Scientific article "Wave Theory and Gender: Why Sex?"

[harrytrader]

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g2.htm

“Organic formations” are capable of storing energetic matter and this grants them independence within their surrounding area. This is especially pronounced in highly energetic liquids. These bonds subsequently formed links that resulted in more sophisticated formations. As aforementioned, <B><font color=GREEN>every stable wave consists of both a magnetic and an electronic loop</font></B>, but in highly energetic formations these loops can be positioned at a greater distance from each other. <B><font color=GREEN>This quality facilitates the exchange of loops between waves</font></B>."

"Men and women are essentially types of magnetic and electric loops, and the human reproductive process is essentially the completion of a finite wave formation. This corroboration is a typical display of nature’s laws according to which the most coordinated formations have the best chance for survival. The fact that the loops can exist at both a close proximity and at a distance is what enables life to exist. <B><font color=GREEN>Consequently, the two-loop formation is the fundamental and most vital relationship in our universe</FONT></B>."

Since my model has two kind of waves my questions will be to know which one is male and which is female : is it the blue baseline or the more exhuberant magenta line

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=326146>

 

[nononsense]

Quote from harrytrader:

...
every stable wave consists of both a magnetic and an electronic loop
...

This is a typical example of "scientism". Terms like waves, electric magnetic, energy abound in all kind of pseudo scientific publications to amuse or fool the credoulous and scientifically untrained. Throwing in some sex makes it even more convincing.

Coming back to the above quote, open any decent textbook on electromagnetic theory to see the utter silliness and/or sloppiness of this quote.

nononsense

 

[harrytrader]

Of course this is evident I have repeated so numerous time to be careful about abusive generalisation of analogy that I didn't think I would need to repeat again and again : analogy must stay analogy not more. I already said that about abuse of science used as pretext to justify socio-economic theories like the Elliottist Robert Prechter who uses Mandelbrott's fractal as justification whereas Mandelbrott justifies nothing about the existence of fractals in stock market he gives a useful mathematical descriptive tool because it can generate waves IF they really exist: it is not because you have created a ruler to mesure an object that it proves the existence of the object. I recently said to take thing as metaphore and not to generalise - see the thread about "Is Trading a war" - and that nevertheless metaphores are useful to express what words can difficultly say. So fractal theory is just also analogies of form I don't understand that people take fractals as proof of existence of wave in markets. The proof can only lie in an economic model not only on pure fractal analogy - for example my model has not used fractal or golden ratio as premisces, it is at the end (once the model was finished and also touching nothing even parameters values after it was finished) by observing reality confronted to the model forecast that I discovered that market has really a fractal nature. The same for the two kind of "waves" existence: I didn't postulate the existence of these two kind of waves they burst into the model by themselves : at the beginning for example I didn't even care about the blue line it was in fact only a mathematical artefact. One day I realised many months after that it had a physical correspondance in reality ! I didn't realise also at the beginning that they could be viewed like pseudo eliott waves since elliott waves was at one hundred kilometers from my mind - I even considered Elliottists as mystics before I had the proof that they were not completely dreaming hee hee ! So like Mandelbrott fractals the article above can't be used alone to justify why there are two kind of waves in the market like they appear in my model: the justification can only come from my own causal model. But like fractals it is useful to perceive that there are many analogies of form in many phenomenas.

I would add that the very reason I am for using metaphores - if one is conscious that it is only metaphores - is because it is in this form - analogy - that brain best memorises information again read Nobel Prize Elderman's book - I have mentionned in another thread : "How matter becomes imagination". Since today any student knows about waves in physics whereas he knows nearly nothing about waves in market this is a good way I find to explain such a weird model. That a deterministic stock market model could even exist should already astonish people and all the more so that it exhibit such strange components and strange behaviors like duality, Feynman-like effect - again another analogy to explain a strange phenomena of apparant omniscience of market knowing the future (no you are not reading science fiction and I am not completely mad at least about that ) or travel in past time in counterclock wise - here one can use the spin analogy.

Quote from nononsense:



This is a typical example of "scientism". Terms like waves, electric magnetic, energy abound in all kind of pseudo scientific publications to amuse or fool the credoulous and scientifically untrained. Throwing in some sex makes it even more convincing.

Coming back to the above quote, open any decent textbook on electromagnetic theory to see the utter silliness and/or sloppiness of this quote.

nononsense

 

[nononsense]

HarryTrader,

OK. I am not against discussing this kind of topic. I simply wanted to make sure that we were NOT talking about electromagnetic theory in its scientific context.

Be good,

nononsense

 

[harrytrader]

You' have reason to make the remark and it gives me the opportunity to explain more by answering you - In fact I would profit from the answer I made above to write an article on my site to explain to other people .

Quote from nononsense:

HarryTrader,

OK. I am not against discussing this kind of topic. I simply wanted to make sure that we were NOT talking about electromagnetic theory in its scientific context.

Be good,

nononsense