is going to keep progressing. We forgot how to build rockets that test complex theories in space though. Meh... What you gonna do? There's definitely a 99% chance I'm wrong on this, but I really wish I'd be convinced of that last 1%, save me that few hours of staring into space every month. Peace, love, non aggression, all that, today I have to go lift heavy things.

Yeah... because I wrote all of these responses and never thought "Google". I didn't just spend the day reading research papers arguing both sides of the point... and listening to a lecture on general relativity at Stanford... And, obviously we've already dropped a large enough object to earth with sensors measuring structural integrity to prove gravitational crunch.

I apologize if it appeared as an insult... I thought I was being funny. Tone is very difficult to impart in text. I don't see easily verifiable errors in my theory that the graviton doesn't exist, and it's possible mass is expanding. The stuff about the ether is noticeably weirder, but it was what Tesla, Einstein, and Hertz all died believing in, leaving me confused as to why it's so thoroughly discounted as 19th century nonsense. I do recognize however, that it is thus discounted, by all major physicists. Relativity still seems to suggest that perception is reality to me, but maybe I'll just never get it. I think of forum posting as a fun way to start interesting conversations, and have my ideas attacked by people who have no emotional investment in whether or not I'm correct. All over this thread I mention that I'm a laborer, and I might just be missing something. It's not "clicking" in my brain etc... Interestingly enough, this led me to a testable idea I need to research, the "gravity crunch"... Which if it can be observed, may thoroughly put my theory in the rubbish bin. As far as evidence that things move faster than light, I was thinking about the neutrino's and quantum entanglement. Or as Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". These issues however, are definitely above my pay grade, I just hoped that because of this some other amateur armchair scientists may have been able to set me straight, because it really is something I waste a few hours a month playing with.

Hey... You're mean, and your accusations are completely devoid of evidence... Early 20th century I am self aware enough to realize that I'm, in essence, trying to armchair quarterback the infinite nature of reality... So I don't expect to be taken too seriously.

Does this create a self fulfilling prophecy? If we suggest, that we're the only community which possesses those things... Doesn't this explain our low recruitment rate over time?

Hello Freedomainradio, My name is Dave, and I'm not quite sure how to introduce myself... If libertarian monk is a thing, I would like to suggest that I'm that. The fact that I have to ask a community, if the thing I am, is a thing, however, probably suggests, that I'm not so confident in what sort of thing I am. Luckily, I am confident that I'm not a fan of communities, so I don't very much care what I'm labeled by one... probably babbling idiot.I was definitely a monk first, but I'm a suburban American, so monk might be the single most useless thing you could possibly designate yourself. I guess I'm a laborer if you really want to be a dick about it. Despite that, what do I think a libertarian monk is?Well, it's an atheist, with profound respect for Buddhist meditation, who at about 21 realized that any form of contribution to government, including a net contribution to the tax structure, was absurdly violent, and thus inherently evil. He then had to live in the world for the next 9 years.A few years into this journey I was exposed to Ayn Rand and basically said "Oh yeah, that's a pretty good explanation of why I think you're all violent psychopaths I have no interest in working with". I was also exposed to the idea that what I am doing could be classified as Going Galt... more accurately, I was going Hugh Akston, the professor of philosophy turned roadside diner chef. I believe the most moral thing that a human being can do under a corrupt system, is absolutely nothing. I also think that nothing terrifies our leaders more.I don't do nothing, I simply intentionally contribute the bare minimum to survive, and thus avoid military taxes by being in "poverty". I think that if the very first requirement we make of the successful is that they kill Muslim children... Well then you've made it illegal to be a successful human being.Hopefully we'll enjoy interacting with one another. Life is brief. Edit: I just wanted to point out that the "Oh yeah, that's a pretty good explanation of why I think you're all violent psychopaths I have no interest in working with", is my feeling regarding traditional statists (which surround me in greater Los Angeles), and thus applies to very few people on this forum. I would enjoy working for/with anyone of a classical liberal, libertarian, or anarcho capitalist mindset. Finally, as someone relatively young, single, and childless, I have the luxury of taking this hardline stance against the tax structure, but I have nothing but love and respect for people with families who contribute to it out of necessity.

Doesn't the concept of maniacs, suggest that there is no free will? It's seems like a bit of an Us vs. Them mentality, based in the assumption, that you and I have free will and can be compelled to change based on evidence, but the "maniacs" can't? I mean... lots of people think anarchists are maniacs. That perception leads them to discount our arguments, but if we do the same to them... what makes us different?

That's kind of my point though... If one person says 2 + 2 = 4... Another person says 2 + 2 = 5... and then a mathematician comes along and writes a proof, suggesting that they are both right, and everyone believes him/her... Hasn't he just destroyed/invalidated the concept of math? If two people have different perspectives of the same event... one of them is correct, or both perspectives are flawed, but doesn't all math, and all science suggest, that there is a correct answer?

