Math, economics and physics minded please check my work and be nice:

I will use () to indicate a subscript for these purposes. I'm pretty sure I can't do a subscript on DU, so sorry. I will also use 4D coordinates, as space/time are dimensions of the same thing, suggesting the ability to create a set of coords in all dimensions the same way. In addition to that Zeno's Paradox and the work of Peter Lynds* suggests instantaneous measurements cannot be made. Instead of the traditional variable T describing time, I will use W (when) for this purpose.

Let # be the coordinates of a system in W, X, Y, Z.
Let e(t) be the total energy in system #.
Let e(Δ) be the change in energy for system #.
Let e(0) be the constant amount of energy in system #.

e(t) = e(Δ) + e(0)

I submit that each denomination of money is equal to an amount of energy, as the economy is part of the universe, and all matter in the universe can be described in energy by e=mc^2, and all other things are already recognized as energy.

Therefore, all the goods/services in an economy may be described in terms of energy. As all goods services in the economy may be described by terms of money, money is somehow related to energy.

Let m(t) be the total amount of money in the economy, which is system # from before.
Let m(Δ) be the change in money for #.
Let m(0) be the the constant amount of money in #.

It would seem to be true that:
m(t) = m(Δ) + m(0)

Furthermore, I will suggest that the following relationship is true. I used a formula program to do this, so the things in () are actually subscripts:

<---I made a mistake on this because I was working in this weird software...plus, I'm a dork!

When an economy has a net increase in energy, it should see a net increase in the money supply. When an economy has a net decrease in energy, it should see a net decrease in the money supply. If there is an increase in energy and not enough new money to represent it, then there is deflation. If there is an increase in money and not enough new energy, then there is inflation.

I hope I didn't fuck anything up, also I'm a dork, so please be kind.

Reference for the possibly unfamiliar stuff:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds

This is a general relationship (and it may not be true, as I assume I'm an idiot), but the units will be all fucked up. I'm not sure, but I think this whole idea might require squaring or cubing or even hypercubing something (a hypercube is the 4D equivalent of a cube in 3d.)

^^^What do you far smart folks think?^^^

Without overthinking the problem, just looking at the equation and the units:




If m(t) = m(Δ) + m(0), then increasing M(t), the denominator of the first fraction, would lower its value, while the increasing m(Δ) + m(0) value in the numerator of the second fraction would increase its value.

That is the problem I feel exists with the equation.

:shrug:

:rofl:

Yeah, it's supposed to be flipped! :rofl:

I still need to work on the units though.

it's the name of the units that this method uses, not the units you were talking about, which were the result of a silly mistake after fooling around trying to figure out this equation writing software I have.

I'm not sure I can tackle all that's implied by these equations, but I think that equating money with energy simply because money has mass (and thus energy) is stretching your concept too far, too loosely. If I were a mathematician, I'd ask you for your proof that e sub(t) = m sub(t). You see where I'm going? Also, if I remember my basic physics correctly, the total energy of a system equals its resting energy plus its potential energy, or the total of its kinetic energy. Thus energy plus delta energy is not quite comprehensive enough to get at the total energy in a system.

I think there's something very interesting in your idea; I'm just not sure this sytem of equations gets at all of it. THANKS for posing such a fascinating topic!

Constant energy is the energy that remains in the system, it doesn't mean that within the system it isn't mobile. So that means that you can have energy from oil in the economy, which then is moved around. The point it enters the economy is when it is drilled/sucked out of the ground. To move it around, you need to use up energy, which is an energy loss when you analyze it like this, because of the heat that radiates away. When you burn it, it is a further heat loss, like when a truck/ship/etc. moves it.

Oil/etc. fossil energy drilled/mined, renewable energy captured into the system, minerals/etc. mined, and food is a net energy increase.
Eating food, burning fuel, sending something to a landfill is a net energy loss.

You add up the gains (a positive number) and subtract the losses to get the net change in energy in the system, delta e.

That is the only gain. Except for bombarded radiation.

Any engine isn't 100% efficient, so energy is lost to heat when fuel is burned.

You are right that for the EARTH SYSTEM the amount of energy increase is primarily due to the sun.

FOR THE ECONOMY, however, not all energy on earth is automatically a part of the economy, right? There is still oil in the earth's crust to be drilled out and added to the economy.

When you consider oil in the ground as a part of the Earth energy budget, however, it doesn't change until human beings burn it, and only when the heat from burning is lost to space does the Earth actually lose energy.

You can't destroy energy. You can't create energy. It changes forms,but is always there. There are some basic concepts of physics that you are weak on.

I'm assuming I've made some kind of mistakes, like the first poster pointed out.

that must be some good shit!

I myself, don't do drugs. Therefore, I can't "see" that money equals energy.

It's something completely different. So the equations are meaningless.

If you are, that makes sense, if your are not, then everything in the universe is definable in terms of energy, including the fucking economy. Einstein proved that with e=mc^2. Now, the amount of energy in something that's useful may be additional to that, and all the very general explanations of energy allow for more complex relationships to be inserted down the line.

Now, saying that is much easier than figuring it out, but this equation will allow central banks to stop flying relatively blind in deflation caused by efficiency increases and stagflation caused by less energy into the system, in ways that cannot be solved by inflation, which only accounts for human supply/demand, and only in situations where the people are not starving.

and all labor power can be equated to turnips?

Why is my new economic "theory of everything" inferior to yours?

If all things in the universe can be described in terms of energy, and the economy is part of the universe, then the economy can be described in terms of energy.

You cannot describe all things in the universe in terms of catfish, but if you could, then money would be equal to catfish. :rofl:

there's already an existing understanding of what I'm talking about, though it would seem not to be as crystallized as this relationship is.

Go look up thermoeconomics, I understand the basic premise, which is my basic premise. I do not know the details of that field, because I think on my own, but the general description is along these lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics

It's just that thermodynamics separates matter and energy and considers it to be different, when of course e=mc² shows that matter is equal to rest mass energy. So even when you're not using the chemical energy of something and moving it around, it can have a persistent price in energy and both money, wherein their system would only describe the energy that goes into a good, missing a valuable component: matter that does not chemically react to obtain value for the economy.

