The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your stupid posts are basically gibberish. If you have a serious, valid objection, I will answer it.
ahh yes, yes.. more obvious diverting[which is hypocritical since you scream about others dodging questions as you praise yourself in the same moment] to questions that will 100% show, not only prove but show, what shiit your whole topic is, including the ridiculous line on the graph.

it's as simple as answer all those questions, since this model is massively accurate, your answers will prove us all wrong, correct?
is it not that simple?

~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
I said to exchemist:
The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised.

That you keep making this false claim...
You are lying. What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
exchemist said:
You've done well to find this! Inspired by it, I've just done some digging of my own and I find there are one or two academics who try to get entropy into economics. There is an essay on it - and its limitations - here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/prospect...ples/econophysics_entropy_and_its_discontents

I must say I am with Young (referred to in the paper) in finding the argument for entropy in economics highly unpersuasive. It seems to me that "entropy", in the context of this paper is really used only in a hand-waving and unphysical way, to describe the irreversibility of industrial processes. I should have thought that the irreversibility of those would have been obvious. At any rate, I am unaware that anything in economics might assume the contrary. Certainly, no theory of economics assumes that mineral extraction - or oil extraction in particular - is reversible. We all know they are finite and that each seam or well eventually gets exhausted, so you have to find new ones, of which there must, eventually, be a finite number. Dragging in the concept of entropy adds zero to our understanding of that already obvious fact, it seems to me. And I certainly see no attempt in this paper to relate entropy in its true sense, in physics, i.e. dS =dQ/T, or S = k lnW, to any of the somewhat indeterminate concepts being discussed (purely qualitatively) in it.

But economics is a funny discipline. The basics of supply and demand and price and so forth are well understood (as you and I know from our commercial careers), but so much macro-economic theory seems to be a total failure. These academics build castles in the air but cannot agree on how to forecast anything - just look at the current arguments about monetary and fiscal policy on both sides of the Atlantic. So now some of them are casting around for pseudo-physics, it seems, for the next castle. One of my brothers has a saying (pace Clausewitz) that, "Economics is merely the continuation of politics by other means". I think there may be something in that.

But maybe this "econophysics" is where this madman/charlatan Hills gets his ideas from: a sort of force-fitting exercise, to co-opt physics into supporting an essentially political position.

Well that is interesting. And completely irrelevant. The Etp model is not econophysics. It is just simple physics. You can't come up with a decent argument against the Etp model, so you argue against something else instead. You and Write4U have constructed a straw man. Nice try.

Exchemist, you are now arguing with a straw man but you have still not bothered to answer my direct defense against your argument. I have asked you this question many multiple times. You have repeatedly chosen not to answer, instead focusing on my graphic design sense. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer, but I will repeat my comment here with no giant bolds or color cues to get your attention. Please take some time to answer it. Thanks.

If you choose again to ignore my valid counter arguments, then you have clearly lost the debate.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

Boundary conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
I said to exchemist:
The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised.


You are lying. What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?



---Futilitist:cool:
ahh yes, yes.. more obvious diverting[which is hypocritical since you scream about others dodging questions as you praise yourself in the same moment] to questions that will 100% show, not only prove but show, what shiit your whole topic is, including the ridiculous line on the graph.

it's as simple as answer all those questions, since this model is massively accurate, your answers will prove us all wrong, correct?
is it not that simple?

where's the track record ????????????????
submit the actual data, not a line on the chart. it appears you're having problems comprehending what a track record is, is this why you're continuing to sidestep my important questions, that my questions pertain to the heart of your etp idea ?

~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
Well that is interesting. And completely irrelevant. The Etp model is not econophysics. It is just simple physics. You can't come up with a decent argument against the Etp model, so you argue against something else instead. You and Write4U have constructed a straw man. Nice try.

Exchemist, you are now arguing with a straw man but you have still not bothered to answer my direct defense against your argument. I have asked you this question many multiple times. You have repeatedly chosen not to answer, instead focusing on my graphic design sense. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer, but I will repeat my comment here with no giant bolds or color cues to get your attention. Please take some time to answer it. Thanks.

