Only_Humean wrote:James S Saint wrote:Only_Humean wrote:Nature has no laws to aggregate matter more due to derivatives of matter, for example, no government bond particles, no energy generation in the firm expectation of future energetic transfer, and no consideration of minimal requirements that a society certainly has.
That is your theory is it? Human affairs are totally independent of nature and the result of only free-will? Is that a theory that you have put a great deal of thought into or is it more like, "
Of course no one can sail around the world. They would fall off!"
If you have physical evidence of energy being created in response to confidence in future energy,
Well, I actually can do that, but you have never been very good at analogies, I suspect you're not bright enough to follow along. Prove me wrong about that.
It is a proven fact that ultra-minuscule EMR pulses veer into a higher density of ultra-minuscule EMR pulses. That is
energy accumulating due to the detection of higher potential of energy. Energy, whether inanimate or social, is always merely freeing from one place or type and propagating toward another. It is never actually "created" in either case.
Of course you might want to argue that the original pulses were not conscious and thus did not have emotional "confidence" in the same sense as human behavior, but then we are talking about an analogy of the same
outward behavior, not the exact same mechanism for that behavior. Laws and principles are about the behavior, not the reasons for the behavior.
Now, did you follow that? Was it too complicated? Are you "disabused"?
Only_Humean wrote: or of matter accumulating at hyper-gravitational rates due to additional force generated by the existence of gravity and not mass
I'd give you an analogy for that too if I knew what the hell you meant by it. Although I suspect that you have no idea that "gravity" is merely a gradient of an ultra low-density mass field. Mass particles are made of "gravity-field" and vsvrsa. Mass particles are merely extremely dense wheras the ambient "gravity field" is much, much lower density (precisely following that first graph). And interestingly all due to the prior explanation of ultra-minuscule EMR ("Affectance") veering into a traffic jam of the same, forming a "mass particle", cluster.
The "hyper-gravitational rates" would be due to the fact that the affectance propagates at the speed of light (it IS "light"). Particles migrate toward each other ("gravitate") at a much, much slower speed than the affectance (the ultra-minuscule EMR) that veers into mass particles.
Economically, the analogy is that a mass particle is analogous to a bank with money flowing in and out tof the ambient population. The bank accumulates to a maximum set by the region in which the bank does business, the "ambient field". Subatomic mass particles do that exact same thing with "energy" or "ultra-minuscule EMR pulses" or "affectance".
As far as "gravity without mass", the thing they now call "dark matter" is exactly that, a higher density mass field than normal, but not close to that of actual mass particles. And when approaching a higher density field, such as stated prior, random EMR veers into the higher density at literally "light speeds", not gravitational speeds.
I don't know how much that really fit what you were trying to say, but it seems to cover the bases.
Only_Humean wrote: My theory doesn't rely on free will at all, though, just relations and processes - which are different in financial markets and economies to gas laws or physical relations.
How different they are is merely a matter of one being able to see the analogous patterns. As I said, that isn't something you have shown to be very good at doing. One can't prove to a dog that the Internet is real.
Only_Humean wrote:Power laws are used to approximate wealth distributions: I'm not denying that.
Well, you DID deny that, but okay .. moving on...
Only_Humean wrote: Depending on the society, a power law could be almost uniformly egalitarian or profoundly tyrannical - that's why you have measures like the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient, which basically assume a Pareto power distribution. Neither of which depend on pure free market capitalism or any other political philosophy.
Well, you were doing good until that last statement. You began by saying "depending on the society" but then ended with "independent of political philosophy". How can you have both?
The social construct and/or political structure determine how free the monetary flow actually is. It isn't merely about being capitalist or not. How secure people feel has a great deal to do with it, thus even their religious beliefs and physical comforts get into the game. My statement was that when the monetary flow is free of obstructions, regardless of whatever causes, banks and banking will cause an accumulation (a "mass particle") that will reach a saturation level for the region that the banks encompass. Those who own the banks, accumulate the wealth (because it is a usury con game).
That is exactly what has taken place over the last 100 years as all economies gradually got absorbed into the global economy. And that is exactly why you now have that first graph with only 1-3% of the population with a fantastic wealth and only 1-3% of those with ultra-extreme wealth.
That is just the money part. I was actually referring more to the complete power package, not merely monetary gains. Money is a crude and not always accurate measure of social power, which is formed of directed social energy or effort (the very source of money's value).