Currency is a potent weapon for trade and economic combat. For decades many (maybe all?) so-called emerging markets have used the value of their currency as a tool to help them develop export industries. An economist such as a Friedmanite would say, fine, they are subsidizing American consumers and we benefit. That is wrong. That simplistic conclusion applies static economics to a dynamic system and gets the wrong answer.
The reality is that the American consumer only initially benefits, but over time loses as jobs and production move to those nations. Too many American consumers eventually lose his/her jobs and become impoverished.
There are many ways to keep the value of a currency unnaturally low. Why do we care what is the reason? Let's just measure the result and determine if a nation's currency is unnaturally low. Purchasing power parity is a fair, long term relative value for currencies. Everyone can understand it.
Example: I know prices in New York City. When I have travelled travel to Europe and stayed in major cities such as Rome, London and Amsterdam and Dublin, I see that the value of the Euro or pound is close enough to prices in NYC to know that the euro is roughly fairly value versus the US dollar. Same for the Canadian Dollar. I have not traveled to Beijing, but good friends have. They tell me prices are half of NYC. That's far, far from a range of fair value. And we know China controls the value of its currency.
The professional statisticians can measure purchasing power parity - they have the techniques and resources. The American people need some reasonable defense against predator nations that wants to grab industries from America using currency as a tool.
Here is my plan to solve this problem objectively and evenhandedly, as published in my pamphlet in the Jobs section.
"Use objective purchasing power parity tests to identify foreign nations that keep their currency values down in order to grab American business and jobs. For a currency that averages 20% below parity for a year, impose a countervailing tariff on goods and services to adjust the currency to parity. Keep this tariff in place until the currency’s average value is within the 20% bound for a year. Nations that force or keep their currency values low are simply engaging in international predatory pricing that hurts American workers’ jobs and pay levels."
Let's do this this way - China is not singled out, and we should not fear if other nations apply the same principal.
Word of the Day
"Salubrious" - adjective [$10]
Salubrious means favorable to or promoting health or well-being.
Sentence: Some re-balancing of currency values for trade via a tariff bumpers as Bunkerman proposes would be economically salubrious for the common people in America.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Hmmm
Krypto had remarkably good timing Friday with her stock purchases. Can a dog really outperform all those overpaid hedge fund managers?
I guess John Paulson is no longer the great genius - his funds are down big, the worst 47% for the year. To his credit, I read that a good bit of the money is his own or his employees. How well has he done? Bloomberg says, "clients who came in at the beginning of 2008 have made 4.3 percent, according to Bloomberg calculations". That sucks and is surely not worth a 2% annual fee and 20% of the ups.
All these beefers do is take big risks with OPM - Other People's Money. Some win, some lose. The winners take a big fee; the losers close down and start a new fund. On average, it's a scam. Krypto works for dog biscuits and outperforms them overall.
Word of the Day
"Pule" - verb, intransitive [$10] literary. Often used in its participial form, puling.
Pule means to cry querulously or weakly, whine, whimper.
Sentence: The dumb rich should stop their puling ways and simply make long term investments the Krypto way.
I guess John Paulson is no longer the great genius - his funds are down big, the worst 47% for the year. To his credit, I read that a good bit of the money is his own or his employees. How well has he done? Bloomberg says, "clients who came in at the beginning of 2008 have made 4.3 percent, according to Bloomberg calculations". That sucks and is surely not worth a 2% annual fee and 20% of the ups.
All these beefers do is take big risks with OPM - Other People's Money. Some win, some lose. The winners take a big fee; the losers close down and start a new fund. On average, it's a scam. Krypto works for dog biscuits and outperforms them overall.
Word of the Day
"Pule" - verb, intransitive [$10] literary. Often used in its participial form, puling.
Pule means to cry querulously or weakly, whine, whimper.
Sentence: The dumb rich should stop their puling ways and simply make long term investments the Krypto way.
Friday, October 7, 2011
TGIF and a move
Krypto nudged me to run the model, and she found a moderately strong buy signal for some emerging market stocks, which is intriguingly anomalous to other stock positions. I suppose the beefers were liquidating those in force as they faced margin calls. For whatever reason, that asset class needs topping up, which I will do at the close via a mutual fund exchange from money markets.
