tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84407713637803169792024-02-19T23:16:12.891-08:00Common SenseTheoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-60298236680806573232012-02-29T10:51:00.001-08:002012-02-29T10:51:19.508-08:00New Quotes<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"If you commit a crime you should be punished, that is Justice."</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"If you commit a crime and the state can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without violating your rights you will be punished, that is Law"</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"A reasonable system of Laws fairly, objectively, and consistently applied is another form of Justice, perhaps the only we can obtain"</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br />"The aim of the Law is Justice, there are many who say that we have courts of Law not courts of Justice, and there is truth to that, but when we abandoned the pursuit of Justice we abandon also our authority under natural Law."</span>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-58067167065031380862011-01-26T17:19:00.000-08:002011-01-26T17:20:00.459-08:00More quotes<div>"Many speak of planning and a well orchestrated life, I think such is nonsense. What is wisdom is to point yourself in a good direction and start moving. When the times come when you do not know a good direction, that is a time for contemplation."</div><div><br /></div><div>"To know what another will do is not possible, but to know what they can do is."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Love knowledge"</div><div><br /></div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-79353268552071099422011-01-26T16:58:00.000-08:002012-10-01T16:06:44.347-07:00Science and Science Fiction, light, sound and other natural phenomenon for which I don't charge<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span">I promised this some time ago so here goes, I will undermine all of modern science by posting my notes... These need considerable reflection and revision... Time, time, I have no Time! (get it :) walka walka walka</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Point:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">All matter is composed of smaller material particulates as yet undetectable because they are not formed into "common matter". These particulates, which I shall term sub-particulates for the purpose of avoiding confusion with the use of particulate to describe other atomic particles, constitute the bulk of an objects mass. This is essential in understanding the relationships of mass and force in the universe. These are far smaller than electrons. these sub-particulates combine to form what we have hitherto called matter and for the purpose of clarity it is advisable to make the distinction that these are not "matter" in the hitherto defined sense because they are not the thing but its constituent parts. These sub-particulates give the appearance of being uniformly attractant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Thought:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">I imagine that sub-particulates could be very much like charged balloons in their nature and function and could behave in their physical interaction much like charged balloons would.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Point:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">For one object to effect any impact on the composition or velocity of another object, regardless of its size, their must be some sort of physical contact, meaning the real and actual interposition of one objects location against the others. There are no invisible fields of influence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory: "Iceberg" Matter: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The bulk of the mass of objects we have yet detected is not in the objects themselves that we have observed but in the composition of these smaller sub particulates which are "in it and in orbit" to it and which have hitherto been largely un-hypothesized. (dark matter, is most likely also just a measurement of the sub-particulate medium. Which of course to us appears still as dark since we have not "detected it" yet but we will.) Thus while we can measure the mass of any object, the mass we are measuring is actually the mass of far more matter than we are observing, though this matter is smaller, crude and unformed. Hence all mass is like an Iceberg. We are seeing only the tip above the water but the "object" is in actuality a construct of its component matter, protons neutrons and electrons, but more specifically these are only standing waves in the sub-matter, meaning sub-particulates and the object is not just the standing wave but the mass in which they are flowing. I do not think that these sub-particulates remain in a constant orbit when in the unformed portions of an object. It is quite likely that they are traveling in long pathways as the background of the cosmos and only the greater resistance of passage through a “formulated” body of matter is responsible for the increased presence of such an "iceberg" around said objects, whatever size.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Thought:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">To determine the size of the "iceberg" effect simple modeling of the gravitational field, which is already well known and thoroughly tested, could be used and it would be found that objects of similar density (planets of similar density) would have essentially the same equation to determine the probability of the existence of sub particulates (sub-particulate density) within their close proximity as one another. In fact to visualize this phenomenon you need only take your rubber sheet which has been used countless times as an example for how space is bent and turn it upside down. You now have a very nice graph of the universes sub particulate density. In fact if you were to stack up all the sub particulates at any given moment it would look just like your upside down sheet. Of course, they are moving so fast that they are never in one place for very long. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory: Gravity:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Gravity is not a field, it is a massive “frictional” attraction. It is the interaction of sub nucleonic sub particulate matter. The essence of gravity is the combined net effect of massive numbers of incredibly miniscule sub particulate attractions. Gravity is composed fundamentally of the same forces that hold atoms together. But it is the "background noise" of particulate interaction. This is why it is comparatively so weak.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">There are no force fields. There are no magical influences of one object upon another from a distance. Every interaction is a physical one. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory: Time<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Time does not exist, space does not exist, and accordingly any belief that we are warping or bending either is thoroughly inaccurate. Time is a measurement of relative motion and nothing else, you only travel through time by observing changing motion, thus if you accelerate to near the speed of light and observe a change in time, what you really have observed is non-constancy in the underlying motion, i.e. matter behaves differently at different speeds, and since solar systems themselves are moving quite rapidly this tells us something important.