zerohedge | A year ago we wrote about
how electricity consumption could provide clues to the performance of
the US economy, which generated a lot of interest and comments.
A relationship between the two variables makes sense, but needs to be
framed in the proper context. Genuine economic (and population) growth
should translate into more electricity consumption, as we have more
activity and transactions taking place throughout the economy.
However, factors such as energy efficiency and the weather can muddle this relationship:
- An increase in efficiency means that the same output can be obtained with less inputs. Therefore, a small-ish reduction in electricity consumption versus a prior period may not necessarily be indicative of a sluggish economy over that time. And we know that this efficiency has been on the rise in recent years (just look at the power rating of your new appliances).
- Likewise, a warmer winter versus the prior year may also cause a drop in electricity consumption, simply due to home heaters not being used as hard, not necessarily because the economy is doing badly.
So can we adjust electricity consumption to take these factors into
consideration and get a better measure of its relationship with economic
growth?
We developed an indicator to do just that together with DegreeDays.net,
an energy systems data company. We provide a brief technical
explanation of our proposed methodology below (for a much better
overview please visit this supporting article). Bear with us, the analysis is quite interesting!
17 comments:
It's not possible to achieve scientific resource integrity and efficiency in a context of conspicuous consumption, cheating, and competition by any means necessary for maximum power and status. The status seeking of the peacock/peahen spectacle and the challenge given Tawûsê Melek will be your species undoing. http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=peacock
I remember reading some website that projects thousands of years into the future. It said we start collectively questioning the growth theory around 2100. I don't believe we have that long. Now would be a good time to start. People on the ground will have to smarten up and start thinking a little bit beyond their own lives.
According to Frankfurter, evil does not exist as an entity beyond the realm of human understanding, but instead manifests as an unsettling public discourse created by folklore, cultural ideas, literature, and oral traditions. ---sure... right.
"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/
All we have to wonder now is maybe there is another mind beyond our that is the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Perhaps we were made in His likeness?
https://vimeo.com/4359545
Hard to believe a person can take texts like this and make it say something totally different. I have to believe the audience for him is individuals who have never actually read any of these text in context.
The audience for Frankfurter or for the Donmeh?
Donmeh.
Why would you fix your mouth to say such a thing given you'd never heard of Sabbatai Zevi or the Donmeh until you encountered it on this thread?
I read your link, and if you want I could go point by point with the out of context Biblical text he cited, but it wouldn't make much difference to you. I didn't say anything bad about it, I just said it was geared for people who are not familiar with the context of what he is quoting.
The only thing I might say that might be on the negative, is if I had a concern for properly transferring the truth I wouldn't even let one writing go out like this that is so completely wrong in the scriptures used to persuade us. This perspective from this one link you provided and my minor investigating otherwise has me see no reason to dig further. If you wish me to show the fallacy of the text he chooses and how far of he is on his out of context interpretations I'll do it. But I'm not going into another 4th way investigation with this one, it truly isn't worth it.
lol, there's no profit for either you or I in an ego-instigated ad hoc investigation. I've been well-acquainted with the donmeh for over a decade and I sincerely doubt there's anything you can add to what I already know. My only point in introducing this historical heresy was to introduce you to an alternative manner of conceiving of God. You should be exposed to as many of these as possible, this being, after-all, school for you...., speaking of these chosen people, we should probably pause to acknowledge their primary sacrament qoph nun he' - bet shim mem
pssst..., don't even pretend you've managed to make your way from cover to cover in a single one of the Gurdjieff or Ouspensky texts. That hasn't happened yet, nor will ever happen.
https://youtu.be/w0bH6Z_OSp8
Psst I didn't pretend to, I just told you I am not about to spend as much time reading this person's made up stuff that does have any reinforcement from the texts he claims to be using as I did reading 4th way philosophy...I was almost going to say theology, but corrected myself.
I am still waiting for one of the religions you expose me to, to actually grapple with the beginning of matter. So far all the religions you expose around here seem to have matter first, then after the development to more complicated matter and the mind, then finally we have the beginning and evolution of god. So far the science theories and the self god or "we are god" religions you post here haven't touched on the beginning of matter.
I thought I might have opened the door to the discussion of beginnings.."The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." But its not a good place for the "we are gods religions or scientist, apparently.
I am not about to spend as much time reading this person's made up stuff
lol "cause I've got a headful of my own made up stuff I'm struggling with"
I am still waiting for one of the religions you expose me to, to actually grapple with the beginning of matter.
I know, I know, you want magic, what child doesn't? But I haven't exposed you to any "new religions" just unusually well-informed exponents of the religion(s) in which you're already embedded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi
I thought I might have opened the door to the discussion of beginnings
rotflmbao..., gnaw....,
https://youtu.be/AEIn3T6nDAo
I know, I know, you want magic, what child doesn't?
Cute, except of course matter does have a beginning. I guess to be fair not much of what we see naturally around us can be explained from its beginning with any concrete confidence. Maybe it is just all magical. But with certainty, we know there is no God of course, that much we know.
Cute, except of course matter does have a beginning
and you know this because......? and it matters because......?
In Search of the Miraculous Chapter 15 http://www.gurdjieff.am/in-search/index.pdf
But with certainty, we know there is no God of course, that much we know. Your endlessly amusing exercises to the contrary notwithstanding http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-god-falsifiable.html
Better to actually try and do the work of ascertaining truth http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html than playing word games that lend themselves to a delusional confidence of knowledge and understanding that are entirely make believe.
No big bang is going to be a toughie isn't it. Does this throw out the accelerating expanding universe from a point, and theories on the life of stars, I always thought the big bang was touted as this highly predictive successful theory describing the early times of the universe. I am betting there is too much science around the big bang to say it now didn't happen. Maybe we'll say something existed before the big bang, but big bang will still be science history. Matter can come from nothing now....interesting scientific stuff, and it can be eternal.
Imagine what this can do for our energy future, if we can unlock this matter from nothing, we should be able to produce energy from nothing.
I know, I know, still obsessed with magic Too bad Sheldon's not here to teach Kenny magic, eh?
Post a Comment