I'm actually re reading right now... but, doesn't the concept, that two people can have different perspectives, of the same event, and both be right... fundamentally attack the basic assumption of science that there is an objective testable reality? That's the part that drives me nuts, it's not the math, it's the philosophical underpinning. That said, I'm hoping that by fighting with trolls and defending my concepts, I will eventually come up with a mathematical and scientific theory, that does have predictive falsifiable results. Interestingly enough, no one is claiming that the new particle accelerator has seen a graviton yet... Which obviously proves nothing, but if they had discovered the graviton, I would no longer have anything whatsoever to look for, and my theory would completely collapse. So there is a way which it can be falsified, but I have yet to come up with a good theory for how it could be verified. It is currently useless. I may not have made this clear, but when I laughed at Stefan for calling relativity science, I was laughing at myself, knowing that I hadn't really proven anything yet and I was just being arrogant. I simply had one piece of data, the moon shrinking, which I had predicted, and gave me a sense that it was theoretically possible, that I might not be an ignorant laborer who's full of shit, on this particular matter at least : p While the experimental data supporting relativity is pretty strong, so is the evidence that numerous particles exceed light speed, which should be impossible. Einstein himself suggested that if anything went faster than light speed, something was wrong. That something, may have nothing to do with my weird "universal matter expansion theory" however. If I made it sound like I think I'm awesome and know everything, it was simply because it's fun to write that way, and it opens you up to the most vicious types of criticism. In it's own way, that's kind of fun, and encourages you to think on your feet. In no way am I trying to discount any of your intellects, or the scientists I'm challenging.

"Furthermore, experimental observations show that light (in a vacuum) always moves away from a source at the "speed of light" (approx. 300,000 km/second), and always arrives towards an observer at the same "speed of light", even if the source and observer are moving towards or away from each other! This is a truly remarkable observation. At "everyday" speeds, Newtonian physics is a good-enough approximation, but Newton's laws simply don't describe what happens at higher speeds. Suppose you are on the moon and you shine a light towards a spaceship that is moving away from you at 200,000 km/s. The light moves away from you at 300,000 km/s, so Newton's laws say that the light will approach the spaceship at 100,000 km/s (as seen from the spaceship). But this is not what happens: the light meets the rapidly-moving spaceship at 300,000 km/s." I should have actually re read both papers before I wrote this, it's been a few years. What do you mean by it meets the rapidly moving spaceship at 300? Do you mean that It's still going 300 when it hits you because the speed is constant? Or do you mean that the time it takes to get to the spaceship, is as if the light was moving 500? Yes, when you see light, it's going to move the same speed it always does... but is the travel time changed? If the travel time is changed, could the expansion of the earth, be the reason... We're moving at an insane speed towards the space ship... I'm not certain I'm correct... In essence, I actually think I have to be wrong, because so many brilliant people are sold on this idea, but I really want someone to convince me, and for some reason it's not "clicking" in my brain. PS... I'm actually going to go re read both theories, so I make slightly less baseless claims based on my fuzzy memory tomorrow.

I don't think I'm making baseless claims. I offer evidence. The moon is shrinking. Our mathematical models for entropy are falling apart, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. The Hertz experiment, is known to be faulty now, Tesla, Hertz, and Einstein, all agreed to it being a false positive... And the thought experiments that Einstein uses to explain why relativity works, have some fundamental philosophical problems, not mathematical problems. In each one, a fundamental claim is that an objective reality, does not exist. That reality, not perception are different for people in different locations. I find it incredibly difficult to understand how a theory which accepts that there is no objective reality, can be called science. Isn't the basic assumption of science that there is an objective reality which you can test? I think it's exactly as likely that I'm stupid and missing something, as that anyone else is. I definitely did not claim to outsmart Tesla, in fact, most of this theory came from reading his critique of Einstein. The only new theory I propose, is that mass is constantly expanding, and we'll never find the graviton. I'm trying to find a way to prove or disprove this, and in order to collect my thoughts, I need to write them down, and let them be attacked. All three geniuses I mention, believed in the ether until the day they died, it's modern physicists who are claiming they're idiots, not me. This does give me a bit of distaste for modern physics forums though, and thus I did, give them a bit of a dressing down, which was arrogant. The lack of a graviton... isn't going to be proven, because you can't prove a negative. I need something more concrete. As people attack my idea, maybe I'll be able to complete it, and come up with a testable prediction. Edit: I should probably mention at this point, that I enjoy writing... So yeah things like "matter is reproducing at the speed of light", and the idea being "sexy", are mostly flavor text. It's interesting nonsense.