If you choose again to ignore my valid counter arguments, then you have clearly lost the debate.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

Boundary conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy (ETP E_{TP} ) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for ETP E_{TP} the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?



---Futilitist:cool:
why are you reiterating this irrelevant nonsense. go back and answer my questions that actually pertain to the heart of your etp idea.
~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
why are you reiterating this irrelevant nonsense. go back and answer my questions that actually pertain to the heart of your etp idea.
~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
Your posts are basically gibberish. You seem to think that the Etp model is some sort of Wall Street investment tool. You are mistaken. It is a physics model.

All you are doing is creating a forum slide to destroy the continuity and readability of the thread. This is a common deceptive tactic used by trolls. Go away, please. Thank you.
---------------

Hey exchemist, I just asked you a direct question. I realize that you are hoping that the readers will get distracted by the krash's transparent bullshit, but it really isn't working. I think the readers are smarter than that. You are just further embarrassing yourself and this fine fake forum.

Meanwhile, my question still stands. Tick tock.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Your posts are basically gibberish. You seem to think that the Etp model is some sort of Wall Street investment tool. You are mistaken. It is a physics model.

All you are doing is creating a forum slide to destroy the continuity and readability of the thread. This is a common deceptive tactic used by trolls. Go away, please. Thank you.
---------------

Hey exchemist, I just asked you a direct question. I realize that you are hoping that the readers will get distracted by the krash's transparent bullshit, but it really isn't working. I think the readers are smarter than that. You are just further embarrassing yourself.

Meanwhile, tick tock.



---Futilitist:cool:
ahh yes, yes.. more obvious diverting[which is hypocritical since you scream about others dodging questions as you praise yourself in the same moment] to questions that will 100% show, not only prove but show, what shiit your whole topic is, including the ridiculous line on the graph.

it's as simple as answer all those questions, since this model is massively accurate, your answers will prove us all wrong, correct?
is it not that simple?

where's the track record ????????????????
submit the actual data, not a line on the chart. it appears you're having problems comprehending what a track record is, is this why you're continuing to sidestep my important questions, that my questions pertain to the heart of your etp idea ?

~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
Your posts are basically gibberish. You seem to think that the Etp model is some sort of Wall Street investment tool. You are mistaken. It is a physics model.
except it has everything to do with wall street. you're uneducated and confused.
not only that, but nice attempt to skip the other questions like what does cross rates have to do with oil and all the other questions.
All you are doing is creating a forum slide to destroy the continuity and readability of the thread.
so asking for actual data that plots the line as the moment happens is a forum slide ?
i just want to see the actual input and output data, not a pretty picture with a graph or the so called formula.
i have been asking for answer that would give continuity and reliability. but since the answers pertain to the debunking of this etp, you will not answer them, then make an elementary remark as a response.
or is it only because you have no clue what i'm asking, which is odd since this etp is based on such thing.
odd.
my questions pertain to the heart of your etp idea
~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
Last edited:
except it has everything to do with wall street. you're uneducated and confused.
not only that, but nice attempt to skip the other questions like what does cross rates have to do with oil and all the other questions.
Cross rates are not relevant. You are a troll.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Once again, for clarity, here is my comment that exchemist keeps refusing to address.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

Boundary conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Cross rates are not relevant. You are a troll.



---Futilitist:cool:
hilarious.. they're massively important when it comes to such a topic.
i think it's clear that you have no clue about any of this.
i'm the troll ?
i'm just trying to get you to show evidence of how this etp is accurate. that graph with a line and the so called formula is meaningless, let alone being accurate. as i said before, it already has been debunked and shown to be incorrect by reality within the last few weeks. it has already deviated from the graph as you were writing this topic.
which is odd since this etp is based on such thing.
my questions pertain to the heart of your etp idea
~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid. [...] please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless.
because it doesn't take into account such things like delta in cross rates and other such elements that matter, that you and this hill guy are clueless of. energy is not the only element involved with such things. order and disorder are basically irrelevant. not only that this etp assume that there will be no other findings of wells. which is already wrong, there is a new discovered well. it will be announced shortly.