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory: Light:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Light is not a wave in nothing. Nor does light bend space. The fundamental composition of space is not that of a vacuum but rather that of the lack of "organized matter". Space is neither a vacuum nor a fabric. It is more of a soup. And like a soup it is formed with a base of particulate matter and elements of substance such as the planets and the stars. Light travels through the "liquid" (sub particulates) of this soup in much the same way that sound waves travel through water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The speed of light is not constant, just as the speed of sound is dependent on its medium the speed of light is based in the density of sub particulates and accordingly is approximately the same everywhere on earth and close to the same everywhere near earth and quite possibly everywhere in our solar system. The speed of light on earth can be used to determine the density of sub particulates since most natural effects follow uniform mathematical equations. Accordingly by measuring the density of the medium and the accordant speed of sound we may be able to predict the density of the sub particulate medium. Having done so we may be able to measure the speed of light in an area which would have a different sub particulate density and accordingly determine the density there and the relationship between there and here. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The Speed of light is not a absolute of motion it is merely an absolute of acceleration and hence the foundation for a relative observation of motion. If one were to observe two rays of light emitted by sol at the same time, the one traveling towards the earth and the other away it would be seen that if ones point of view were to be traveling on the ray of light moving toward the earth (will put Einstein on the ray so he can finally have his wish) the other ray would be traveling at twice the speed of light away from you. That said, the speed of light, at least for now, seems to be the maximum natural rate of acceleration. Meaning that we cannot determine a way to make an object travel at greater than this speed. However these sub-particulates could very well be doing just this since there is no force save each other that can slow them down. They could alternately be colliding and accelerating at such speeds as to make the whole universe seem like just a massive game of bumper balls. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory :Unifying force:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Matter in its common form can be more directly compared to a standing wave in a river than to a brick house. It rafting terms a standing wave is a constant directional force that is created by the continuous arrival and departure of water from upstream. Because the forces which direct that water are nearly continuous the standing wave is nearly continuous. This is the same with matter. The sub particulates which constitute the center of any atoms nucleous may be constantly replaced, but the number of them and their approximate shape tends to remain under uniform conditions. Hence the matter that is “us” is actually always changing but the standing wave that is “us” remains. We are quite anomalous mathematically and physically. Likewise it is apparent in all matter formation that in the absence of motion the forces which seem to hold matter together would lead it to rip into pieces. It would seem that motion is the essential building block of the universe and accordingly only objects whose composite elements (sub particulates) have sufficient motion, are capable of maintaining their form. (thus why they would behave differently at high speeds or near black holes) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Entropy and Thermodynamics notes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The belief that systems tend towards disorder may be an ill founded one. It hinges of course on our definition of what is orderly. The most uniform distribution of sub-particulate matter would be the most mathematically logical and orderly system. The existence of combinations of such sub-particulate into first elements and then those elements into compounds and then molecules and eventual complex organisms is actually the most disorderly of events and the event of lowest probability. Complex formations are the result of incredibly complex but infinite repetitive interactions of forces and combinations of possibilities. To grab a hold of even a single one of these sub-particulates and combine it into a particle may be more difficult than it would seem. Thus things tend toward an orderly distributed state, the natural state would be a universe with no standing waves, but perfect distribution of particles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Thought:: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy is mass in motion. But mass does not become energy, it simply contains that energy in its motion. For one amount of mass to be accelerated upwards another must be accelerated downwards. Whether we see it or not, motion is constant. Accordingly:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Refutation of the Big Bang Theory:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The big band theory is a false conception. If the objects/matter which composed the universe at the earliest moment had no motion there is no way in which they could have gained motion. This is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, accordingly, the mass which was so concentrated would also have contained the energy of the entire universe, such a system would be inherently unstable, for what reason would such a system have existed? If such objects had motion they would not have been concentrated unless it was for a short "moment" (moment of course being in terms of the universes timeline, where a moment may be a very very large quantity of time) In other words, the big bang origin is the least likely of all possibilities, to get all matter into one point, would be infinitely improbable. Time is only a measure of motion and so before time would mean, of necessity, before motion. Motion is not spontaneous and therefore must be continuous, according to the laws of the conservation of energy. Hence the big bang as the beginning of the universe must be discounted, it can only at best be seen as a glimpse of a cycle of the universe which both expands and contracts. To have a real conception of the universe we must fully understand these cycles. The best conception of the universe would be one of an average of cyclic probabilities. While I cannot deny that the universe could contract into a very small space, or expand into a seemingly infinite space, the most probable eventualities (including the present one) would be to cycle between points intermediate. To contract the universe into an infinitely small space is infinitely improbable. A.k.a. Impossible. While it physically could happen it is no more likely than all the air molecules on earth suddenly compressing into one persons lungs. We are more likely to learn about our universe by observing the way it is now than by spending time trying to interpolate how it must have been.