The relevant mutual fund is the Vanguard Emerging Markets (Admiral) Fund.
Word of the Day
[to come]
The relevant mutual fund is the Vanguard Emerging Markets (Admiral) Fund.
Word of the Day
[to come]
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Proper Business
Business suffers criticism in many quarters of the public debate, sometimes for valid reasons, sometimes for false reasons. Some who criticize business have well-reasoned arguments, others are false fronts for ideologies or groups who want power for themselves.
Suppose one wanted to provide the public with a simple argument for business. I heard such recently in re-watching the fine old movie, Sabrina, starring Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and William Holden. It's a great movie, both funny and serious and has a happy ending. The setting is the US - New York City - in the 1950s.
Linus Larrabie (Humphrey Bogart), the older son who operates the family business, explains to his younger brother, David (William Holden), why business is a good.
***quote begins***
Linus: Making money isn't the main point of business. Money is a by-product.
David: What's the main objective? Power?
Linus: Ah! That's become a dirty word.
David: What's the urge? You're going into plastics. What will that prove?
Linus: Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world. A new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines go in and you're in business.
It's coincidental that people who've never seen a dime now have a dollar and barefooted kids wear shoes and have their faces washed.
What's wrong with an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds and movies on a Saturday night?
***quote ends***
There is nothing inherently sordid about business - it can be a noble activity, if conducted with values and virtues and honor. Let's defend business - good business.
Word of the Day
"Lugubrious" - adjective [$10]
Lugubrious means 1. mournful esp.: exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful.; 2. dismal.
Sentence: Why let a lugubrious outlook oppress your psyche? The world will be fine: people inherently want to improve their lives and that desire will carry the world to a new prosperity ... if the hogs and pharisees are stopped from enthroning a new aristocracy.
Suppose one wanted to provide the public with a simple argument for business. I heard such recently in re-watching the fine old movie, Sabrina, starring Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and William Holden. It's a great movie, both funny and serious and has a happy ending. The setting is the US - New York City - in the 1950s.
Linus Larrabie (Humphrey Bogart), the older son who operates the family business, explains to his younger brother, David (William Holden), why business is a good.
***quote begins***
Linus: Making money isn't the main point of business. Money is a by-product.
David: What's the main objective? Power?
Linus: Ah! That's become a dirty word.
David: What's the urge? You're going into plastics. What will that prove?
Linus: Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world. A new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines go in and you're in business.
It's coincidental that people who've never seen a dime now have a dollar and barefooted kids wear shoes and have their faces washed.
What's wrong with an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds and movies on a Saturday night?
***quote ends***
There is nothing inherently sordid about business - it can be a noble activity, if conducted with values and virtues and honor. Let's defend business - good business.
Word of the Day
"Lugubrious" - adjective [$10]
Lugubrious means 1. mournful esp.: exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful.; 2. dismal.
Sentence: Why let a lugubrious outlook oppress your psyche? The world will be fine: people inherently want to improve their lives and that desire will carry the world to a new prosperity ... if the hogs and pharisees are stopped from enthroning a new aristocracy.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Who Put That There?
I refer to the Cosmological Constant (denoted by the capital Greek letter, Lambda, which looks like an upside-down "V").
This year's Nobel prize in physics was awarded to three astronomers who, I suppose, "led" the research teams whose measurements of a certain type of supernovae were used to derive a positive value for the Cosmological Constant. For fairness, let us at once recognize that the papers publishing the results had dozens of authors, the prize winners being only the two lead authors and one other selected from the pool . And let us also recognize that use of those supernovae as markers of the structure of the universe has been know for at least 50 years or more. Why purportedly exalted prizes are given to anoint the results of the few doing rather obvious research discussed for decades, but finally realizable with large amounts of taxpayer money and new technology, is an unknowable that perhaps sociologists or anthropologists can explain.
The Cosmological Constant represents an energy density of the universe, and seems to be about 72-74% of the density of the universe today. This energy density contribution to the density of the universe is unchanging over time. Just after the Big Bang, the matter density was much, much larger, but now the matter density and energy density appear to be about in the rough ratio of 1 to 3.
