Economics, Resources

Moderators: GSH, VSMIT, Commando

AcneVulgaris
Thunderbolt
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Interesting article thread

Post by AcneVulgaris »

Nielk1 wrote: I will look for the equation, fail to find it, and rewrite it based on all the things I noted in my post which you called apparently "not facts". Then I would post it and you would just give a one liner as to why it was irrelevant.
Most of what you had in your post was not facts but things that might come to pass at some point in the future, more commonly known as Science Fiction. We're talking about reality here, not Battlezone or Dragonball universes.

As for your "equation", if there ever was one, it was created by somebody who had so infirm a grasp of the mathematics used in it that he's already forgotten how to do the math he knew as a teenager when he made this brilliant, unsung discovery. You'll have to pardon me if I'm not immediately convinced of the mathematical certainty of your assertion when

1.) I'm pretty sure you lied about doing this math in the first place.
2.) If you did do the math, it was as someone brand new to calculus.
3.) The math was never seen or checked by anyone else, and cannot be found.
4.) The math was based on premises that are science fiction.
5.) By your admission, you don't understand the math.

Your pompous dismissal is a coward's retreat, tossing me an easy victory in order to maintain your delusion that you haven't just made a massive fool of yourself.

All you had to say is "what I said was dumb" and come at it from another angle, but you're so wrapped up in your perceived mental superiority and infallibility that to admit that you made a mistake would destroy your fragile self image.

You are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. You would do well to keep quiet in public, and hope you grow out of it.
User avatar
Zax
Attila
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:56 am

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Zax »

"1.) I'm pretty sure you lied about doing this math in the first place.
2.) If you did do the math, it was as someone brand new to calculus.
3.) The math was never seen or checked by anyone else, and cannot be found.
4.) The math was based on premises that are science fiction.
5.) By your admission, you don't understand the math."
User avatar
MrTwosheds
Recycler
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:37 am
Location: Outer Space
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by MrTwosheds »

Hmm, don't really see a problem with safe deep geological disposal myself.
Personally, I would look into placing reactors at the Earth's trailing Lagrangian point to fire a microwave beam to a satellite in orbit of our planet and then to others and finally to the surface. In case of an emergency the reactors could be shed from orbit before we made the orbit back around.
It would be far simpler, cheaper and safer to put large solar panel arrays up there and beam the energy back, but even then all you would gain would be some "greater efficiency" over ground based ones, given that the solar energy supply is as good as limitless, and it is really only a question of how many collectors we use and their production cost, I suspect the cost of placing them in space would not be efficient at all. A cheap citizen owned solar collector network could make centralised energy generation obsolete. (and seriously upset those with "interests" in it) So we would probably end up having to pay the government for the right to feed energy into the network. :D
User avatar
Red Devil
Recycler
Posts: 4398
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:10 pm
Location: High in the Rocky Mountains

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Red Devil »

when Tesla told George Westinghouse how he could energize the earth and provide power without wires to everyone by just the users pounding a metal rod into the ground, George said, "But where do i put the meter??" and that was that.
User avatar
Nielk1
Flying Mauler
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Nielk1 »

AcneVulgaris wrote:1.) I'm pretty sure you lied about doing this math in the first place.
Anyone here knows I am the type to try to solve things with math.
AcneVulgaris wrote:2.) If you did do the math, it was as someone brand new to calculus.
Everyone should know that the relation between a rate and acceleration is a matter of derivation or integration which is basic calculus.
AcneVulgaris wrote:3.) The math was never seen or checked by anyone else, and cannot be found.
I'm not going to bother looking for it or writing it again unless someone other than you wants it now, there is no point since you'll just say "it's fake" or "it's wrong" anyway. I have no reason to expend effort for no reward.
AcneVulgaris wrote:4.) The math was based on premises that are science fiction.
No, the math was based on the extrapolation of future acceleration and change based entirely on past change. What you call science fiction was simply possible example of what might solve the problem. Actually, you call it all science fiction when the only scifi part was my suggestion to launch the damn stuff into orbit. I got onto a roll later when I realized a theoretically feasible "constant meltdown state reactor" design, but that was supplemental and indeed WAS scifi (though truly feasible, such a micro-reactor on an ion-drive probe could probably power it till it reached the next solar system, granted ion drives are slow as hell).
AcneVulgaris wrote:5.) By your admission, you don't understand the math.
Troll logic. I can understand the math fine of course, I am just rusty as anyone would be after not touching integration and instead working exclusively in matricides for the 2 years after. That simply means that re-creating it would be hard, though I never expected to be using this math, it was an idle musing years ago. Acne, FYI, I aced Calc 3 in a compressed semester (and that is the n-dimensional calculus BTW). If you even know basic Calc you should know that it perfectly fits this application. Take a Malthusian doom equation that uses current "trends" expressed as standardized rates, then use basic Calculus to derive the rate at any given moment after finding the rate of change in this "trend" over the past few years and extrapolating that forward. The calculus allows you to place the most mathematically probable future "trend" into the equation rather than the current "trend".

----
MrTwosheds wrote:...
Even space born solar cells are still inefficient in comparison. However, solar-thermal might be worth a try.
AcneVulgaris
Thunderbolt
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by AcneVulgaris »

Nielk1 wrote:words

B.S.
User avatar
Nielk1
Flying Mauler
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Nielk1 »

AcneVulgaris wrote:
Nielk1 wrote:words
B.S.
I rest my case. He logged the final evidence himself on that one.
User avatar
Ded10c
Recycler
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:05 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Ded10c »

AcneVulgaris wrote:
Nielk1 wrote:words

B.S.
If that's all you have left to argue with, you lost long ago.
User avatar
MrTwosheds
Recycler
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:37 am
Location: Outer Space
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by MrTwosheds »

I stopped understanding what they were arguing about long ago. :D
AcneVulgaris
Thunderbolt
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by AcneVulgaris »

Nielk1 wrote:
AcneVulgaris wrote:
Nielk1 wrote:words
B.S.
I rest my case. He logged the final evidence himself on that one.

And you got out of providing that equation, which has been your intention since you said you had it.

Very clever indeed. I've been trying to goad you into providing it, because with it, I would build a device of such unimaginable power that I would free the world! But you... you hoard this power, living a life of poverty when the knowledge you hold could bring an age of plenty and prosperity for all. You hoard it for yourself, and it benefits no one!

Alas, I have been thwarted by your mighty walls of text, diversions into pseudo-intellectual tut tutting, stricken by your conceptual name dropping, awed by descriptions of your academic prowess, and battered into despondency by your stupendous lack of wit. Humanity will labor in this dark age forever, as I have failed pry loose the one equation that can save it. I have failed.
User avatar
Zax
Attila
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:56 am

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Zax »

The equation that can save it is in not Nielk's house but my own. Patent pending so I can't share details. Find the website.
User avatar
Nielk1
Flying Mauler
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Nielk1 »

AcneVulgaris wrote:...
Stawman, ad hominum, troll logic, and now sarcasm. Got any other talents?

I can't waste my time trying to re-create the equation, or dig through several terabytes of old data to find it when I know even if I do you will just insult me over it. The value of the end product is not enough for me to justify the energy expended in attempting to attain said goal.


If someone else wants to try to find the needed data, what is needed is the standard peak oil equations (basically the application of Malthusian economics to energy), the rate of improvement in fuel efficiency and the fraction of the oil that is used for this fuel, the amount of plastic that is recycled and the projected rate in the future (or the past and we can extrapolate), the rate of improvement in the fuel itself (mixing it with other additives like hydrogen gas), the adoption rate of supplemental energy sources and their approximate rate of depletion if any (such as coal), improvements in refinery technology (which is mostly devoted to rate of production since the government disallows any more refineries from being constructed) and anything else seeming relevant.

The currently known reserve information is pretty useless since its antiquated. Environmental regulation prevents us from even checking for unknown oil reserves, though people still find them, they aren't recorded simply because that would go against the peak oil claim. However, these low-balled reserve sizes can be used anyway as the point is to show with the Malthusian's own math that factors were ignored.

Equations are best, second to data from which a standard equation can be extrapolated.

Gather that and I will put a new equation together then I get a free moment outside of my Senior Design project and raw graphics assignments (yes, RAW, as in programming my own pipeline to the point of handling the rendering of each individual pixel).
AcneVulgaris
Thunderbolt
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by AcneVulgaris »

There. Is. No. Equation.

There never was. There are, however, endless excuses, punctuated by irrelevant bragging and "you're a meanie because you won't just believe me" bleating. You should go into politics.
User avatar
Zax
Attila
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:56 am

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Zax »

AcneVulgaris wrote:There. Is. No. Equation.

There never was. There are, however, endless excuses, punctuated by irrelevant bragging and "you're a meanie because you won't just believe me" bleating. You should go into politics.
Make more money than you and yo daddy if he did.
User avatar
Red Devil
Recycler
Posts: 4398
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:10 pm
Location: High in the Rocky Mountains

Re: Economics, Resources

Post by Red Devil »

if someone "wins" this debate, what will happen?
Post Reply