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">To put an end on the universe is as irrational of thinking as to put no end on it. Just as putting a beginning or end on time (the universes motion) would be. But here we leave science and enter philosophy and the limitations of human thought.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory : Universal Dynamics: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">the universe exists in a state of material flux wherein its mass is constantly redistributed inward and outward and changes from state to state. The probability of any total state is founded in the entropy of that state and accordingly we see the great volume of the universe as in primarily simplistic (seemingly empty, but thick with sub particulate matter) form. Objects of larger mass are mathematical and physical anomalies, which due to the seemingly infinite size of the universe occur with frequency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Unformulated Thought: Electromagnetic Attraction:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Electrons are clockwise rotations of standing waves in motion. Protons are counter clockwise rotations of the same. Accordingly as the two pass near each other’s "icebergs" of sub particulates they have a dramatic attractive tendency toward each other. They, in essence, decelerate each other in a forward direction while accelerating each other in an attractive direction. Likewise protons with protons will tend to accelerate each other in forward and outward directions and seem to repel each other. The fact that protons seem to take more "space" is probably due to the electron friendly nature of our galaxy, the whole thing may be rotating in an electron friendly pattern, and consequently they can move more freely. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory: Time and Space a.k.a. The Theory of Absolute Relativity:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Time does not exist, it is only a measurement of motion relative to other established motion under uniform conditions. Space likewise does not exist and is only a measurement of comparative motion and direction. Neither has any physical bearing the universe or its constituents. They are in a sense figments of our imagination which is founded in motion. Space is what is left when we observe everything that matters. Time is our perception of motion based on our expectation of motion. Time travel is no more difficult then the complete restoration of the universe to an exact previous state, and no easier either. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Theory : Regarding the fundamental relationship of light and sound:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">(An impact reaction is essentially that effect of a sound wave as molecules impact each other)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">There exist two Fundamental Waveforms, sound and light. The first is Sound. Sound is the maximum rate of natural reaction (Impact reaction) of the physical medium (molecules). The second fundamental waveform is light. Light is the maximum rate of natural impact reaction of the sub particulate medium. It is my firm belief that the human race will someday find a way to break the light barrier just as we have broken the sound barrier, although how we will do so I do not know. There is nothing absolute about the speed of light any more than there is about the speed of sound. They are both the maximum natural impact reaction rate of their media. Just as the speed of sound is determined by its media it is quite likely that the speed of light is determined by its media and accordingly the density of sub particulates between the stars is likely affecting the way we see light from other stars and the rate at which it travels to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Refutation of the wave particle duality of light:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">You are not observing a duality, light is a wave in smaller particles, when you see what you believe to be a strike of a photon it is really the cumulative effect of multiple impacts of sub nucleonic particles causing an enervation of matter to the next stable energy level, if you were to observe that matter you would see that just before it raising energy levels it is very unstable at its present level.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Question:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">"As for the universe expanding, how can we know it is expanding if we dont know where the center or the borders are?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Postscript:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I don't think I adequate stated the observation that the reason nuclear clocks report different times after one is left on earth and one sent around it is that radioactive decay is determined both by the speed of travel and the location in the subparticulate medium... </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-35460759607653793612010-04-15T14:11:00.001-07:002010-04-15T14:12:23.611-07:00Latest news<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 19px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">"When asked what presents a bigger risk over the next year, 23 economists said accelerating inflation and 23 said slowing inflation. That mirrors a divide inside the Federal Reserve. At their March policy meeting, some officials argued the downturn in house prices is causing key measures to understate prices increases; others focused on the decline in inflation measures that exclude food and energy."</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px; font-size: -webkit-xxx-large;">Wall Street Journal 4/15/2010<br /></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 19px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 19px;font-size:13px;">Their fear of economic slowing will lead them to take actions that will cause substantial inflation, per our previous discussion.</span></span></div></div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-71168662478784381292010-01-25T21:51:00.000-08:002010-01-25T22:18:36.646-08:00Politics, Government and other false dichotomies you can share with friendsSo we have had a good discussion about the present economic status quo, but, lest ye get bored, I thought maybe it was time for us to change the subject of our conversation.<div><br /></div><div>Something has been bothering me of late, a little political something. It seems that we have a few matters of fundamental political philosophy in this country that trouble my mind.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is a central tenet of our modern theory that we live in a capitalist democracy, the economic implications of the which are clear enough but there is also the matter of certain political feelings espoused by the powers that be. The troublesome one of late being the belief that we should elect those representatives who will act in our best interest.