NortonH

Senior Members
  • Content count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-34

About NortonH

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Warragamba
  • Interests
    Using the Scientific Method mercilessly and like Kryptonite.
    Using it like garlic against vampires, the crucifix against other vampires and like facts against cultists.
  • College Major/Degree
    Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Mathematics
  • Biography
    One of the pitifully few Africans in science.
  • Occupation
    Climastrologer
  1. The spending of money

    Yes. And you end up with inflation for precisely that reason. If you create more money without creating anything else then you find that the amount of energy you can buy per unit monetary unit decreases. eg the price of petrol goes up. What you will find though, is that the cost of all products using, say, a liter of petrol as the numeraire remains pretty much unchanged. In short - You are confusing money with cash. Of course, if I am wrong, and my claims are 'outlandish' then someone should be able to give some examples of commodities in which the price on the free market is unrelated to the amount of energy that has gone into the fabrication of such commodities. The reason all this is relevant is because quite often we hear of someone trying to decide whether to spend $20,000 on a solar panel system which will somehow save CO2 by reducing consumption of coal powered electricity. Nowhere do they take into account what the $20,000 was actually spent on. Well now we have an answer - it was spent on energy, most of it fossil fuelled.
  2. Thanks Sensei. Amazing how many people should know this but do not seem to.
  3. The spending of money

    Sorry studiot, I am not playing these games. If you have anything substantive to say then just get on with it. The point of this thread is to discuss the 'outlandish' claim that the real value of money is determined by the energy it can buy you. It covers also the concept that the cost of stuff is determined by the energy expended in the creation of that same stuff. If you want to troll away in the hope of getting the thread closed then you will most likely be successful. If I keep responding to your increasingly irrelevant posts I will be banned for "trolling/counter-trolling" and if I do not respond I will be banned for "refusing to answer relevant questions". So, one last time, please tell us where money is measured in camels and has no relation to energy.
  4. The spending of money

    Well this looks to me like a claim that money is being measured in camels somewhere. Outlandish? Is that an opinion or a fact? Are you here to debate or moderate? Anyone one who thinks that my claim is 'outlandish' is welcome to explain why. So far that does not seem to be happening.
  5. The spending of money

    I did read your post. You mentioned countries where money is measured in camels. You said that in such countries the link between money and energy is very weak. I would like to know which country you are talking about but now you admit that you know of no such country. So I repeat my original statement. The value of money is directly related to the energy it can get you. If you think I am wrong then please give an example we can discuss.
  6. Why does it need them and what is the money going to be spent on? Can someone explain how this works? Do the watts add up over the week?
  7. The spending of money

    Can you give an example of a country where 'money is measured in camels'? I know of no such place. The value of a currency is determined by how much energy it can get you. Here we are trying to discuss science, not idiom.
  8. The spending of money

    Pavel Cherepan, if indeed that really is your name, you seem to have made exactly the same mistake as John Cuthber. That is sad because I have already explained once where John went wrong. If you order a dozen bottles of Perrier Water and try to burn them like gas you will get ZERO energy. Are you saying that that means that there was NO ENERGY consumed in the process of making the bottles, filling them with purified aerated water and delivering them to your doorstep? For the second time on this thread I point out that the cost of the product is related to the energy that went into producing the product not what you can later extract from it. If you are providing a service and someone wants that service provided then they have to pay. What they pay you ends up being consumed as energy. Eventually even strippers and psychologists need to eat. Good psychs can earn top dollars and buy expensive cars etc. ALL the goods consumed represent energy consumed. Of course if i am wrong then surely someone can show me how it is possible to produce things without consuming energy. Your best bet might be to try and point to the vast sums paid for a couple of brush strokes by Picasso but that is as close as you can get to refuting what I write and even that is not immediately clear. Energy is a conserved quantity, that is all that matters.
  9. The spending of money

    Gas and electricity are different products and so I contend that the cost of each of them is a good measure of the energy that has gone into getting them to you house. Not sure why you think you have refuted that.
  10. Somalia and Aid?

    Well I say it developed. Doing OK was understating it. You say that wealth was extracted from colonies. It was also PRODUCED there and plenty of it stayed behind. Have you noticed how much infrastructure was created in that time? It was designed to benefit anyone who invested, time, money or effort. The economies were no less 'sustainable' than any other economies. If what the colonists did was so wrong (ie developing the countries) then why are we now encouraging those same countries to do exactly the same thing? ie build roads, factories, commercial farms? etc What is 'Euro-centric' about development in Africa and what is wrong with it? If you lived in Africa what would you want? Would you want the same standard of living as you currently enjoy or would you feel that that was 'Eurocentric' and opt for something more closely resembling pre-colonial Africa?
  11. Sustainable?

    http://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2015/150218a.htm If it has to have $100Bn poured in then it is really sustainable? It is a bit like filling the car with a full tank of petrol and then claiming it is running without fuel...until the fuel runs out. That $100Bn represents energy being added to the 'sustainable' system. Energy produced by fossil fuels. If the system is running by itself after 10 years AND is able to produce a big enough surplus to provide for its replacement AND pay back the capital it absorbed then it counts as sustainable. Otherwise I cannot see how it qualifies.
  12. all time snow record

    Relevance? I was told to produce evidence for my claim that Dr Viner had declared the GW would mean the end of snow. I did so. The fact that we have had loads of snow since 2001 is why we now have all the rewriting of history. Now, suddenly, global warming theory has been adapted to include as features most of the events which only a decade earlier were understood to be falsifying events. So tell us, BeeCee, what would falsify the theory now?
  13. The spending of money

    If you don't even understand what my point is but still argue then that demonstrates clearly that your ONLY purpose on this thread is to bicker and squabble and contribute nothing. No problem. I can use the guff you spout to illustrate my points. If you have a lot of money around and little in the way of goods for it to buy then you get inflation simply because the exchange of one for the other results in a price measure. All the money exchanges maps to all the goods exchanged.
  14. The spending of money

    And what might be the cause of that? Would it be to do with the fact that increasing amounts of increasingly worthless money is needed to buy a fixed amount of energy?
  15. all time snow record

    This is the article in the independent http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries … Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community … According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said Of course the Independent might have just fabricated the claims by Dr Viner. You are the mod so it is not worth me arguing...