:evilgrin:

It was in part a statement about subsets rather than full equality between all the logical elements.

The things money can buy, and money itself, is energy in the universe.

Energy is obviously energy in the universe.

All things in the universe can be described in terms of energy.

Just like if all things in group a are red, then both subset 1 and subset 2 are red. They may differ in other ways.

If all things in the universe are matter and energy (which actually isn't true, but is a heuristic device), then money is a subset of things in the universe, not equal to the things in the universe.

By your logic, catfish and turnips and money are "things in the universe" and a=b=c, then catfish = turnips = money.

They don't.

Epic fail.

e=mc²

Energy in joules is equal to mass in kilograms multiplied by the speed of light in meters per second squared.

Unless you show that it isn't true, and then show actual evidence to back it up, it's true. If you come up with other units that obey that relationship, then you can call the units whatever you like.

However, that doesn't change the actual relationship.

That's rest mass, now e in my equations accounts for all types of energy, not just the rest mass in a system. When the e_t= e_Δ + e₀ equation is applied to the universe, change in energy (that's e_Δ) is 0, if energy in the universe is conserved, which seems to make sense. This relationship is the simplest relationship in math 1 = 1.

The equality here is actually quite as you describe, a subset relationship. But, it is also an equality.

If you change a property of the overall group, then inside that group the equality is between the subsets that inherent that property.

That's my mistake, I'm sorry about that.

The place where you screwed up, however, is by saying that turnips and catfish equal to one another in all ways. They are equal to the universal good of the universe, energy. I can annihilate a catfish with anti-matter of the same mass, and it will release energy. I can annihilate a turnip with an equal mass of anti-matter, and it will release energy. E=mc² describes how much that is if they are at rest. In that sense they are equal to one another, but there are some obvious qualitative differences between the two.

Money is the universal good for goods/services, I would hope you accept this definition of money. Since all those goods/services are types of energy, then you can price them in energy too. Money and energy are universal goods, and the amount of money to energy is like a currency exchange rate.

I hope this will help you understand what I'm talking about.

You theory is about as valid as the theory of the homeless guy on the subway dressed in filthy rags, rocking back and forth, who says that aliens are communicating to him through his dental filings.

The fact that matter can be converted to energy in the extreme conditions of fusion or fission has zero relevance to the economics of money.

You're a crackpot, basically. Nothing you've written here or in any other of your recent threads makes one lick of sense.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are a mental hospital patient with an internet connection. As far as the larger DU community's dialogue about the economy and the current economic crisis, everything you write is a complete waste of time, aside from its entertainment value.

In a definition you prefer. What is money to you?

1. Total demand for energy = aggregate demand in traditional Keynesian economics
2. Demand for energy by consumers = consumption by individuals/households
3. Demand for energy by companies = investment/consumption by businesses
4. Demand for energy by government = government demand
5. (Demand for energy (gain of energy) by the national economy - demand for energy (loss of energy) by foreign economies) = (exports - imports)

total demand for energy = consumer energy demand + business energy demand + government energy demand + (gain of energy - loss of energy)
aggregate demand = consumer demand + business demand + government demand + (exports - imports)

It's the same math (except for exports/imports because when you exchange money you lose the representation of energy for the real energy), just thought of in a different way. But, even though you can express it in the same math, with different units, I'm a "crackpot." If we import oil from another country, our economy gains energy, although it loses money to the foreign country. If we export oil to a foreign country, our country loses energy, even if we gain money. Money is a representation of energy, at least in some cases like that, all I tried to do was apply it to things we don't usually think of in terms of energy, but can be due to the knowledge of physics that's as of yet, fairly un-applied to economics.

in George Eliot's "Middlemarch" who has sequestered himself for years to develop an ever-elusive "theory of everything." As becomes clear, this character is quite simply insane.

On a humorous side note, as one forced to eat turnips as a child growing up, I wish there had been an "anti turnip," attracted by the "strong force" to annihilate every turnip in the universe. My inner chlld sees Anti-Turnip as an implacable super hero :)

On edit: Anti Turnip's sidekick, Anti Brussels Sprouts, would destroy all versions of that eponymous vegetable, liberating the world's chlldren from lives of nutritional ignominy.

like everything else in the universe?

Isn't that a valid point? What's so weird about that? Everything I'm saying could be wrong, but the basic premise would seem to be accurate, would it not?

Economics is essentially a study of interactions between humans involving resources and methods of production. You need a better demonstration that your laws of physics are applicable here than merely claiming it to be within the universe and thus part of Physics' domain

The idea that "everything" is either matter or energy is a heuristic device (a simplified model that may or may not be true) that helps us understand certain realms of existence.

Reducing everything to matter and energy is useful when studying physical science -- the science of matter and energy.

But economics is in part the study of human behavior, both individual and collective. It is concerned with things like "choice", "desire," "satisfaction", "utility", "consciousness," "motivation," "information," "crowd behavior", "game theory" and so on.

None of these, strictly speaking, can be reduced to matter and energy.

No one has been able to model the behavior of even the simplest multi-cellular animals by regard solely to matter and energy. We use models of behavior, which are neither.

Thinking you can model the flow of money and economic behavior of billions of people as matter and energy is absurd.

If I come to a fork in the road, aren't the choices left or right a geometrical proposition?

You mentioned games, doesn't that sound like this kind of game analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_form_game

What if you put those games on graph paper? What if you were to change the relationship between the choices? What if you were to change the scale of the graph? What if instead of one unit, the graph's lines represented more than one unit?

What if you were to make the scale between each line on the graph infinite? That would leave all the choices in one of those games collapsed on one another at (0,0). What's the difference between the axes of a graph at (0,0)? There is nothing different.

y = y

Something must equal itself.

The next complication is:
y = x + b.

It's like that, because x has to be unequal to y, if it isn't, then it's like with a graph axes at (0,0), there's not any difference between x and y. B is the constant.

Hmm...

Do you see what I'm talking about here?

Look at my equations and look at the example above:
e_t = e_Δ + e₀

They look damn similar, don't they?