In any case, the Cosmological Constant values bandied about the Internet today are thus, depending on the units chosen:
10−35 s−2, 10−47 GeV4, or 10−29 g/cm3
How big are those numbers? Let's look at the last one, which has normal density units of mass per unit volume. The mass of an electron is ->
9.11×10−31 kilograms.
As one kilogram has 1,000 grams, the Cosmological Constant derived is about .01 electrons per cubic centimeter, which sounds like a rather small density. For comparison, the warm, ionized interstellar medium has a density in the rough range of 0.2-0.5 atom per cubic centimeters. This represents up to 50% of the volume of the Milky way and is rather well studied and understood. As a proton weighs 1836x more than an electron, the warm, ionized interstellar medium in our galaxy has a density of about 600 electrons per cubic centimeter. Thus, the warm, ionized interstellar medium in the Milky Way has about 60,000 times more density that the equivalent energy density represented by the Cosmological Constant.
As the density represented by the Cosmological Constant now dominates/controls the expansion of the Universe, we can see the Cosmological Constant makes up for its small value in volume ;)
What is it? Why? Does its existence have a purpose? Who put that there?
No none has any idea supported by any evidence.
This quote of Hamlet in Hamlet seems appropriate:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Word of the Day
"Monism" - noun [$10] and "Monist"
Monism means 1. any theory denying the duality of matter and mind; 2. (philosophical and theological) the doctrine that only one supreme exists.
Monist means a person who adheres to monism.
Sentence: (A) (from Great Ideas in Philosophy) "For the ontological monist, only one kind of furniture exists in reality, viz., the physical. (B) The seeming existence of the Cosmological Constant seems to rule out monism as a philosophical foundation for the Universe: dark energy is very, very different from matter. There's something else out there beyond our current knowledge.
This year's Nobel prize in physics was awarded to three astronomers who, I suppose, "led" the research teams whose measurements of a certain type of supernovae were used to derive a positive value for the Cosmological Constant. For fairness, let us at once recognize that the papers publishing the results had dozens of authors, the prize winners being only the two lead authors and one other selected from the pool . And let us also recognize that use of those supernovae as markers of the structure of the universe has been know for at least 50 years or more. Why purportedly exalted prizes are given to anoint the results of the few doing rather obvious research discussed for decades, but finally realizable with large amounts of taxpayer money and new technology, is an unknowable that perhaps sociologists or anthropologists can explain.
The Cosmological Constant represents an energy density of the universe, and seems to be about 72-74% of the density of the universe today. This energy density contribution to the density of the universe is unchanging over time. Just after the Big Bang, the matter density was much, much larger, but now the matter density and energy density appear to be about in the rough ratio of 1 to 3.
In any case, the Cosmological Constant values bandied about the Internet today are thus, depending on the units chosen:
10−35 s−2, 10−47 GeV4, or 10−29 g/cm3
How big are those numbers? Let's look at the last one, which has normal density units of mass per unit volume. The mass of an electron is ->
9.11×10−31 kilograms.
As one kilogram has 1,000 grams, the Cosmological Constant derived is about .01 electrons per cubic centimeter, which sounds like a rather small density. For comparison, the warm, ionized interstellar medium has a density in the rough range of 0.2-0.5 atom per cubic centimeters. This represents up to 50% of the volume of the Milky way and is rather well studied and understood. As a proton weighs 1836x more than an electron, the warm, ionized interstellar medium in our galaxy has a density of about 600 electrons per cubic centimeter. Thus, the warm, ionized interstellar medium in the Milky Way has about 60,000 times more density that the equivalent energy density represented by the Cosmological Constant.
As the density represented by the Cosmological Constant now dominates/controls the expansion of the Universe, we can see the Cosmological Constant makes up for its small value in volume ;)
What is it? Why? Does its existence have a purpose? Who put that there?
No none has any idea supported by any evidence.
This quote of Hamlet in Hamlet seems appropriate:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Word of the Day
"Monism" - noun [$10] and "Monist"
Monism means 1. any theory denying the duality of matter and mind; 2. (philosophical and theological) the doctrine that only one supreme exists.
Monist means a person who adheres to monism.
Sentence: (A) (from Great Ideas in Philosophy) "For the ontological monist, only one kind of furniture exists in reality, viz., the physical. (B) The seeming existence of the Cosmological Constant seems to rule out monism as a philosophical foundation for the Universe: dark energy is very, very different from matter. There's something else out there beyond our current knowledge.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Why?