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, there is a history behind this. You see it is important to remember that the fundamental principle of our government is a belief that we are a government of the people, that we as sovereign individuals federate a portion of our collective rights, freedoms and powers to a government (or as the case may be a state and a nation) and in so doing gain greater power/freedom etc by our collective strength. </div><div><br /></div><div>To manage our collective affairs we appoint representatives in (and we shall simplify again to a national perspective only, my apologies) three distinct forms. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Now, are we not feeling like we are back in grade school. </div><div><br /></div><div>In any event those representatives then are free agents restrained only by the supposed notion that if they are not acting in our best interests we will find them out and unseat them. Not likely. But a good theory nonetheless. The question then for todays discussion becomes who is this "we" and what is "our" best interest.</div><div><br /></div><div>You see the trouble is another fundamental principle of our democracy, the notion that we are a state where the majority enacts rules to the betterment of all. And I think if we all sat down and had a nice straight vote for something there might be a good discourse about what is the "right" thing to do, instead of just what is best for me. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now I say"I" think, and I am sure that reader out there may disagree. You see I believe in a moral or right human-kind. Whereas all of you college educated cynics are sure to say that man is a self-serving and selfish creature that is only capable of acting in their own best interest. What a strange idea. Where did that come from.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, you see, you are a self-serving and selfish creature and so you feel it is o.k. to say that everyone is. Makes you feel better doesn't it. Easy to understand how such a wicked and wrong philosophy could spread from school to school, university to university throughout the land so easily. Everybody's evil, so I should be too. (Scary thing, I've been looking around, and I am starting to wonder just how many people are evil, nother story).</div><div><br /></div><div>In any event so these self-centered people argue that the best way to be is self-centered and that they should elect only politicians that are equally self-centered. Blind leaders of the blind. </div><div><br /></div><div>And that is where we are today, a bunch of politicians that are only interested in serving the people who paid the money to get them into office, which money was paid expressly to buy the requisite votes for a particular political agenda. Sad thing is, they all just sit and bicker and lead us to destruction, no one is actually getting what they wanted and why they sent a self-centered person in the first place, whose got the last laugh?</div><div><br /></div><div>What was it supposed to be like? Well, you see, they have it close. As they often do. You were supposed to elect the person that you thought would do "the right thing for all of the people." Not the best thing for you. The whole idea was that we as a collective people could choose good men and women who would represent what is in all of our best interest. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, like thats gonna happen. Because we seem to prefer to act only in our own interests, rather than in the interests of the whole. But wait, do we really? What creature is man, are we truly lost to wickedness and sorrow?</div><div><br /></div><div>Tune in later on this channel for:</div><div>-Progressive Taxation and you, what happens when socialism and capitalism have a baby.</div><div>-Science and Science Fiction, light, sound and other natural phenomenon for which I don't charge</div><div>and -War and Warriors, how you too can conquer the world for less than $20</div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-11957302899937608272010-01-16T09:58:00.001-08:002010-01-16T10:32:13.768-08:00The Macarena, Buying things, selling things, and having lots of babies, an overview of the world economic system<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 20px; font-size:13px;"><div>I think I promised a few posts ago that you could:</div><div><br /></div> (tune in next time for a discussion of purchasing power and intergenerational equity)</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">I have been remiss, and I dislike remissishnishishniss or something like that, as I said before, non-academic and anonymous, a safe place to play.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">So what is this about? Well, have you ever heard of the baby boomers? What must have followed after then should have been baby not-boomers by comparison. I don't think anyone would disagree that the United States and the rest of our euro-white super allies are not having enough children. Worried about overpopulation were you? Shouldn't have been, this world will never be overpopulated, we have not even begun to fill it yet, our problems are social, economic, and political, not size oriented. Go drive in eastern Oregon and see if there is space to put the people, (or just fly across the country and look for any room where more people could possibly live, and dont even get me started on not enough food. Seriously don't go there, I think Ill go buy three more quarter pounders and throw out one and a half because I'm not hungry anymore after eating the fries and a zillion ounce drink. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">So we didn't have enough children, what do you mean. Lets do some basic arithmetic. If X people buy land, age thirty years and then try to sell all the land to Y children, what is the price of the land after 30 years? Do you have an answer yet? </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">Ok so it depends. (as most things do). Is X or Y bigger. You see if our population grows because we have lots of kids than Y is large than X and the price of land will increase assuming there is a finite supply. If however, X is large than why than unless we can decrease the supply of land (come on California earthquake). Then the overall price of land must go down.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">Something we are experiencing related to this is stock market prices. It seemed like a great idea that stocks are the ideal places to put your wealth your whole life and watch it grow. But if the X people buy stocks for the first 30 years and then the next 30 years they want to slowly sell their stocks and get cash and there are not X new people but rather Y children behind them to buy said stocks... DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">So are you telling me that the people who spent the last 30 years buying stocks are now going to be trying to sell them when no one wants to buy them? Well... not exactly. I want stocks, but you see I can't afford them. Ill buy them though, for the right price. Walka, Walka, Walka. What it means is that literally as we discussed in our first story, that those who thought they had great wealth preserved in the stock market in fact have very little saved up. Tear. This is because they thought they were storing something that people would want and there is no one around to trade them for it. I am belaboring the point, let me illustrate.