Well, I'm assuming the universe is equal to itself, isn't it? Work from there. You have e_t, which is equal to everything in the universe. In the y = y part, it's e_t = e_t.

Well, you add a variable. That's where e_Δ comes in. Now for the entire universe, the variable is 0. So you still have y = y.

For things that change, I think y = x + b is the simplest relationship. I may be wrong, but doesn't it seem to make sense?

If you can describe everything as y = y, then that proves that whatever the "choices" there are, there are no real choices outside of the universe, and that all choices in the most extreme circumstances can be defined as no choice. Do you know about singularities?

You can complicate this further by adding m.

y = mx + b. But if m is 1, then it can be simplified and becomes y = x + b.

Everything beyond that is a description of further complexity, but when you consider the universe as a whole, then the complexity fades away to become y = y. That's what I believe is the foundation of a possible theory of everything. That everything is equal to itself, and from there you just keep making the other side of the equation more complex with more variables, but what are variables? They are dimensions.

I tell you to come to my house, and you ask me where it is. If I respond that my house is located in the universe, that's not too fucking helpful, now is it?

That's y = y.

What if I were to just give you the longitude of my house? Still, not too fucking helpful.

But if I give you the lon/lat of my house, you'll be able to get there. I do hope you're seeing my point here, it's OK if you don't.

This is the kind of stuff I've been thinking about for a while now, just as a hobby.

You will note the way I described a system, as at least a set of 4D coords. A lot of the information you talk about as choice is geometry. That's why I made sure to include the part about the coordinates. :P

If I'm at the supermarket, that's geometry. If I have money in my pocket, that's geometry. If I pick up something off of a shelf and walk with it over to the checkout area, that's geometry. If I "choose" which checkout to go through, that's geometry as well. When I exchange the money for the good, that's geometry.

it's y = x. I guess I'm used to seeing something like a = a, but here y = x. That shows the increasing complexity of the formula's more consistently.

hypothesis purporting to be "scientific" to be valid, the hypothesis must be "falsifiable." What Popper meant by this, as I understand it (with apologies afore-hand to Popper specialists), is that there must exist some condition or set of conditions that would render the hypothesis "false."

(It is this test of "falsifiability" that keeps astrology and other pseudo-sciences from epistemological validity, at least insofar as the "scientific method" is concerned.)

So what exactly is your hypothesis? And what set of conditions exist that render it "falsifiable"?

And if you could measure multiple universes, then wouldn't the thing in which you're measuring multiple universes be the actual universe?

The universe is an idea, it's like Democritus' atom. It is the thing which is not the product of division of two different things.

If x is not equal to y then:


This is the theory of everything:
y = y

I'm sorry for it to be so disappointing.

Now, as to the usage of the money formula, well, that's a lot easier. It's an axiom too. It's not up for debate. You see how that works?

It doesn't matter that energy :P is a universal description of everything. You could call it universal crap, and it too would be true.

These things are mathematical proofs, not science. I actually just figured that out after thinking about your question.

After you get more sophisticated than the equations I provided, then it becomes science, because you have to figure out all the different things that represent energy loss and gain, and what energy doesn't leave a system. That's the stuff that involves measurement.

Unlike the atom of Democritus, it's much easier to find the universe. You're already in it. You can logically understand it. When I talk about a "system", it's a logical thing too. It is a product of division of the universe.

If you look at money, if you have a 1:1 ratio of money to the energy it represents then it no longer represents it. It is it, because money is some energy or whatever the thing that all things are is.

Do you see what I'm saying here? This is pretty simple and yet important stuff, and your question helped me.

Now, I think for this to work you have to define a "system" in the number of dimensions in the universe. We can't know all of them, but it would seem to be 4, though there are some theories of physics that say there are more. Determining how many dimensions there are is science.

So you have to simplify the dimensions to # or some other unknown thing, because finding the number of dimensions is a thing of science.

It's the difference between a empirical and theoretical. This is really more of a mathematical proof than it is a theory. It's like the theorem of everything.

That's it! And if you create your "theory of everything" in isolation, dismissing the wisdom of millions of others who have studied the subject and come to a consensus on at least a few basic issues, then your "theory" is likely to be pretty bizarre.

It's saying that the money supply shouldn't grow any faster than the supply of goods (with 'goods' defined in the widest sense - physical goods, services etc.). If the money supply grows faster, you get inflation. If the supply of goods grows faster, you have deflation.

Goods represent a loss and an increase in energy. A loss caused by the radiating away of energy in the form of heat, from the power needed to make a good, either through human heat loss or through a machine heating up radiating energy away. The gain is the added value of the good's energy to the system, due to e=mc^2, and the fact that not all of the energy used to make something is radiated away in the form of heat.

You see, if we use energy more wisely, we can help out the economy and experience growth. If we find a new source of energy that doesn't take as much work to exploit, then we increase our economy's efficiency. These should be the two areas that politicians should make policy based upon, in order to promote an economic recovery.

The problem with basic monetarism, is that it only indirectly explains what happens in stagflation or prolonged deflation. Stagflation during the '70s was caused by a drop in the energy going into the system, caused by the classically explainable drop in production due to price controls (which moderate the profit motive to create new goods/services, in other words use human energy, which comes from food) and then subsequently the oil shock, which was a more direct decrease in the amount of energy.

The prolonged period of deflation, was due to a lack of expansion in the money supply to represent the new energy in the economy.

My equation proves that when you have less energy, you should not inflate a currency, because all you're doing is dividing up the same smaller pie more with smaller slices. Only when a drop in energy is due to a drop in human utilization in the absence of a food shortage, should a currency be inflated to stimulate demand, because that will act on one's desire to go out and make more money.

And very interestingly, it ought to be possible to fill in all the energy "e"s to find out exactly how much a money supply should expand.

It also provides us with a solution to the current deflation: use energy more wisely or find more energy, if it's due to a lack of mechanical energy (think gas pump and metal that's energy because of e=mc^2.) If it can be attributed to a drop in profit motive, and it's in the absence of a food shortage, then you can cause people to work harder by inflation.