That is the question. Humans want to know why something exists or happens; philosophy and the sciences have thinking processes to help us determine "why". We try to find underlying reasons "why". We do have to recognize, however, that at a deep level, some concepts are simply there - they exist.
A simple example is the number, one, i. e., 1. Asking why 1 exists is a pointless exercise in sophism. 1 simply exists as the representation on unity, the existence of something: je pense, donc je suis, or in Latin, cogito, ergo sum, or in English, I think, therefore I am. Axioms are necessary as the foundation of a system of knowledge. For you metaphor lovers, one cannot build a strong house on sand, even if you build it of bricks. A house built on sand will fall ... eventually.
Now in high school physics, one learns about conservation of energy. And conservation of momentum. And conservation of angular momentum. Those concepts are supremely useful in understanding the motion of bodies and actions of all kinds of materials and our world.
Why? Why are those quantities - energy, momentum, and angular momentum - conserved (i. e., constants of motion).
This is something one can prove from deeper, more obvious axioms. All it takes is a bit of multivariable calculus and knowledge of mechanics at the level of an advanced undergraduate or first year graduate student at a good college science program. Here is a reference: Mechanics, by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, which is Volume I of Course of Theoretical Physics (translated from Russian). In my second edition, which I read in 1974, pages 13-19 cover this material. Hmmm ... in 1974, this book cost me $10 for a hardcover copy.
I won't show you the math or how those conservation laws are derived, as typing equations and Greek letters is beyond my computer skills. Here are the results.
The more fundamental axioms upon which classical mechanics are founded are the homogeneity of time, the homegeneity of space and the isotropy of space.
Homegeneity of Time
In simple terms, homogeneity of time means that under very general conditions, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one does the experiment or actions now or next year or in ten years or in a billion years in the future or in the past. From the axiom of homogeneity of time one can prove that energy is conserved.
Homgeneity of Space
In simple terms, homogeneity of space means that under very general conditons, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one does the experiment or actions here or in Nebraska or in the galaxy Andromeda. From the axiom of homogeneity of space, one can prove that momentum is conserved.
Isotropy of Space
In simple terms, isotropy of space means that under very general conditions, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one orients the system rightside up or upside down or to the left or right or at a 30 degree angle or whatever direction. From the axiom of isotropy of space, one can prove that angular momentum is conserved.
Philosophy
At the deepest level of the tree of knowledge are sound philosophical concepts. One needs to understand what are the questions and what are the deepest concepts; scientists - good scientists - try to understand "why" by standing on solid ground. And if one finds the unexplainable, one needs to re-examine the ground for ... holes.
Skepticism is essential, but once one finds good ground, one must move on to build the structures of knowledge, and fight the good fights.
The axioms of homogeneity of time and space, and isotropy of space are good ground.
[Btw, of course all this can be extended into relativistic space-time by simple generalizations of the definitions of energy, momentum and angular momentum.]
Word of the Day
"Durst" - verb [$10] archaic or dialect
Durst is an archaic past tense of 'dare', showing the old germanic foundations of English.
Sentence: Obama durst to order the killing of a US citizen without trial in blatant violation of the US Constitution: resign!
A simple example is the number, one, i. e., 1. Asking why 1 exists is a pointless exercise in sophism. 1 simply exists as the representation on unity, the existence of something: je pense, donc je suis, or in Latin, cogito, ergo sum, or in English, I think, therefore I am. Axioms are necessary as the foundation of a system of knowledge. For you metaphor lovers, one cannot build a strong house on sand, even if you build it of bricks. A house built on sand will fall ... eventually.
Now in high school physics, one learns about conservation of energy. And conservation of momentum. And conservation of angular momentum. Those concepts are supremely useful in understanding the motion of bodies and actions of all kinds of materials and our world.
Why? Why are those quantities - energy, momentum, and angular momentum - conserved (i. e., constants of motion).
This is something one can prove from deeper, more obvious axioms. All it takes is a bit of multivariable calculus and knowledge of mechanics at the level of an advanced undergraduate or first year graduate student at a good college science program. Here is a reference: Mechanics, by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, which is Volume I of Course of Theoretical Physics (translated from Russian). In my second edition, which I read in 1974, pages 13-19 cover this material. Hmmm ... in 1974, this book cost me $10 for a hardcover copy.
