Money Explained

[D H]

Well, energy and mass are interchangeable...so a 'thing' as you call it, requires lots of energy.

 

They are not interchangeable. Two examples:

• Photons are massless but have energy proportional to their wavelength.
  
• You can catch a baseball thrown by 6 year old barehanded. Try doing that with the same ball thrown by an ace pitcher.
  

[Farsight]

Snail:

 

energy is a property of a thing not a thing. As regards colour, take a look at the TIME EXPLAINED essay and show the "colour perception experiment" to somebody who is not colourblind.

 

Note that the as-yet-unseen ENERGY EXPLAINED essay goes on to say that the property we call "red" is not a true property of the subatomic world, because colour is our perception of the underlying true property, which is wavelength.

[ecoli]

Aw, here we go. Either thread. LOL. There is only one thread.

oops. YOu mentioned that you had a separate essay called 'Energy explained,' that's what I meant by two threads. You're right though, it's only one thread. For some strange reason, I remembered your posts related to energy as being in another thread, even though they weren't. Weird.

 

And lookie here, ad-hominem attacks like I'm not sure if you have the capacity to explain either Energy and Money to anyone.

Well, considering how much time and effort you have obviously put into these posts, and judging by the fact that I still don't see what your point is, I must conclude that you aren't doing a good job explaining energy or money.

Therefore, I question your credentials... which you still haven't revealed yet.

 

If you've never studied economics, then why should anybody care that you think money is analogous to Energy?

 

OK ecoli. Let's talk about hypocrisy, dishonesty, and intellectual arrogance. Yours.

How am I being dihonest or arrogant? I'm not trying to make any claims here. I'm only questioning the effectiveness of your analogy. If you think that anybody who questions your ideas is arrogant than I forsee some problems in your future.

 

I'm not trying to discredit the idea altogether, because if it works, I think that that would be great. However, you have yet to provide a good argument for your analogy.

 

I appreciate the fact that you are defending your idea, but defending a poor idea just because it's your idea is intellectually dishonest.

 

The reason we have these debates is that so, if you speculate an idea, and people see flaws with it, you try and revise and perfect it. You are supposed to shape ideas, not break yourself around them.

[ecoli]

Note that the as-yet-unseen ENERGY EXPLAINED essay goes on to say that the property we call "red" is not a true property of the subatomic world, because colour is our perception of the underlying true property, which is wavelength.

 

Subatomic particles indirectly cause us to see different colored light. But how is this related to money?

[Royston]

They are not interchangeable. Two examples:

• Photons are massless but have energy proportional to their wavelength.
  
• You can catch a baseball thrown by 6 year old barehanded. Try doing that with the same ball thrown by an ace pitcher.
  

 

Right, I was thinking of a certain epoch of the early universe, but it's speculative...so my bad.

 

And yes [math]\frac{hc}{\lambda} = E_p[/math]. Where [math]\lambda[/math] and [math]E_p[/math] are directly proportional. I know that wasn't necessary, I just really need to start using Latex.

[insane_alien]

snail: indirectly proportional i think you'll find.

 

farsight: ecoli has not ad hom'd you he asked a valid question.

 

You see a paper about how quantum mecanics is an illusion and it can all be explained by newtonian mechanics, you also notice that it is written by a marine biologist(no other degrees/doctorates). Are you going to trust the paper?

 

D_H: matter/antimatter annihilations? the photons have the same relativistic mass as the previous particle/anti-particle 's rest mass and relativistic mass. because of the energy equivalence.

 

Mass and energy are the same thing.

[Royston]

snail: indirectly proportional i think you'll find.

 

D_H: matter/antimatter annihilations? the photons have the same relativistic mass as the previous particle/anti-particle 's rest mass and relativistic mass. because of the energy equivalence.

 

Mass and energy are the same thing.

 

Well, this is what I thought...D_H threw me a little, and I can't see how his examples have anything to do with energy and mass being interchangeable, or the 'same thing' as you put it. Like you said, they're indirectly proportional, that's a very basic rule, I just thought I'd missed something.

[D H]

D_H: matter/antimatter annihilations? the photons have the same relativistic mass as the previous particle/anti-particle 's rest mass and relativistic mass. because of the energy equivalence.

 

Mass and energy are the same thing.

 

Mass and energy are conserved. Mass can be converted to energy, and vice versa. That does not mean they are the same thing. They are different things that can be converted to the other. If they are one and the same thing, then aren't the electron, positron, and the photons they create upon collision also one and the same thing?

[insane_alien]

different form. its still all energy.

[Farsight]

farsight: ecoli has not ad hom'd you he asked a valid question. You see a paper about how quantum mechanics is an illusion and it can all be explained by newtonian mechanics, you also notice that it is written by a marine biologist(no other degrees/doctorates). Are you going to trust the paper?

 

I wouldn't trust it anyhow. You get people who totally lose themselves in their subject and can no longer see the wood for the trees. I'd read the essay and point out errors or talk about the subject, not chuck in sly little digs without even having read it. For you: my credentials are that I'm a millionaire, a company secretary, and have 15 years Banking and Finance experience. My only "qualification" is an Accounting subsidiary course at university, and that doesn't count. I'm an IT Manager by trade, and have spent a lot of time doing "systems analysis and development" where the task is to translate muddled English into precise computer language. But like I said, my credentials don't count, I don't count, what counts is the essay and whether it's right and/or interesting. That's science, and why we're all here. Aren't we?