This equation proves how essential it is to use energy more wisely, and if the improvements in fuel economy the President just announced will do that, then we're on our way to recovery.

then linking energy to money via equations is ridiculous (and stop saying "e=mc^2" as if that's relevant - you haven't brought mass, or the speed of light, into this at all, and that equation is only relevant at sub-atomic, or near light-speed, levels - in all our normal activities, mass doesn't change, it just gets moved around; and the same goes for energy).

You can do calculations for energy flow in our world (or a part of it), but it's not linked to money. We get solar radiation, we radiate energy into space, we can dig up fossil fuel that was created using solar radiation long ago. But most of that happens without any money involved at all. Similarly, what we do with money is not primarily about the energy content of objects we possess. A block of ice holds less energy than the equivalent mass of water, but you could sell it for more in many circumstances. It's about how useful, or desirable, something is. A clever idea doesn't have more energy than a bad one.

"Goods represent a loss and an increase in energy". No. Goods represent something that we find 'good'.

"A loss caused by the radiating away of energy in the form of heat, from the power needed to make a good, either through human heat loss or through a machine heating up radiating energy away." All activities will involve some energy going to a less useful form, typically background heat (though that itself may be useful to another activity, eg keeping a space at a habitable temperature).

"Stagflation during the '70s was caused by a drop in the energy going into the system, caused by the classically explainable drop in production due to price controls (which moderate the profit motive to create new goods/services, in other words use human energy, which comes from food) and then subsequently the oil shock, which was a more direct decrease in the amount of energy." You see, now you're going to a metaphorical use of the word 'energy', if you claim the profit motive is paert of energy usage. That in itself is OK, but if you do that, then you have to stop using equations. Equations don't work on metaphors.

"My equation proves that when you have less energy, you should not inflate a currency, because all you're doing is dividing up the same smaller pie more with smaller slices." No, it doesn't 'prove' anything. You've stated that energy, however you are measuring it (which you haven't made clear - are you measuring the combined thermal, kinetic, chemical and potential energy of the Earth at a given moment? The energy entering and leaving a volume? Whether the energy can do useful work in our environment?) is variable, and that money is variable too. You've stated that you could state each of those 2 either with just one variable (e(t) and m(t)), or with a variable and a constant (e(?) + e(0) and m(?) + m(0)).

You've then proposed a value of "energy divided by money". That is all you have done. You haven't shown how 'energy/money' is a worthwhile thing to look at (since you tried to tie it to inflation and deflation, I thought you must have meant goods rather than energy). You haven't shown that keeping the energy/money value constant is desirable (if it was 'goods/money', then you'd be talking about price, and at least there could be a discussion on whether constant prices are a good thing).

"if we use energy more wisely, we can help out the economy and experience growth" This is something I agree with. But it doesn't come from your equation. Using fossil fuels is causing global warming, and is not sustainable in the long term. There is solar energy (which drives wind, wave and hydroelectric energy) coming to our planet, and we could use that for our activities before it's radiated back out. There is a need for a certain level of energy - warmth in colder climates, for instance - for the standard of living needed for human survival; and it's also very good for enabling parts of life that are good from a social viewpoint (eg travelling to be able to see friends, or for family members to work at different workplaces). We can also say "if we use our time more wisely, we can help out the economy and experience growth". But that doesn't mean that our time can be put into an equation linking it to money, or energy.

it's just not a significant enough because we are all in relatively the same frame of reference.

Actually, you're quite wrong, a good idea if applied to the world can cause energy efficiency to increase. Why send someone walking/driving in car burning fuel to deliver a message when you can send it over the internet? Inventions have an impact on the energy budget of a system.

The right of inventors to obtain a patent is derived from the increase in energy efficiency of the system, at least with my intellectual property law that models this all quite well.

It doesn't have to be linked to money, even in natural it's about the ratio between the supply of energy to the demand of energy in a given 4D coord set.

Goods are made of energy, we may like something that's inefficient and that loses energy for the system. Drugs are great example of this, ice is another. But things that are qualitatively good to human beings must follow the laws of physics, there is no way around that for anything that's a part of the universe.

"All activities will involve some energy going to a less useful form, typically background heat (though that itself may be useful to another activity, eg keeping a space at a habitable temperature)."

Yes, but all of that fits inside of this most general of relationships. You're right, most goods will cause a decrease in energy, except for goods that contain energy like coal or goods that can capture energy like solar panels (they may cause a net loss of energy, which is why they are probably so expensive compared to coal.) Food used to be an energy profitable endeavor, I don't know if it is anymore, since we augment farming with so much technology. Now, if we were to annihilate all the things we use with anti-matter, they'd be energy in the e=mc^2 sense of the word, they would then equal the energy they give off in that reaction, thought it's not 100% which is why we're not all anti-matter.

Profit motive = demand for energy. We want things to eat/wear/money to do fun things, so we go to work.

Energy is not a metaphor, as all humans are a part of the universe and we must use energy to do everything, as we are ourselves energy.

All the energy measured in every way possible within a 4D area is equal to energy in my explanation. Even heat energy, though that usually constitutes a loss of more useful forms of energy. This is the simplest way to account for energy, well, except for all the exotic geometry that goes on, but as you explained, most of that is not necessary for our frame of reference.

Goods are energy, just one form of energy in the 4D volume, which is a system because there is always an exchange of energy between everything, so all "systems" are arbitrary in the real world. There are no closed systems except the universe.

Global warming is just another version of the same relationship.

If I put a car (with a constantly refilled fuel tank) in a garage with a CO₂ and CO detectors, they will go off fairly rapidly.
If I put a car in a high school gym with the same detectors, but preferably away from the car, so that they don't trigger early, it will take more time to use up the CO₂ and CO dilution capacity of the volume of air in the gym.
If I put the car in a large arena, it will take even longer for the detectors to go off, as there's more volume of air to dilute the CO₂ and CO.
If I put the car outside, it will take an extremely long time for the volume of air on Earth to run through it's dilution capacity. There will be an effect someday, but it takes more time.

The more resources a system has at its disposal, the longer inefficiencies can go on. We'll all feel the impacts of global warming one day, when we can't grow crops for lack of irrigation water or something along those lines.