I won't show you the math or how those conservation laws are derived, as typing equations and Greek letters is beyond my computer skills. Here are the results.
The more fundamental axioms upon which classical mechanics are founded are the homogeneity of time, the homegeneity of space and the isotropy of space.
Homegeneity of Time
In simple terms, homogeneity of time means that under very general conditions, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one does the experiment or actions now or next year or in ten years or in a billion years in the future or in the past. From the axiom of homogeneity of time one can prove that energy is conserved.
Homgeneity of Space
In simple terms, homogeneity of space means that under very general conditons, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one does the experiment or actions here or in Nebraska or in the galaxy Andromeda. From the axiom of homogeneity of space, one can prove that momentum is conserved.
Isotropy of Space
In simple terms, isotropy of space means that under very general conditions, the motions of particles or behavior of physical systems will be the same whether one orients the system rightside up or upside down or to the left or right or at a 30 degree angle or whatever direction. From the axiom of isotropy of space, one can prove that angular momentum is conserved.
Philosophy
At the deepest level of the tree of knowledge are sound philosophical concepts. One needs to understand what are the questions and what are the deepest concepts; scientists - good scientists - try to understand "why" by standing on solid ground. And if one finds the unexplainable, one needs to re-examine the ground for ... holes.
Skepticism is essential, but once one finds good ground, one must move on to build the structures of knowledge, and fight the good fights.
The axioms of homogeneity of time and space, and isotropy of space are good ground.
[Btw, of course all this can be extended into relativistic space-time by simple generalizations of the definitions of energy, momentum and angular momentum.]
Word of the Day
"Durst" - verb [$10] archaic or dialect
Durst is an archaic past tense of 'dare', showing the old germanic foundations of English.
Sentence: Obama durst to order the killing of a US citizen without trial in blatant violation of the US Constitution: resign!
Monday, October 3, 2011
Conundra
Out in the heartland last week with some time to spare, I began wondering about the "possible" discovery that neutrinos might travel faster than light, at least under some conditions. First the disclaimer: the experimenters may have missed a systematic error and the result may be wrong. BUT they did wait a few years before publishing the complete results to check their work with much care, AND this is not the first time that such a possibility has been contemplated. Neutrinos are rather odd.
I am struck by the similar nagging notion that when some phenomena is unexplained by past knowledge and theories, that it sometimes leads to a new, better way of understanding the world.
Past Examples
A famous Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, found that the position of Mars was off about five degrees for a few days of the year. Not much. Others brushed the anomaly under the rug. Kepler did not and discovered the true equations of motion for the orbits of planets, leading to Newton's discovery of the classical law of gravity.
Astronomers noticed that the rotations curves of spiral galaxies seemed to imply that galaxies were surrounded by huge, uniform distributions of some kind of mass that had no influence on star formation. Also, they found that clusters of galaxies seemed to be much, much heavier than explained by the galaxies they contained. For decades, that was 'brushed under the rug'. Then other measurements helped prove the existence of dark matter.
The Davis neutrino experiment found no neutrinos from the Sun for decades. Physicists ignored it, assuming the astronomers made a mistake in their models of star interiors. Later, evidence came that neutrinos were purportedly oscillating over the 93 million miles into other, undetectable forms.
Neutrinos
c > 1 ?
m > 0 ?
[in lieu of subscripts, I use 'c' and 'm' here for the speed and rest mass of a neutrino.]
The recently published experimental results find the speed of the neutrino to be 1.000248 as expressed in units of the velocity of light being 1. Measurements of the flight time of neutrinos from a supernova showed those traveled at the speed of light to within 1 part in 450 million [i. e., to within 0.00000000222]. Those neutrinos has much less energy that the ones observed here on earth to travel faster than light. Perhaps the speed of a neutrino is not a constant: all particles with rest mass can have variable speeds.
"Theory" says they "must" have mass (i. e., rest mass), yet all measurements so far find none. In fact, the experiments measure the square of the mass and those experiments find that quantity is negative. The error bars encompass zero, so the scientists state the results as an upper limit to the neutrino mass. But if the results are correct, then the neutrino mass is imaginary. Yes, an imaginary number. The canonical imaginary number conveyed by i which equals the square root of -1. A particle with an imaginary mass has strange properties. One is that it would seem to travel faster than light. Hmmm.