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">You have money, that is good, you worked for thirty years to save up this wealth, and now you want 40-50 years worth of "man hours of production" in exchange for all your work. But you had no children with whom you could exchange your wealth for production. There are not enough "men" who are young and want wealth, to exchange "man hours" with you. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">It gets worse, you see there are able workers out there, but not enough of them, by having insufficient children we created a labor shortage, and now we are unwilling to sell our 30 years of work for the 20 years of work it will get us in a labor short market. (THAT IS WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING ECONOMICALLY RIGHT NOW, AND SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE) This shortage is further exacerbated by the laziness of the video game playing, movie watching, work life balance only generation, who do not want to work.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">WAIT THOUGH, HERE COMES THE CAVALRY... WERE SAVED.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">Because guess who will exchange with us, guess who has plenty of labor, guess who has plenty of children. Do the Macarena baby! Latino's to the rescue. Did you ever wonder why they just keep coming. Because market equilibrium demands it. So there is hope after all for the future. A future full of Latinos. (and chinese etc. on the international marketplace). Now allot of people have a beef with that. I don't care, I say let them come, and in fact lets get them enfranchised and no more of this illegal immigrant stuff. Why?<br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">Well have you ever heard of artificial interference in markets. It usually ends badly. And that is what we are seeing with the illegal labor pool. It makes market exchange difficult and when exchange is difficult it decrease and you see recessions, now that we are at the time that mass redistribution must occur, we need exchange in the market like, yesterday ya know? Just make them part of the country and allot of our intergenerational equity problems go away, not to mention some crime because they are and feel like part of a society<br />(they become not so poor and we know who and where they live, drivers liscenses anyone?), not to mention financial problems since they start paying taxes that can be used to subsidize the health care and other services they are receiving. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px;font-size:13px;">Its in their best interest, they want to be part of our country, its in our best interest we want and need them to be part of our future. It just makes sense.</span></span></div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-59334881499431014712009-11-04T15:18:00.000-08:002009-12-02T22:10:34.817-08:00Stealth Inflation and the last ten years, what your professor didn't teach youIn our last post we spent a considerable time discussing inflation and monetary policy and their interrelation with the fundamental health of our economy. Today I would like to talk about stealth inflation. First I will give a brief overview of what inflation is, how it is monitored and what it means to you. <div><br /></div><div>Inflation is measured as a change in the price of products over a period of time. It is measured not based on a single product but on the overall prices of all products. While given products and commodities may fluctuate based on market conditions, the sum of all products should remain stable unless certain economic inflationary or deflationary conditions exist. These are:</div><div><br /></div><div>An increase in the supply of products, deflationary prices will drop</div><div>A decrease in the supply of products, inflationary prices will rise</div><div>An increase in the supply of money, inflationary</div><div>A decrease in the supply of money, deflationary</div><div>An increase in the demand for money, deflationary</div><div>A decrease in the demand for money, inflationary</div><div>An increase in the demand for products, inflationary</div><div>A decrease in the demand for products, deflationary</div><div><br /></div><div>Ceterus Paribus (and it never is), make sense?</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets redo the list of factors , shall we, notice any patterns</div><div>An increase or decrease in the supply or demand for products OR</div><div>An increase or decrease in the supply or demand for money</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Last week we talked allot about changes in the supply of money. We discussed quantitative easing/debt monetization and its effect on wealth and we considered briefly how it can effect your financial well being through inflation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lets take a closer look.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the last 18-24 months the United States and the World have experienced a decrease in the demand for products and a increase in the demand for money. This is the credit crunch, as people suffer economically they try to hoard cash, people lose their jobs and stop consuming, banks become less stable and stop lending and demand for products decreases while demand for money increases. </div><div><br /></div><div>To compensate for these problems we have laid off workers and injected capital into the markets through massive government expansion and direct loans to banks. We have gone so far as to directly purchase companies. </div><div><br /></div><div>Laying off workers has decreased the supply of products.</div><div><br /></div><div>Injecting capital has increased the supply of money.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus we have experienced very little real deflation despite the magnitude of the economic downturn because we have effectively increased the price of products by making them scarcer while simultaneously increasing the supply and availability of capital.</div><div><br /></div><div>So what is stealth inflation?</div><div><br /></div><div>First we need to consider what has happened with prices.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets take a look at what has happened over the last, say, ten years.<br /><br /></div><div>Gold is currently 1090.60 per ounce. In 1998 it was 294.24.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>As has been observed before, do to recent turmoil in the markets, the stock market is effectively flat over a ten year period.</div><div><br /></div></div><div>....</div><div><br /></div><div>I took a little break here, and I have to apologize to reader, I got busy with school and did not finish the post. Gold is now currently... 1219.80 an ounce. </div><div><br /></div><div>...</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets get down to business, since neither I nor you have time. What is all this stealth inflation stuff about anyway?