The same is true for exhausting the resources in the economy, which can be represented by energy. The more energy there is, the more time it takes for an economy to self-regulate.

there is a relationship between the maximum energy in a system and the way it behaves, should it not gain more energy.

*I've got a terrible headache, I'm done with this for a while, but if you reply, I'll answer in thread sometime later today when the headache is gone.

In that case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with money. The potential and thermal energy of matter doesn't even require life to exist.

You are throwing around buzzwords that you don't understand, in sentences that lack any meaning whatsoever.

"Actually, it doesn't change much, but it's true for all the things we do... it's just not a significant enough because we are all in relatively the same frame of reference." This means nothing. I think you've read the first few paragraphs of something about relativity, and decided the rest was too complicated for you. What has a frame of reference got to do with this? I haven't yet seen you talk about the velocity of any object.

The rest of your post above is just as meaningless. I recommend you read a basic physics book on thermodynamics. There is no need at all to try to bring Einsteinian relativity into a discussion about energy usage, and even less so when you're trying to link it to money as if you've discovered some fundamental proof of something. If just makes you look like someone who wants to impress others with technical words, even when you don't understand them.

we may just a very complex method of convection (like weather) for the planet. It might be why life evolves in the first place. That's speculation, based upon an educated guess.

Just as one axis of a graph may be defined by a the various combos of a logarithms v. linear scales, so too can you fool around with the distance between coordinates to use a linear description to produce non-linear results. If I have a piece of graph paper, I can change the distance between the lines on the graph. In a normal linear graph, as the axis increases each line on the graph paper represents 1 more number unit. On the other hand, if the distance between the first line and second line is 10, make the distance between the second and third lines 15, the distance between the third and the fourth line 23, the distance between the fourth and fifth line 67, you can create a linear line with non-linear scale.

What looks linear on that paper is really a squiggly line on a real linear graph, but the distance between each line doesn't have to be a log scaled graph, it can be a number of increase that's less that the previous, and there doesn't have to be any particular trend that's log or anything else.

It's complicated, but that's how the universe works. The graph paper scale is always getting distorted by the presence of matter and energy.

This includes the fourth dimension, time.

That's how you can use linear coordinate pairs to describe a non-linear system, the real information about the geometry is in the "graph" scale. It's rather complicated to do that, and I actually don't think we'll go that far to use two points and deform the distance between them to form the boundaries of an economic system.

(So you can eat me, and go look up the various types of spaces...)

We could simply dispense the whole complex geometry stuff, to include more than two points, in a matrix of points to describe outlines. I just think with the line deforming way, sorry about that, and that's the most accurate one to describe it all, but it's really not necessary on earth.

For our purposes on earth, we'd use lat/lon/elevation and time to define the system boundary of an economy.

We can also semi-dispense with the derivative killing stuff of Peter Lynds/Zeno, we just have to realize that we can't make real instantaneous measurements of anything, and that when we have movement "instantaneous" at a second, that it's really not, because you can subdivide a second and that a derivative is always the average of some smaller units that make up the "instant".

So, you can, with rather mundane geometry describe the outline of a system, which is always arbitrary, as no system is closed, except, presumably the universe.

It presumes that all pricing structures are solely the effect of a single factor, that being money supply.

There's a difference between monetary inflation and price inflation. So, the change of prices carries implications beyond any single point relationship. Inflation, deflation, and consumption are all driven by multiple factors and this attempts to condense all the relationships into a simple "x therefore y" correlation.

That doesn't work for me.
GAC

Everything can be described in terms of energy: every human, all the work we can do, the things we eat, own, the power we use to heat our homes, put on lights, and the stuff we throw away. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." (OK, Yoda moment over.)

Price inflation and monetary inflation are ONE AND THE SAME!

In a market situation, prices are set by slicing up the pie of supply energy to the demand for energy in a given 4D system. A lot of the complexity is moved away from these equations by the funky geometry you have to do to describe a system, but for the weirdness of a market, it only applies in weird extreme situations (the geometry is that of general relativity.) In addition, all the different forms of energy that make up the various "e"s in these equations are left up to other people to figure out. This is just the most basic relationship. It's merely the foundation to do everything else.

Let d(t) = total demand for energy in market #.
Let d(Δ) = change in demand for energy in market #.
Let d(0) = constant demand for energy in market #.

We'll re-use all the variables from the first part:


A price is just a representation of slicing up the pie more with more demand. If you have customers in a line wrapped around the block, they demand the energy in the goods they're buying (say an iPhone which can be at least described by e=mc^2 + any chemical energy it has in it) , but you may only have so much energy in the market (which is the stock of iPhones.) There is also another transaction of demand for energy v. supply of energy, and that's the demand for the employees to use the energy in themselves (literally think of fat, glycogen, and the food (plus some oxygen) now as glucose as energy to do work + how much ever they ate earlier that's undigested) in exchange for currency, which is of course, energy. A lot of our "work" is just moving energy around, that's why modern life is so freaking for so many people in developed countries. Instead of energy solely being derived from food burning in a human, we can burn fuel in an engine...etc.

And, monetary inflation and price inflation are NOT the same thing.
GAC

I double the money supply, but if I never actually use the new printed money, the observed money supply is only the original money supply. I have read that a government can print money in the short term and that does hurt as much as prices don't increase, but in the long term the prices do increase. Doesn't it make sense that that is due to observing the increased money?

It's like Shroedinger's cat, in a way. We can know that the money supply has increased before the observed increase, because we increased it. Until the money supply is actually observed in the market, however, it's both there and not there. We don't know if people will actually spend the new money.

I guess it would be like knowing that you put the cat in the box with the right stuff to kill it if the decay occurs, but not knowing if the decay actually occurred.

If you don't know about Schroedinger's cat you can go here and find out more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroedinger%27s_Cat

My whole premise is that since the economy is a part of the universe it should follow the laws of physics like all other things in the universe.

I would even submit that "money" doesn't exist at all. It's a concept that we use tangible things to represent for purposes of trading goods and services.