Perhaps the neutrino is a form of tachyon. That has been speculated in the past. Tachyons are odd particles that always travel faster than light. They also have imaginary mass. And they can be used to explore time backwards. Hmmm. Other explanations of some phenomena seem to require advanced electromagnetic waves for their explanation. All this is puzzling. Are we seeing the effects of some new, now unexplained structure of the Universe?
Time will tell.
Word of the Day
"Endue" - verb, transitive [$10] literary
Endue means (followed by 'with') invest or provide (a person of thing) with qualities, powers, etc.
Sentence: [from the preface of "All for Love", by John Dryden as published in vol. XVIII of the Harvard Classics, page 14] "Men of pleasant conversation (or at least esteemed so), and endued with a trifling kind of fancy, perhaps helped out with some smattering of Latin, are ambitious to distinguish themselves from the herd of gentlemen, by their poetry (Latin phrase omitted here) and is this not a wretched affectation."
Wretched: one of those fine words now underused.
I am struck by the similar nagging notion that when some phenomena is unexplained by past knowledge and theories, that it sometimes leads to a new, better way of understanding the world.
Past Examples
A famous Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, found that the position of Mars was off about five degrees for a few days of the year. Not much. Others brushed the anomaly under the rug. Kepler did not and discovered the true equations of motion for the orbits of planets, leading to Newton's discovery of the classical law of gravity.
Astronomers noticed that the rotations curves of spiral galaxies seemed to imply that galaxies were surrounded by huge, uniform distributions of some kind of mass that had no influence on star formation. Also, they found that clusters of galaxies seemed to be much, much heavier than explained by the galaxies they contained. For decades, that was 'brushed under the rug'. Then other measurements helped prove the existence of dark matter.
The Davis neutrino experiment found no neutrinos from the Sun for decades. Physicists ignored it, assuming the astronomers made a mistake in their models of star interiors. Later, evidence came that neutrinos were purportedly oscillating over the 93 million miles into other, undetectable forms.
Neutrinos
c > 1 ?
m > 0 ?
[in lieu of subscripts, I use 'c' and 'm' here for the speed and rest mass of a neutrino.]
The recently published experimental results find the speed of the neutrino to be 1.000248 as expressed in units of the velocity of light being 1. Measurements of the flight time of neutrinos from a supernova showed those traveled at the speed of light to within 1 part in 450 million [i. e., to within 0.00000000222]. Those neutrinos has much less energy that the ones observed here on earth to travel faster than light. Perhaps the speed of a neutrino is not a constant: all particles with rest mass can have variable speeds.
"Theory" says they "must" have mass (i. e., rest mass), yet all measurements so far find none. In fact, the experiments measure the square of the mass and those experiments find that quantity is negative. The error bars encompass zero, so the scientists state the results as an upper limit to the neutrino mass. But if the results are correct, then the neutrino mass is imaginary. Yes, an imaginary number. The canonical imaginary number conveyed by i which equals the square root of -1. A particle with an imaginary mass has strange properties. One is that it would seem to travel faster than light. Hmmm.
Perhaps the neutrino is a form of tachyon. That has been speculated in the past. Tachyons are odd particles that always travel faster than light. They also have imaginary mass. And they can be used to explore time backwards. Hmmm. Other explanations of some phenomena seem to require advanced electromagnetic waves for their explanation. All this is puzzling. Are we seeing the effects of some new, now unexplained structure of the Universe?
Time will tell.
Word of the Day
"Endue" - verb, transitive [$10] literary
Endue means (followed by 'with') invest or provide (a person of thing) with qualities, powers, etc.
Sentence: [from the preface of "All for Love", by John Dryden as published in vol. XVIII of the Harvard Classics, page 14] "Men of pleasant conversation (or at least esteemed so), and endued with a trifling kind of fancy, perhaps helped out with some smattering of Latin, are ambitious to distinguish themselves from the herd of gentlemen, by their poetry (Latin phrase omitted here) and is this not a wretched affectation."
Wretched: one of those fine words now underused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
