New Quotes

"If you commit a crime you should be punished, that is Justice."

"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"

"A reasonable system of Laws fairly, objectively, and consistently applied is another form of Justice, perhaps the only we can obtain"

"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."

More quotes

"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."

"To know what another will do is not possible, but to know what they can do is."

"Love knowledge"

Science and Science Fiction, light, sound and other natural phenomenon for which I don't charge

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

Point:

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.

Thought:

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.

Point:

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.

Theory: "Iceberg" Matter:

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.

Thought:

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.

Theory: Gravity:

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.

There are no force fields. There are no magical influences of one object upon another from a distance. Every interaction is a physical one.

Theory: Time

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.

Theory: Light:

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.

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.

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.

Theory :Unifying force:

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)

Entropy and Thermodynamics notes:

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.

Thought::

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:

Refutation of the Big Bang Theory:

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.

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.

Theory : Universal Dynamics:

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.

Unformulated Thought: Electromagnetic Attraction:

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.

Theory: Time and Space a.k.a. The Theory of Absolute Relativity:

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.

Theory : Regarding the fundamental relationship of light and sound:

(An impact reaction is essentially that effect of a sound wave as molecules impact each other)

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.

Refutation of the wave particle duality of light:

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.

Question:

"As for the universe expanding, how can we know it is expanding if we dont know where the center or the borders are?"

Postscript:

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... 

Latest news

"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."

Wall Street Journal 4/15/2010

Their fear of economic slowing will lead them to take actions that will cause substantial inflation, per our previous discussion.

Politics, Government and other false dichotomies you can share with friends

So 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

Tune in later on this channel for:

-Progressive Taxation and you, what happens when socialism and capitalism have a baby.

-Science and Science Fiction, light, sound and other natural phenomenon for which I don't charge

and -War and Warriors, how you too can conquer the world for less than $20

The Macarena, Buying things, selling things, and having lots of babies, an overview of the world economic system

I think I promised a few posts ago that you could:

(tune in next time for a discussion of purchasing power and intergenerational equity)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WAIT THOUGH, HERE COMES THE CAVALRY... WERE SAVED.

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?

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
(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.

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.

Stealth Inflation and the last ten years, what your professor didn't teach you

In 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.

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:

An increase in the supply of products, deflationary prices will drop

A decrease in the supply of products, inflationary prices will rise

An increase in the supply of money, inflationary

A decrease in the supply of money, deflationary

An increase in the demand for money, deflationary

A decrease in the demand for money, inflationary

An increase in the demand for products, inflationary

A decrease in the demand for products, deflationary

Ceterus Paribus (and it never is), make sense?

Lets redo the list of factors , shall we, notice any patterns

An increase or decrease in the supply or demand for products OR

An increase or decrease in the supply or demand for money

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.

Lets take a closer look.

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.

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.

Laying off workers has decreased the supply of products.

Injecting capital has increased the supply of money.

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.

So what is stealth inflation?

First we need to consider what has happened with prices.

Lets take a look at what has happened over the last, say, ten years.

Gold is currently 1090.60 per ounce. In 1998 it was 294.24.

As has been observed before, do to recent turmoil in the markets, the stock market is effectively flat over a ten year period.

....

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.

...

Lets get down to business, since neither I nor you have time. What is all this stealth inflation stuff about anyway?

Stealth Inflation is devaluation of a currency in the face of price stability. Wait, wait, wait... go back?

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.

This is possible because what we have always aimed for is price stability. Congratulations, prices are stable.

But the US currency is collapsing, it wont be long before a lot more people see it.

Note: I am not saying the problem is unsolvable, simply that it is big, present and ugly. I have an idea.