Human beings do not have unlimited supplies of energy in us, we get it from food. And we have a certain efficiency rating, meaning that we burn some food for homeostasis, and then we lose energy during the process of doing work in the form of excess heat, which we lose through sweat/evaporation. A lot of our "work" is just minor exertions managing the use of energy by machines.

It's _really ^really easy...


For ^superscripts simply follow this format: {sup}The text you want superscripted {/sup}


For _subscripts simply follow this format: {sub}The text youw ant subscripted {/sub}


Just replace {} with their equivilent square brackets. In other words, lay off the shift button! :-)


Hope this helps!

can I do the fraction bar thing somehow?

Is that math ml? That only works in Firefox, not IE.

I get it now! _{I'm an idgit...}

What does that, MathML or HTML, or DU's software? Will everyone who reads DU on a PC or Mac see what I mean?

As to the fraction bar...


Hmmm...


You can use the "underscore" command, I think. {u}TEXTTTTTT{/u}


x²+y² =z²
x-y³

Thanks!

out in my head and I was an elected union official for years. Since there is no natural phenomenon occurring to represent greed, it is a tough equation to make. You are representing changes without any logical means to support change. Greed. Greed does not follow any natural law. Equations are proofs. Equations are ways to prove concepts. An equation does not discover, it represents.

We're machines that seek out our own energy supply. This situation exists everywhere. It is the most basic relationship in the universe.

You don't have to know why greed happens, just the consequences it has on nature. In nature, if a deer population grows too large to be supported by its food supply, members will be selected out of the herd based upon their strengths. This is like a natural market, with the supply being the food available within a certain area without expending too much energy to move around and find food, and the demand being the amount of energy a deer population needs to consume in order to survive. If the supply gets to small, then members of the herd that cannot survive well on less energy will die off. Or the herd will move on, but of course, that uses energy.

In humanity, we have augmented our food supply with technology, and we now don't have to do all work with humans, we have machines to do that.

Money now represents not only food energy, but energy for all kinds of things. We want more energy, and money is the representation of energy.

A deer population's hunger for food, I would submit, is the same thing that causes a human being to want more money.

the deer population hoards more food in the times of plenty. Natural law does not hoard food above and beyond the current needs.

That's true, because it has consequences for the energy budget of a system.

Greed is mutated demand. 2+2=4 There is no rational explanation for 2+2=5 . Greed is when something extra is picked up for no logical reason. There is no rational explanation or equation that represents my house going from 100k to 250k back to 150k in two years. If there were mathematic models, then there might be some preventive actions. I understand your question. I have been trying to equate the bowline knot mathematically for years. There are knots that work and ones that don't. If it could be represented mathematically a lot of situations could be analyzed qualitatively.

The realities and suffering of the past will be solved in the same way penicillin solved them for the diseases it can treat.

You are asking the question that someone who's been informed that their infection can be cured with penicillin would have asked, after suffering with it for a while. You ask why it is you had to suffer, why so many others had to suffer before, when there was no penicillin.

I don't know why I figured this out, and someone else didn't long ago. I'm sorry that it's going to take a while for it to have a real impact on your life, but perhaps the children of this nation will be able to live in a nation that's better off for this simple understanding.

The reason the price of your house went up so much is inflation, it was caused by interest rates being so low, which eventually causes a multiplier effect with money, and increases the money supply. You don't feel the pain of inflation instantly, only over time as the increased buying power is actually measured, and prices rise. You individually feel the pain of inflation because of the way our system works. It destroys the wealth of some, but not all. I've designed a banking system that takes into account that money is equal to some amount of energy, and destroys the wealth of all, rather than the wealth of some, as energy comes and goes.

The sad fact, if my stuff holds true, is that the current models are all inaccurate, they don't think about energy, just an indirect measure of it. The fact that there is currently no understanding that there is a real limiting factor to the healthy multiplication of the promise to pay, leaves people who determine the interbank lending rate in a position of flying blind in some situations. It's like shooting a gun with only so many bullets, but only having blurry sight. You might hit the target sometimes, but other times you'll miss, using up your bullets.

In my system, we'd just write your mortgage down, this would cause inflation to counter the deflationary pressure, because the deposits of a bank and the loans/assets of a bank would only be related in absolute terms, rather than terms of local people, or the local bank. We would loan out new money in the amount of the deposits, rather than loaning the deposits themselves. We would understand better the multiplier effect, and directly control that by knowing when the money that is loaned out comes back to the bank, and limit how much that applies to an increased ability to loan out. We'd do this with an electronic currency that is either held at the bank where you do business, or the successor to the Fed, something I call a universal bank, which would hold electronic currency when it's removed from a local bank in either the form of paper money, or a special card that would replaces checks called a variable denomination bank note.

Speculative investing with old money would eventually not be required, but this bank model provides a smooth transition between one form of money and another. (Even though the old money is really a representation of energy in the economy, it isn't treated like that, and that's the problem.)

As to your noting that demand is not equal to greed, you're right in a way, greed is merely the maximizing of demand.

doubt and pick through complicated articulation to see your point. But please favor me with another short synopsis. Also, I don't understand this statement "We would loan out new money in the amount of the deposits, rather than loaning the deposits themselves". What other money would you have to loan besides deposits. A technical point is that penicillin does not cure anything. It kills bacteria through antibodies. Are your saying your plan will generate processes that will effect the system?

doesn't it have to follow the laws of physics, like all other things in the universe?

That's my basic premise here. Does that make sense, or at least seem a like a valid idea? It does to me.

I have said that we behave within a certain limit or prostituted actions. So then I have to agree with you. Everything is part of a large overall system. Excessively greed is a function of instinct. Instinct is a function of programming. So there must be ways to state what you are saying by defining a pattern. Ergo greed is just as much a part of physics as is gravity.

...when we trip, we fall, and when we die, we achieve room temperature.

If what makes you decide to get up is a part of the universe, then shouldn't it follow the laws of physics too?

What initiates the firing of neurons to make you stand up hasn't been discovered.

Once you can explain human consciousness using strictly physical laws, then you have a chance of working out your economic theory.

