General Notice: In relation with my writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe" I notice that there are several opponents to the deductions traced from reality who, under the disguise of the most abstruse "arguments" convey the impression of wanting to slide the word "god" under another name through these wiles, without daring to do so in the open as this would reveal their true purpose. Naturally in an honest intellectual field, every idea can be questioned and opposed, but then in a logical, sincere, understandable manner, using arguments based on documentary evidence and pure reason.
It is well known that Internet forums are often used to merely create antagonism lacking every intention to contribute anything valuable to enhance the quality of the discussion. More often than not the hostility is cloaked by rarefied theories brought out from truly fallacious constructions whose only purpose is to question the argument presented on the main writing without providing any proof of validity for their preposterous assumptions. Often merely paying better attention to what the author of the main writing presented would solve alleged inconsistencies by themselves.
As general example I point out that the assertion presented by one of the readers that "the known part of the universe is most assuredly NOT evenly distributed" has clearly and evidently been taken care of when I later on state that "we can always find stars or starlike objects in any area of the universe, which we might observe with a telescope. Whatever telescope we take, even the strongest – whose development was, at the time of Olbers, still far in the future – it will show stars or starlike objects (such as accumulations of stars, also called galaxies, and so forth) in the sky." Besides, Olbers' paradox explanation can be found (according to Google's search engine) some 84,300 times in the Internet and, since that reader somewhere else mentioned that he read many of Isaac Asimov's books, he will surely find it in any of Asimov's many books, for example his "Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology". I expected a higher status than this kind of sniveling.
Then there are disputers that come up with "arguments" that can hardly be called such and should be more properly termed as esoterics coming straight out of Old-Egyptian flatlined world ("another point within a finite distance at which motion in any direction would not increase the distance between the two"). This does not just refer to "at least one given point in the cosmos", as the claimant seems to wring his brains to find out why this is so, but anywhere (also in a three-dimensional universe where we happen to be) since travelling on a fixed distance will only change the distance of the travelling object to any of the end points of the line but not the distance existing between the two points themselves.
A further "brain teaser" seems to be not seeing the "relevance of a sphere's pi and diameter math relationship seen ontologically" I also explained this when speaking of curves. "Pi", a numerically infinite relation of the diameter to the edge of anything curvy (I cannot help but think of female breasts and hips if my critic doesn't mind the joke), is a firm part of any curve, ontologically or, most certainly, logically.
"Stars emit most of their energy as neutrinos than as photons". They do? Well, then, if our sun emits so many neutrinos, why do we have to inter our detection instruments kilometers and kilometers below the surface of the planet just to be able to detect ONE of them? Besides, changing the name of the energy emitted doesn't change the emission of energy in whatever form energy might be…
It has since long been proved that Internet forums are the perfect place for grumpy people to air their general ill-temper. The theme I took up in my writing is very serious matter, for it pertains - as will clearly come up in the following installments, for which the foregoing chapters provided the basis - to the very survival of mankind as a RATIONAL species.
I suggest that those adverse to what I present in my book should stop pecking around and take the time to elaborate themselves a writing devoid of contradictions where their deductions from REALITY (no fantasies or obsolete superstitions, please) are presented in an understandable and readable way (Asimov stated in one of his articles that if something is so awkwardly difficult that it can't even be explained, it shouldn't even be taken up). I look forward with interest and an active mind to have the opportunity to read such writings.
This ends the issue.
P.S.: By the way and should anybody be interested: I designed the legend on the T-shirt I'm wearing myself and ordered it from a T-shirt manufacturer. It reads in bold letters "Enjoy Ayn Rand's Objectivism!"
(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 10/02, 2:57am)