this etp just took a couple of statistics and made a line, nothing more.

i have actually experienced this issue, lost a lot of money. you think this hill guy was the first to come up with a scientific algorithm that supposedly works. at least the others had track records to show such things.
it's simply an lagging moving average indicator nothing more.
~~ THE KRASH661:cool:
 
Last edited:
No offense, but while that's a common laymans' view to get them a seat at the table, it is very, very wrong. Most people who use the term are laypeople who don't know where the box even is, much less what is inside it. Nor are they aware that odds are they've placed themselves in a different box. The reality is that there is no shortcut to innovation: the only way to properly "think outside the box" is to study the box and it's contents formally and in depth, for years. Only then is it possible to understand how the walls of the box work and what is required to penetrate them.

The proof is in the pudding: in modern times, laypeople have contributed essentially nothing to science and very little to science related disciplines beyond simple/minor inventions.
Your pompous, right wing, authoritarian position on the entire discipline of science is a joke! No real scientist thinks the way you do. You are such an unbelievably close minded, uncreative individual, that you would construct a box for science that is so much smaller than the actual one. The study of science requires a kind of open mindedness and creativity that you seem incapable of understanding or appreciating. And your whole critique of the Etp model really rests on your claim to revealed scientific authority. It would seem you have cooked your own goose in the pudding of proof!

Great Amateurs in Science
by John Malone

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/orchid/amateurs.html

amat_mendel.jpg
spacer.gif

Gregor Johann Mendel is regarded today as the father of genetics, but the importance of his work wasn't recognized until 15 years after his death and 35 years after he completed his revolutionary experiments with garden peas. Born to a farming family in 1822 in what was then Moravia (and is now part of the Czech Republic), Mendel became an Augustinian monk in order to further his education.

In part because of his tendency to freeze during exams, and in part because he debated his teachers, he failed to pass the tests necessary to teach high school students, although he did teach younger ones. As disappointing as that may have been to him at the time, it did leave him time to carry out his experiments on peas, aided by Abbot Cyril Napp of the monastery in what is now called Brno. Napp even saw to it that a special greenhouse was built for Mendel.

After nine years of crossing and recrossing pea plants in ways that no one had ever done before, Mendel delivered a two-part lecture on the results, demonstrating that seven traits of pea plants were either dominant or recessive. The lecture was published, and Mendel sent it to leading scientific figures across Europe, including Charles Darwin. The paper was almost entirely ignored; Darwin did not even cut the pages of his copy, although it would have answered questions that deeply troubled him.

Mendel was subsequently elected abbot of his monastery and lived out his days there. Three botanists rediscovered his paper in 1899-1900, and scholars ultimately credited the obscure monk with being the first to discover the laws that underlie modern genetics.

amat_leavitt.jpg
spacer.gif

Henrietta Swan Leavitt was one of several women hired at the end of the 19th century by Edward C. Pickering, director of the Harvard College Observatory, to assist him in sorting and classifying thousands of photographic plates of the stars. Nicknamed "the computers" for their ability but paid initially as little as 25 cents an hour, several of these women eventually made a considerable mark in the world of astronomy, none more so than Leavitt, whose work led to an entirely new concept of the universe.

Born in 1868, Leavitt suffered serious hearing loss from an illness in her early 20s, but that did not hold her back. Using a system she had devised for measuring the magnitude (brightness) of stars, she undertook a careful photographic study of variable stars, known as Cepheids, within the Magellanic Clouds. (These are the two galaxies nearest our own, though at the time they were thought to be part of the Milky Way.)

Leavitt discovered that Cepheids have a remarkable property. The cycles of each Cepheid—that is, the period of time that it goes from brightest to dimmest and back to brightest again—is related to its average brightness over that period (the longer the period, the brighter the star). If two Cepheids with the same cycle appear equally bright from Earth, the two stars must be the same distance away, she reasoned correctly; if one appears dimmer than the other, it must be farther away.

Leavitt's discovery made possible the calculations that ultimately led to the first measurements of how far specific stars are from Earth as well as to Edwin Hubble's 1929 proof that the universe consists of large numbers of "island universes" rather than just our own Milky Way galaxy. Leavitt, alas, died in 1921, never knowing that she had provided the key to a revolutionary new understanding of the size and complexity of the universe.

amat_levy.jpg
spacer.gif

David H. Levy has had the good fortune to become famous in his own lifetime. Born in Montreal, Canada, in 1948, at age 12 he began observing the night sky with a small telescope in his backyard. Despite his great interest in the stars and comets, Levy majored in English at Acadia University in Nova Scotia and never took a course in astronomy.

Moving to Tucson, Arizona, where the night sky was less obscured by lights, he discovered his first new comet on November 13, 1984. Over the next several years, his backyard observations led to sole or shared discovery of seven more comets.

In the early 1990's, Levy started working with the husband-and-wife team of Gene and Carolyn Shoemaker, who were technically also amateur astronomers, although Gene was a renowned expert on planetary geology and the craters formed by comets and asteroids. Carolyn, for her part, had a gift for analyzing astronomical photographs and by then was credited with the discovery of 27 comets and more than 300 asteroids.

Working at the Mount Palomar Observatory in California, the Shoemaker-Levy team proved extremely successful, but it was the discovery in 1993 of Shoemaker-Levy 9, in orbit around Jupiter, that caught the world's attention. It soon became apparent that the comet had broken into 21 pieces, which ultimately crashed into Jupiter. Those collisions, in July 1994, provided one of the most spectacular and carefully studied celestial events in history, and David Levy's name became known around the world.
 
Last edited:
amat_reber.jpg
spacer.gif

Grote Reber is far less well known than he deserves to be. Born in Chicago in 1911, Reber graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1932 and took an engineering job with a Chicago radio manufacturer. He became, among other accomplishments, an immensely proficient ham radio operator, succeeding in making contact with other hams in no fewer than 60 countries.

But his greatest achievement came in astronomy. Following up on an experiment conducted at Bell Labs in 1932, Reber built the world's first true radio telescope in his backyard in Wheaton, Illinois. Putting his knowledge of radio waves to work in constructing his telescope, he used a parabolic antenna—a "dish"—with a sheet-metal surface to reflect radio waves to a receiver located 20 feet above it. He designed the receiver so as to enhance the signals by a factor of several million, and he used an electronic stylus to record the radio waves on paper charts. His radio telescope became operational in 1937, and he published a number of papers in technical journals concerning his techniques and results.

Reber's telescope remained the only one of its kind until after World War II, when new technologies led to the building of much larger dish antennas. His pioneering work was a key to the development of vast modern radio telescopes such as those found in the Very Large Array in New Mexico (popularized in the movie Contact). Reber has received many awards, including the coveted Bruce Medal in 1962, and his original telescope is now on display at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia.

amat_clarke.jpg
spacer.gif

Arthur C. Clarke is one of the most celebrated science-fiction writers in the world. But he himself says that by far the most important piece he ever wrote was a short technical article published in an obscure journal in October 1945. Clarke was then serving as an officer in the British Royal Air Force radar division.

Born in 1917 and raised on a farm near Taunton in southwestern England, Clarke had gained only a high school diploma (he would attend college after the war), but in the RAF he had the opportunity to work with scientists who were doing cutting-edge work that ultimately would prove crucial to the Allied victory in World War II. Clarke had published some short science-fiction stories, but his article "Extra-Terrestrial Relays" was a different matter.

In the article he proposed that communications satellites orbiting the Earth would be the best way to transmit television around the world. Although television would not become a commercial success in the United States until the 1950s, the British Broadcasting Corporation had begun operations in 1936. The few scientists who read Clarke's article largely dismissed his idea as science fiction. But his technical discussions of how such satellites would work were solid, and he correctly calculated the orbit in which they should be placed to gain maximum coverage of the globe.

This geostationary orbit, lying directly above the equator, would come to be called a Clarke orbit in honor of the young visionary who first proposed it. And while Clarke has won numerous awards for his science-fiction novels and stories, his greatest honors—from a special Emmy award in 1981 to NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal in 1995—have paid tribute to the revolutionary idea he conceived in 1945.

amat_dherelle.jpg
spacer.gif

Felix d'Herelle was a self-taught French-Canadian bacteriologist who had difficulty working with establishment scientists. Yet he made one of the most significant breakthroughs in 20th-century biology, discovering and naming bacteriophages, the viruses that attack bacteria.
Testing diseased locusts on the Yucatan Peninsula in 1909 while in the employ of the Mexican government, d'Herelle noticed that cultures of the locust bacteria showed an anomaly that took the form of circular clear spots. In 1916, while he was working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris trying to find ways to control the dysentery that was then felling soldiers on the front, the anomalous clear spots turned up again. This time he conducted further research, leading to the discovery of bacteriophages (literally "eaters of bacteria").

D'Herelle published his first paper on the subject in 1917. An English biochemist named Frederick Twort had made the same discovery, and the two men are given dual credit, but d'Herelle described them in greater depth and named them. He believed that phages, as they came to be generally called, could be used to eradicate some of the most ancient of human diseases, and he spent the rest of his life working toward that end. (Today, as bacteria are becoming increasingly immune to antibiotics, modern scientists have begun undertaking new research of this kind.)

Phages proved to have ideal properties for genetic research, leading directly to the unraveling of the mysteries of DNA. D'Herelle died in 1949, four years before James Watson and Francis Crick worked out the structure of DNA, but he knew that was coming and that his own discovery of phages had made it possible.

amat_hendrickson.jpg
spacer.gif

Susan Hendrickson is a self-taught expert in a number of fields who has the unusual distinction of having a fossil dinosaur named after her—in fact, the largest and most complete fossil skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex ever found.

Hendrickson has often been compared to Indiana Jones, the fictional hero of the Spielberg movies. She was indeed born and raised in Indiana and has had fascinating adventures all over the world. She was the kind of kid who was reading Dostoyevsky at age 11 yet dropped out of high school. She didn't need diplomas—many people later in her life have simply assumed she has a Ph.D.

An accomplished scuba diver, Hendrickson early on supplied aquariums with rare marine specimens, some of which had never been described. She always knew when she had found something unusual, because she had taught herself well. Later she dealt in amber insect fossils. The good ones she sold to collectors for as much as she could get; the great ones she sold to museums at cost, earning a reputation as someone who cared more about knowledge than money or fame.

But fame came her way. Working with Peter Larson, founder of an organization of private fossil-hunters known as the Black Hills Institute, she set off on her own on August 12, 1990, to investigate a cliff that had been "beckoning" to her for two weeks in the rocky terrain of north-central South Dakota. As was her wont, she had learned the new discipline of dinosaur hunting with great thoroughness, and that training paid off.

Today, the enormous skeleton of "Tyrannosaurus Sue" that she discovered is the principal attraction at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. And Sue Hendrickson, who never went to college, finds herself collecting honorary degrees from major universities.

-----------------

Like I said Russ, your science box is too tight and constraining. I don't see how you can even breathe in there. If everyone had your stuffy, boring, uptight, authoritarian, right wing perspective, science would cease to make any new discoveries. Robbed of it's creative vitality, it would only exist as a perverse propaganda tool, like it is used on this forum.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Posted by Futilitist,
Well that is interesting. And completely irrelevant. The Etp model is not econophysics. It is just simple physics. You can't come up with a decent argument against the Etp model, so you argue against something else instead. You and Write4U have constructed a straw man. Nice try.
Was it not YOU who introduced "predictable economics" (price of oil) in relation to you proposition?
And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense? ---Futilitist:cool:
Your term of "corretly forecasting the yearly oil price" remains confusing to me. Was there ever a forecast or are you proposing to use this model starting today to predict the price of oil in the near future?

If the model is that accurate, can you with any certainty predict the price of oil, say 2 years from now? From your figures can an equation be fashioned which can be used to arrive at such a prediction?

p.s. Fra Luca Pacioli, a monk, formalized (invented) the "double entry" system of accounting.
Because Pacioli was a Franciscan monk, he might be referred to simply as Brother Luca. While Brother Luca is often called the "Father of Accounting," he did not invent the system. Instead, he simply described a method used by merchants in Venice during the Italian Renaissance period. His system included most of the accounting cycle as we know it today. For example, he described the use journals and ledgers, and he warned that a person should not go to sleep at night until the debits equalled the credits! His ledger included assets (including receivables and inventories), liabilities, capital, income, and expense accounts. He demonstrated year-end closing entries and proposed that a trial balance be used to prove a balanced ledger. Also, his treatise alludes to a wide range of topics from accounting ethics to cost accounting.
http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/subraman/EMBA-FTW2009/Articles/Luca Pacioli The Father of Accounting.htm
 
Last edited:
Your term of "corretly forecasting the yearly oil price" remains confusing to me. Was there ever a forecast or are you proposing to use this model starting today to predict the price of oil in the near future?

If the model is that accurate, can you with any certainty predict the price of oil, say 2 years from now? From your figures can an equation be fashioned which can be used to arrive at such a prediction?
not only that, but then there's a claim of " empirical data " , which implies history results, strange right?
 
What a stupid comment. There is no support for anything you just said! You can't possibly really believe anything this bizarre. :leaf: :confused: Saying you do is disingenuous. :mad: What a joke! ---Futilitist:cool:

This seems to confirm my "stupid comment". Of course it may sound bizarre to you, because you cannot fit it into your model of thermodynamics. If you could, that would be remarkable. Give it a try.
Economy | Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:10pm EDT
rs/Donna W. Carson
U.S. surprises oil market with sale from strategic reserve
WASHINGTON The United States will hold the first test sale of crude from its emergency oil stockpile since 1990, offering a modest 5 million barrels in what some observers saw as a subtle message to Russia from the Obama administration.

The Energy Department said the test sale had been planned for months, timed to meet demand from refiners coming out of annual maintenance cycles. But oil traders noted that Russia's effort to take over the Crimea region from Ukraine has prompted calls for use of booming U.S. energy resources to relieve dependence on Russian natural gas by Europe and Ukraine.

Oil prices dipped to their lowest levels in a month after news of the test sale, which closes in two days
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-usa-energy-reserves-idUSBREA2B12V20140312

 
Last edited:
Was it not YOU who introduced "predictable economics" (price of oil) in relation to you proposition?

Your term of "corretly forecasting the yearly oil price" remains confusing to me. Was there ever a forecast or are you proposing to use this model starting today to predict the price of oil in the near future?

If the model is that accurate, can you with any certainty predict the price of oil, say 2 years from now? From your figures can an equation be fashioned which can be used to arrive at such a prediction?
He thinks assertions emanating from his mind are scientific prediction. It's a common assertion made by scientifically illitrate cranks. He doesn't realize that the theory he's touting is derived from postulates that have no correlation to reality. They're certainly not self evident. The doomsday stuff is the signature of a crank. He's been asked to provide a prediction using the theory which he confirms he can't do. He should anti up or fold. He claimed he has confirmed the model yet he doesn't even know how it works.
 
Last edited:
I said to exchemist:
The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised....

What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?
No. You've had it explained to you a bunch of times and one more is not going to do anything but waste my time. However, you can at any point go back and respond to one of the many posts you have ignored/glossed over in this thread or others where it was explained what the issues are. But be aware also that I am no longer accepting copy-pasted responses. You claim proficiency in the workings of the ETP Model, so you should be explaining everything in your own words. I'll not be humoring your laziness anymore either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top