Good luck with all that.

had something to do with deciding to get up. I mean, after all, to decide to get up, you have to fall down. So if you accept that gravity made you fall, then you have to accept that gravity gave you the possibility of the choice to get up as well.

..remain on the ground?

Gravity operates on humans as well as rocks and other objects that have no choice in how to respond to it's force.

Human choice to move operates, as well, in the absence of gravity.

"Human choice to move operates, as well, in the absence of gravity."

Um, humans are matter and energy, or just energy because of e=mc².

As long as you have matter and energy, you cannot escape gravity. They're really close friends these two, they always go out to bars together.

I was trying to find out if that's what YOU were asserting, as your previous post was rather muddled.

Sounds to me like you're trying to prove predestination...the idea that every human action and decision is simply the result of some simple equation that was set in motion at the beginning of time.

Money (the bills in your wallet) is made of atoms and those atoms must follow the laws of physics.

Money (the idea that those bills represent) is not made of anything and thus follow no such physical laws.

Thermodynamics only applies to the paper, or metal of which money is made.

Think about this for a second. Money itself is made of energy. It symbolizes more energy. It can become all energy if you fool around with it. If you make everything that money stands for money, then the information that's money is equal to the thing it represents. m = e.

I think what I'm hitting on is related to this below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

You can't have a system in thermodynamic equilibrium and have energy differences, and really the only system that's closed and could ever get thermodynamic equilibrium is the universe.

April Fools!

Hey, you had me going for awhile. I finally see the obtuse act for what it is.

Good show. Well done!

:applause:
:rofl:

apply the laws of thermodynamics to money??

Please restate both so I can see what you're talking about.

How isn't money representative of energy if you can buy things and services with it that are energy? Money itself is energy, in paper and electronic form.

You can burn paper money.

It's like the ratio between symbolized energy and symbolic energy. You can have a globe, and then you can have the earth. If you build a globe that's the same as the earth in all ways, then it makes no sense to symbolize the earth with a globe.

money were indeed energy.

My globe could show India on New York state's border and I could argue it was a symbol of earth. For that matter the apple in my refrigerator could be a symbol. Just don't rely on them to visit India.

How did I land on this thread? Obviously made a wrong turn somewhere.

Leaving now, to find the Kindergarten thread.

While scratching my head throughout the dialogue, I'm already trying to translate the basic points, here, into a synopsis for my elementary school aged daughter to chew on.

This is paradigm-shifting stuff, which is always good for our next generation's minds. But first, I got a lot more chewing to do of mine own.

:)

Thanks again.

Do you mean like the rubber? Or like the formatting language or something?

The only way I can explain it, is that it's like a bunch of monkey's on typewriters coming up with Shakespeare.

I totally fucking suck at math. Who knows, maybe someone else has come up with this already?

No matter how pretty those words sound to you.

Just think about it.

Money is really information. Money itself is made of energy, whether it's paper/coins in someone's pockets or a file in a computers' memory/HD.

What if everything that money represents becomes money? In other words, what if all energy in a system becomes money? What then? There is no representation of anything, everything in a system stands for itself.

If you take this from the OP:


Re-arrange it, so that the total money is on the same side as the total energy. Then make make both e_t and m_t the same thing number wise. Say 100 to 100. Now that's more complicated than it needs to be, it's 1 to 1.

You have just lost all that information, I don't actually think that's supposed to happen, but if you make everything in an economy money, then you lose the representation. The representation becomes everything itself. Everything represents itself. The ratio becomes 1 unit of money to every unit of energy.

Now let us think about paper money versus electronic money. If I send $100 20 miles and it's paper money, wouldn't it stand to reason that that takes more energy than sending an electronic payment that far?

Wouldn't one be more efficient than the other? Even if a $100 dollars isn't heavy enough to require a lot of energy to move, some amount of paper money would.

One hundred dollars and fifty cents is a lot longer than $100.50 is. It would stand to reason that it take more energy to communicate one hundred dollars and fifty five cents than $100.55, wouldn't it? So if that money is representative of energy, then it takes more energy to say something longer like one hundred dollars and fifty five cents than $100.55. I can also say the same thing by saying:
The amount of money is equal to one fifty dollar bill, another fifty dollar bill, one quarter and another quarter. That's still $100.50. I could make this really absurdly long.

one penny
and one penny
and one penny
and one penny... and on and on until you have enough pennies to equal $100.55.

We know that a computer uses energy to represent characters, so when I say one hundred dollars and fifty cents, it's using more energy than just saying $100.55. I have proved that to you, it takes me longer to type out one hundred and fifty cents than it does to type out $100.55. It takes the computer more energy to represent it.

Until you make it 1:1 you could still have something left to represent with money, and it's less energy than it's representing, but as soon as you hit 1:1, then the positions of everything would just be as efficient to use as the money.

Money is just information, and it would seem information would appear to be dependent upon the thermodynamic equilibrium. If a system was in equilibrium, then I hypothesize you could not have any information.

Most Words Used Without Having A Clue As To What They Mean.

please tell me what's wrong with that idea.

I want to see you come up with a logical refutation of what I'm saying. Instead of just spewing venom, try to educate me. What do I not see here?

There's nothing of any value whatsoever to work with. It would take several years of you learning what all of those words mean, to even begin to work with you.

It's a cop out to simply pull that crap. If you're going to say something is wrong, then give a fucking explanation for why it's wrong, in your opinion.

Let's do a little example:
I have a globe, and it represents the planet Earth. If I make the globe the same size as the Earth and it weighs just the same as the real earth, and all the particles that make the globe are arranged the same way as the Earth's, why not just look at the Earth? At some point a representation of something becomes something if you make it the same size with the same arrangements of particles. If I have a scale model of an airplane, if it's the same size as the airplane, WTF is the point of having a scale model? The airplane itself will do just fine.

What's so absurd about that?

If you can't actually reply with a useful discussion, why reply at all? What's the point?

Isn't the universe its own representation?

EDIT: "Isn't the universe its own representation?"

(facepalms)

What's useful about just slapping someone down with out even the slightest bit of explanation why?