</div><div><br /></div><div>Stealth Inflation is devaluation of a currency in the face of price stability. Wait, wait, wait... go back?</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets look again, the dollar is way down, and gold is way up. Put in other terms, unless you want widgets your money is eroding like sand underneath your feet.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is possible because what we have always aimed for is price stability. Congratulations, prices are stable. </div><div><br /></div><div>But the US currency is collapsing, it wont be long before a lot more people see it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Note: I am not saying the problem is unsolvable, simply that it is big, present and ugly. I have an idea.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-2788929007865946112009-11-04T15:16:00.000-08:002009-11-04T15:18:10.443-08:00About this blogJust a reminder that this is an anonymous and non-academic blog.<div><br /></div><div>This is intended as a forum for discussion of current economic issues and the ideas posted here have not been researched to the standard that should be expected of final conclusions.</div><div><br /></div><div>I invite comments and discussion on the matters posted. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, since most of what is written is single draft, grammatical and typographical errors can be expected.</div><div><br /></div><div>Theo</div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-22672126057712903132009-10-18T10:48:00.000-07:002009-10-18T11:58:03.405-07:00Redistribution of wealth on a grand scale, the present solution (and there was much rejoicing)For those of you in doubt of the veracity of my last post, take the approach the government is currently using.<div><br /></div><div>I found this to be enjoyable, but I am afraid slightly more technical than the audience I aim my little, oh what shall we call them... stories, at. </div><div><br /></div><div>http://seekingalpha.com/article/166269-debt-monetization-he-s-heading-for-that-small-moon?source=feed</div><div><br /></div><div>Debt monetization means literally printing dollars to buy back the national debt (which has been issued in various bonds, bills and notes) so, for example, if your grandparents bought you a federal savings bond for college, that was a part of the national debt. The government is going to print some dollar bills and hand them to you in return for that bond. (this is again an oversimplification but still on the point, in actuality they create bank reserves which has the same effect).</div><div><br /></div><div>Debt monetization or as it can be called on a smaller scale, quantitative easing (adjusting interest rates). Is one way to create inflation/stimulate the economy as I discussed in my last post. Is it bad? It is redistribution of wealth on a grand scale. To understand this you need to understand how the government works. </div><div><br /></div><div>The government can pay for its operations and expenses wars, healthcare etc, in three ways.</div><div><br /></div><div>First, they can tax people and businesses and goods to get dollars and then expend those dollars right back for people (employees), businesses (the army, navy, department of human services) and goods (artillery shells, fighter jets, concrete for roads, iron for buildings). This is non-inflationary it cannot create inflation because the money supply does not change. HERE IS A SUPER SECRET: It can create deflation if we tax people but don't spend the money, for example if we try to repay the national debt to china. This could be deflationary in our market. Irrelevant for our current discussion, but something to keep an eye on.</div><div><br /></div><div>Second, they can borrow money. The government can issue government debt, in the form of treasury bills, bonds, and notes (they are different, it depends on when they mature). This is actually semi-deflationary, (if you view the world from a perspective of a private and public economy, which most people don't) since it tends to pull money out of the private sector and give it to the government to spend, which does not always make its way back into private sector enterprise. But lets not go there today. </div><div><br /></div><div>Third and finally, they can simply print money. This is called debt monetization because, in practice, the way it works is that rather than taxing money for revenues to repay their issued debt instruments they simply print and repay. They "monetize" the debt. This is a dangerous game. The trouble with debt monetization is that it is fundamentally unfair. Or so some would argue. You can decide for yourself later. The government is weakening the dollar by printing more. So If I saved money my whole life in a cookie jar and now have a million dollars. and the government doubles the money supply (the term for the total amount of "dollars" real or imaginary extant, my million dollars is worth half as much when I try to exchange it for goods) This is the same thing as inflation but on a grand scale. It is called hyper-inflation and tends to spiral out of control. This is what won a certain african nation the ignoble prize for "in one year printing denominations of currency between .01 and 100,000,000,000,000; for those who don't like counting zeros thats one hundred trillion dollars. It is also what led to a Germany where a loaf of bread costs a wheel barrow full of Deutsch Marks. </div><div><br /></div><div>What are we arguing about then? Well, you cant have deflation (bad) and hyper inflation (really really bad). What we are aiming for is inflation, somewhere in between. So the trick is, as always to print THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF MONEY. This will solve our current economic problems, or so say the people in Washington who are in charge and charged with solving it. Now its time to learn something. </div><div><br /></div><div>What are we trying to do again? Create inflation. Why? Well, what did we learn last week? Oh yeah, I remember, people have things, they think they are worth allot, it turns out that no one can afford to buy them (tune in next time for a discussion of purchasing power and intergenerational equity). But they don't want to drop the price cause they are convinced it is worth allot. (I got this thing and it is f#$%ing golden). But the only way to get out of this recession is to redistribute wealth by affecting a lower price across the market. This would be deflation right so that is bad? So what is the government right now actually trying to do?</div><div><br /></div><div>Rather than letting you sell your house for less we are going to print more money so that everyone has more of it, of course it is worth less, but you will get for your house what you think it is worth. And coincidentally, what your bank thinks its worth because that is how many dollars they loaned you for it. So you can repay your mortgage. Everybody's happy. (and there was much rejoicing). </div><div><br /></div><div>It all works out in the end...</div><div><br /></div><div>So whose the patsy? </div><div><br /></div><div>"If you don't know who the patsy is, odds are, you're the patsy!"<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>"Its all about the Benjamin's." If I have $50,000 and you do what you want to do. I will still have $50,000 but it will only get me half as much. Guess what, YOU'RE THE PATSY. You, yes you out there, anyone who has money. Note... not anyone who has things. People who have money. Becuase things maintain their relation to each other just about no matter what inflation or deflation does. (simplification) Its money we are trying to control. </div><div><br /></div><div>So why does that matter to most of us? Start dancing all you college educated debt laden money wasting fools. You see If I borrowed say, for a nice round number. $250,000. For an education, car, house, anything. And I get the thing. Then I have to pay back what I paid for it. I have the thing which (remember the house) is now worth $500,000 but I only have to pay back what I borrowed. "Only now, in the end, do you understand." YAY! </div><div><br /></div><div>So those who have money are punished because their money loses half its value and those who have debt are rewarded because their debt loses half its value. Twisted right. This is our solution to the current economic problem. Inflation baby... redistribution of wealth. We will take those who have money and we will give it to those who have debt, without moving a bill. Oh this is where you going to get mad. THIS IS WHERE YOU MIGHT SCREAM OR CRY. Because guess where allot of peoples "money" is. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have you ever heard of a defined benefit plan? Work at GM... PERS? What about social security? So let me get this straight. I gave you dollars my entire life, and now you are going to give me back my dollars for the next 30 years. Only wait a minute, you've got my dollars? And whats happening to them? </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't want to wax poetically any more than necessary. So I think I will stop there. Do you get me. This is the kind of massive redistribution of wealth I was talking about. Anyone who has been wise and prudent and saved money in any liquid assets, bank account etc. Is going to have that money taken away and anyone with debt is going to have that debt taken away. Robin of the Hood, you prince of thieves you. </div><div><br /></div><div>Tune in next time and remember only you can prevent forest fires.</div><div><br /></div><div>DISCUSSION OF MATERIAL CONCEPT IN THE ARTICLE</div><div>So what is the difference between debt monetization and quantitative easing. It is in fact a semantic one, the idea behind quantitative easing is that it is an adjusting game, some times we print money and buy government debt but other times we are selling government debt and "destroying" money. So overall its a wash, but when we start talking real monetization of the national debt (or just giving trillions of dollars of new money to banks) well...... see above.</div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-51186809774420929182009-10-11T12:27:00.000-07:002009-10-11T13:19:42.927-07:00The Great Recession and other fun games you can play with family and friendsThere is allot of confusion out there about the present state of the economy. I thought I would clarify for those who are late in joining our little game. <div><br /></div><div>The avowed purpose of the federal reserve bank is to create stability and predictability in the relationship between unemployment and inflation in the national economy. Thus for some time prior to our present downturn we experienced about 2-3% inflation and about 4-6% unemployment. A seemingly ideal balance. The means of controlling inflation is to set target interest rates such as the federal funds rate and the discount rate. If interest rates are high inflation is reduced as money stops flowing into the economy (a very crude explanation, I know). If on the other hand interest rates are low inflation grows high as capital rushes into new investments and buys up fundamentally scare assets, land, labor etc. By setting these targets they don't "control" national rates but instead influence them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unemployment is then controlled by the interest rates in a very keynesian model. If money is abundant investors will be more likely to make aggressive or risky decisions because even if my new business only makes a return on investment of 5%, if I can get the money at 3% I just made 2% on however many billions of dollars I invested (borrowed). If on the other hand interest rates are set to 7% I would have lost 2%, thus with higher interest rates businesses and individuals are less likely to take risks that "might" result in a return of lower levels. Thus the interest rates determine the rate of unemployment since risk taking is exactly what creates new businesses and new jobs, as well as maintaining old ones.</div><div><br /></div><div>A simple system at is essence, yes? (and I must say a simple minded explanation, my apologies) The trouble lies in the fact that the ability of the federal reserve to balance unemployment and inflation is controlled by gatekeepers. Only certain organizations have the power and ability to borrow money from the federal government at these targeted interest rates. And the only way in which that borrowing is reflected in the national economy is if those organizations in turn invest that money in some meaningful way inside the national economy that can influence inflation and unemployment. In our present case these organizations are borrowing that money and not investing it. Even though the federal reserve has lowered interest rates to 0%, a theoretically infinite incentive to invest in any opportunity that can return any benefit, WHY?!</div><div><br /></div><div>Two reasons, and this is where we get to the gist of the matter. </div><div><br /></div><div>One, the banks are still in such risky financial position that they are borrowing money at incredibly low rates in order to stabilize their current liquidity positions, they are in essence hoarding cash to the effect of hundreds of billions and in fact trillions of dollars. </div><div><br /></div><div>Two, there is nothing in the national economy worth investing in....... </div><div><br /></div><div>Does the thought make you shudder? Banks and investors who have billions of dollars of cash hoarded up are not interested in any investment whatsoever. Why? This brings us to our lesson in fundamental economics and finance for the day. Whether or not they should invest is determined by whether the present cost of an asset/investment is outweighed by the future returns they can expect (discounted for the risk that those returns will not occur). </div><div><br /></div><div>Those returns take two forms. </div><div><br /></div><div>Earnings: If I own a share of IBM and the company earns money and pays me a dividend that is earnings, an investment can expect some kind of earnings over time and theoretically into perpetuity. </div><div><br /></div><div>Appreciation: If on the other hand I own a share of IBM and rather than paying me a dividend they reinvest the money into new factories, land, patents, employees my asset has gained in fundamental value. My share is de facto worth more, it has appreciated. </div><div><br /></div><div>So the fact that interest rates are at effectively 0% and inflation is not occuring (in fact we have had deflation) indicates that those with the power to invest believe that the combination of appreciation and earnings from ANY POSSIBLE INVESTMENTS will not exceed 0%. </div><div><br /></div><div>What does this mean? Two things, one unlikely and another quite likely. </div><div><br /></div><div>One, that there is no way to earn money, this is quite unlikely, people still need to produce products and by definition then there will be a financial incentive for those who can efficiently and proficiently outperform competitors in the manufacture and provision of goods and services. </div><div><br /></div><div>Two, that every single investment is overpriced. What this means is complicated. At 0% cost of capital, at first glance, it would appear that something could not be overpriced, but this ignores the element of risk. A business that returns for me every year 1% on my million dollar investment is a great purchase if I can get my million dollars at 0%. Unless of course the business goes bankrupt and I lose the million in the next say.... (for simplicity) 100 years. The element of risk determines that I have to make far more money than just a slight margin over my cost of capital to account for the chance that the business/investment may fail. Why then would the investments/assets not automatically reprice themselves to match the market cost of risk by lowering the purchasing price of the investment. Get ready for the punchline. </div><div><br /></div><div>BECAUSE THIS MEANS A MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Are you scared yet? Do you understand what I mean? What this means is that your dad and my dad bought IBM for $20, they thought it had appreciated to $50 and that that was what it was worth. To sell it now for $20 or $10 or $25 seems unreasonable, they would rather just not sell. They will hold it believing that things will change. This the simplest and least illustrative example I could use. Also the least efficacious, lets try something that will hit closer to "home". There are houses for sale all over the country, on every street. Why do you say for sale? why not sold? Think of all those banks with their billions of dollars. <b>People thought that what they were buying was worth more than what it is. They are unwilling to sell at the price that an investor is willing to buy at.</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>This is true across the market for every asset and investment. They thought they were rich, but they were mistaken. The only ones rich are those in possession of what is in demand. Thus in this case, the rich ones are the young workers who can provide the resources and products that those who have the "assets" right now want to exchange them for. But the "wealthy" do not want to trade what they worked their whole life for in exchange for less than they thought it worth. So the houses sit on the markets. The stock prices remain high. And the banks sit back running equation after equation, disagreeing within themselves when the risk of future investments is outweighed by the return they can expect. For that matter what is the quantification of either? </div><div><br /></div><div>What does all of this mean to you? THE ECONOMY WILL NOT AND CANNOT RECOVER UNTIL THE WEALTH IS REDISTRIBUTED. Because the way to reduce unemployment (CHAIN -> increase buying power, reduce the burden on government, lower the tax rates, further incentivise investment, raise the price of goods, create inflation) is to inject capital into the markets. And the only way that that is going to happen is if we can reduce the price of the investments such that the returns of those investments discounted for their riskiness outweighs their cost. </div><div><br /></div><div>CAVEAT: This ignores the discussion of whether we could instead reduce the riskiness of those investments and thus affect the worthiness of purchasing them. This is done because I do not believe that it would have the required effect. There are enough investments of sufficiently stable nature available in the economy that the problem is not excessive risk aversion but rather far more excessive price/ supply in-elasticity. Although right now we are feeling the affects of both. </div><div><br /></div><div>Tune in later for more fun with economic collapses, courtesy of theoretical nonsense.</div>Theoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-62415530301488478862008-09-28T09:09:00.000-07:002008-09-28T09:13:45.721-07:00Quotes from MeWhat is the meaning of life? "Life is a word and like any other word the only meaning it has is that which we give it."<br /><br />"Take care of the poor, the rich will take care of themselves."<br /><br />"I think you will find that sense is not so common here"<br /><br />"Refuse to accept imperfection in anyone, learn to forgive imperfection in everyone."<br /><br />"Trust your mind, its smarter than you think"<br /><br />"Half a plan completely acted on is superior to a complete plan half acted upon"<br /><br />"When a man hates you, you have two choices, you can kill him or you can teach him. For most people... killing is the easy way out."<br /><br />"One little mistake and you go down in history as a tyrant"<br /><br />"The problem with theoritcal thinkers is that we have a penchant for being wrong. I'm talking about a real knack here."<br /><br />"Certainty deceives you"<br /><br />"War is not optional, it is either mandatory or unneccessary. Either we must fight or we should not."<br /><br />"Do not try to fool intelligent men, usually you are not fooling them, you are only insulting them."<br /><br />"Those who do not understand everything do not understand anything for it is all interwoven into a complex orchestra of truth."<br /><br />"It is hard to stay out of the fantastical and in the theoretical, but then, what is the difference?"<br /><br />"There are many who run out of burning buildings and away from gunfire, but there are some who run in and towards. Some call them heros, I call them men."<br /><br />When I say jump I want hear you say how high! "Really when I say jump I want you to jump, you can ask how high while you are in the air. If I say jump and you say, how high, I am going to say, too late."<br /><br />"Strength breeds peace, thus it is possible to be a pacifist and a warrior."<br /><br />"You love that which you understand and if you do not love a thing it is because you do not understand it"<br /><br />"Beauty is in everything ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder"<br /><br />"The righteousness of power is in its application not its presence"<br /><br />"The difference between arrogance and confidence is competence"<br /><br />Patience is a virtue, "No, virtue is patience"<br /><br />"If the battlefield were society initiative would be god."<br /><br />the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, "but faith in the lord is its conclusion"<br /><br />-Theoretical NonsenseTheoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8440771363780316979.post-88012384940423732472008-09-27T21:14:00.001-07:002008-09-27T21:14:41.246-07:00Initial PostBlog InitializedTheoretical Nonsensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216572495421152142noreply@blogger.com0