Will you at least say this is a fraction? :P

EDIT: And it's not a fraction; it's an equation. You REALLY should learn what the words you utter mean.

e/m is a fraction so is the other side

EDIT: For reals: Your OP is at the level of crazyperson in Denny's at 4am writing on napkins and muttering angrily to himself.

I've said nothing that's totally unreasonable. The equation, even if it isn't representative of anything whatsoever isn't absurd. That doesn't mean it means anything whatsoever, but it doesn't cause something like 2+2=5.

c = a + b

That's not a crazy thing, now is it? What's so weird about that? Nothing. There's nothing weird about this:


It doesn't have to mean a single thing at all.

Neither one of those things say very much on their own.

Is everything in the universe capable of being described in terms of energy? Did I have that wrong? We may not be able to measure everything, but until someone proves the relationship e=mc² wrong, it's what's true. Matter + anything else that's energy is equal to the total energy in the universe and I'm saying that. That's not an absurd idea, now is it? It's not falsifiable, and I think that's why this is really math more than it is physics.

I can't prevent you from being a crank. I can, however, point it out to others.

Everything that's already considered energy (like kinetic enery) + energy of all the mass in the universe = all the energy in the universe

That not wrong, is it? If I could find the velocity of everything and the mass of everything, I could know the kinetic + rest mass energy of everything in the universe.

You just remove the mc² part.

If I could know the velocity of all mass in the universe, and I knew the mass of everything in the universe, I could figure out how much kinetic + rest mass energy there is in the universe.

Is that wrong?

And how do they know you're not a crank if you don't provide any evidence to the contrary?

Ever heard of a reference frame?

This guy is a train wreck.

I read the whole post out of trying to figure the source or inspiration for the source.

There are no "real" observers, because from either frame of reference that is the truth. There is no way to say which one moved past which. They are both in motion, as the world is in motion, and it is just as perfectly valid to say the "stationary" train wreck moved past me in the car. Of course, from someone on the train, the car is moving past the train, which we would consider the real truth, because nothing else is moving past that poor train.

Old fashioned thinking: The velocity the car past the train is whatever the velocity of the train is + the velocity of the car. The train is at "rest" and the car in "motion" so, the car is moving at 10m/s and not accelerating.

If the train wasn't a wreck, and in motion, then its velocity past the car would be added to the velocity of the car to create the total relative velocity for either vehicle past each other. The train is moving at 10m/s and not accelerating, and the velocity of the car is the same as it was before. The velocity of one past the other is 20m/s.

This is all in comparison to the static reference frame, that's like a coordinate plane, which is the earth's surface.

A cool question: if you have something all by itself, can you measure it's velocity? No, because velocity is just a measure of change in relationship between two or more things.

How do you find K_e if you can't measure velocity?

I'm sorry about the train wreck guys, I hope I didn't waste any valuable time, although it was probably a lot of fun for you, because I'm so stupid and you're not.

"If I could find the velocity of everything and the mass of everything, I could know the kinetic + rest mass energy of everything in the universe."

Can you find the velocity of everything?

Pretty obvious right now, thanks for helping me out, instead of being a total jerk. So then, I guess I have to ask, can you find the mass to energy of everything?

What the hell good is the speed of light, if you've got nothing to compare the progress of light through space?

So you can't know the mass to energy, because if you can't have c, then you can't have e=mc²?

You can't figure out the energy of the universe, because the energy of universe is something that can't be found out? WTF?

You're collapsing the graph to a single thing, because the graph of the universe is just a relationship between two things in relativity, and you still wouldn't have more than one dimension of motion with two things moving past each other. It would be like a number line.

So for my formula:
e_t = e_Δ + e₀

Everything is zero for the entire universe. After all, what's the external frame of reference for everything? Nothing, so that makes everything nothing.

So if we can't know any of the energy in the universe, what the hell does that mean? So the answer to everything is zero, and not 42? :P

You're very helpful, instead of being a jerk, like some other people who shall go un-named around here. :P

But I think I've watched this guy giving a Christmas lecture about how rainbows work, it was on the research channel.

Thanks!

:bounce:

Think about it, it makes total sense.

The answer to everything in the universe is 0.

The universe is like a reverse atom. Instead of being the thing which cannot be divided any further, it is the thing which is not the product of division. It, in other words, is supposed to be everything.

If you take a graph, and you make the scale of each unit on the graph infinite, everything that may have been on the graph is stuck at (0,0).

y = x

Well, when you consider the universe as a whole, it makes quite a lot of sense that the universe should be 0, because there's nothing gained or lost.

Imagine now a number line. It has positive and negative numbers, and zero. You have two points on that number line, p1 and p2.

0 = p1 + p2

With that relationship, if you place p1 at 3 on the number line, you must place p2 at -3.

Energy is really just the product of relationships like that, which is what you were basically telling me. You cannot measure the energy of everything, because taken as a whole, there is no "distance" and there is nothing for light to travel relative to in a dimensionless universe, so there is no c in e=mc².

I'm guessing that for everything there is an equal and opposite thing because of this. I seem to remember Newton's third law saying something about an equal and opposite reaction for every action.

For every increase in the distance between p1 and 0 on the number line, there must be an equal and opposite decrease between p2 and 0.

It's like a sealed fish tank with a magnet inside. You pull the magnet along with another magnet on the outside, but because there is no loss or gain of any water, the water has to come behind the magnet to fill in its "displacement."

It's kind of like a submarine or something in a sealed tank (ignoring the idea of pressure...) For every displacement of something there must be an equal and opposite displacement.

It's perfectly logical.

So the answer to everything is 0 because everything MUST have an equal and an opposite that cancels it out its "displacement", since nothing leaves or comes into the universe. It must be that way for every dimension, not just one like a number line represents.

p1 = |p2|

The absolute value graph:


Everything must be symmetrical. Think of a wave. If you were to plot a sine wave on a graph, it would be going up and down in equal distance from x if you cut it in half with the x axis. If you cut it in half at the peak, than the distance peak to trough is the same, it's symmetrical that way too.



Could the shape of a wave be related to the fact that the universe probably is a 0 sum game? Looks pretty symmetrical to me.

:crazy: