This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

How Isaac Newton Went Flat Broke Chasing A Stock Bubble

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Tim Price of Sovereign Man blog,

For practitioners of Schadenfreude, seeing high-profile investors losing their shirts is always amusing.

But for the true connoisseur, the finest expression of the art comes when a high-profile investor identifies a bubble, perhaps even makes money out of it, exits in time – and then gets sucked back in only to lose everything in the resultant bust.

An early example is the case of Sir Isaac Newton and the South Sea Company, which was established in the early 18th Century and granted a monopoly on trade in the South Seas in exchange for assuming England’s war debt.

Investors warmed to the appeal of this monopoly and the company’s shares began their rise.

Britain’s most celebrated scientist was not immune to the monetary charms of the South Sea Company, and in early 1720 he profited handsomely from his stake. Having cashed in his chips, he then watched with some perturbation as stock in the company continued to rise.

In the words of Lord Overstone, no warning on earth can save people determined to grow suddenly rich.

Newton went on to repurchase a good deal more South Sea Company shares at more than three times the price of his original stake, and then proceeded to lose £20,000 (which, in 1720, amounted to almost all his life savings).

This prompted him to add, allegedly, that “I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men.”

20131210 image How Isaac Newton went flat broke chasing a stock bubble

The chart of the South Sea Company’s stock price, and effectively of Newton’s emotional journey from greed to satisfaction and then from envy and more greed, ending in despair, is shown above.

A more recent example would be that of the highly successful fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller who, whilst working for George Soros in 1999, maintained a significant short position in Internet stocks that he (rightly) considered massively overvalued.

But as Nasdaq continued to soar into the wide blue yonder (not altogether dissimilar to South Sea Company shares), he proceeded to cover those shorts and subsequently went long the technology market.

Although this trade ended quickly, it did not end well. Three quarters of the Internet stocks that Druckenmiller bought eventually went to zero. The remainder fell between 90% and 99%.

And now we have another convert to the bull cause.

Fund manager Hugh Hendry has hardly nurtured the image of a shy retiring violet during the course of his career to date, so his recent volte-face on markets garnered a fair degree of attention. In his December letter to investors he wrote the following:

“This is what I fear most today: being bearish and so continuing to not make any money even as the monetary authorities shower us with the ill thought-out generosity of their stance and markets melt up. Our resistance of Fed generosity has been pretty costly for all of us so far. To keep resisting could end up being unforgivably costly.”

Hendry sums up his new acceptance of risk in six words: “Just be long. Pretty much anything.”

Will Hendry’s surrender to monetary forces equate to Newton’s re-entry into South Sea shares or Druckenmiller’s dotcom capitulation in the face of crowd hysteria ? Time will tell.

Call us old-fashioned, but rather than submit to buying “pretty much anything”, we’re able to invest rationally in a QE-manic world by sailing close to the Ben Graham shoreline.

Firstly, we’re investors and not speculators. (As Shakespeare’s Polonius counselled: “To thine own self be true”.)

Secondly, our portfolio returns aren’t exclusively linked to the last available price on some stock exchange; we invest across credit instruments; equity instruments; uncorrelated funds, and real assets, so we have no great dependence on equity markets alone.

Where we do choose to invest in stocks (as opposed to feel compelled to chase them higher), we only see advantage in favouring the ownership of businesses that offer compelling valuations to prospective investors.

In Buffett’s words, we spend a lot of time second-guessing what we hope is a sound intellectual framework. Examples:

  • In a world drowning in debt, if you must own bonds, own bonds issued by entities that can afford to pay you back;
  • In a deleveraging world, favour the currencies of creditor countries over debtors;
  • In a world beset by QE, if you must own equities, own equities supported by vast secular tailwinds and compelling valuations;
  • Given the enormous macro uncertainties and entirely justifiable concerns about potential bubbles, diversify more broadly at an asset class level than simply across equity and bond investments;
  • Given the danger of central bank money-printing seemingly without limit, currency / inflation insurance should be a component of any balanced portfolio
  • Forget conventional benchmarks. Bond indices encourage investors to over-own the most heavily indebted (and therefore objectively least creditworthy) borrowers. Equity benchmarks tend to push investors into owning yesterday’s winners.

In the words of Sir John Templeton,

“To buy when others are despondently selling and sell when others are greedily buying requires the greatest fortitude and pays the greatest reward.”

So be long “pretty much everything”, or be long a considered array of carefully assessed and diverse instruments of value. It’s a fairly straightforward choice.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:19 | 4233512 ZH Snob
ZH Snob's picture

and to think, he KNEW what goes up must come down.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:29 | 4233540 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



In the words of Janet Yellen,

"Gravity?  Pfffttttt."

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:35 | 4233593 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

A helmet ? I thought the bowl cut was one, or part of one anyways.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:59 | 4233706 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Hey lets go over to your house, and sometimes we can go over to my house!

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:58 | 4233904 Four chan
Four chan's picture

we have all been there done that..great minds and all that.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:57 | 4234081 wintermute
wintermute's picture

That whole bubble took only about a week to inflate and collapse.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:44 | 4234186 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

That is not a helmet she is wearing. It is a fish bowl. Her brain swims around in circles unable to break out of the pattern of Central Bank interference.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:32 | 4233558 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

I dont trust Newton nor Einstein...i wouldnt be surprised if they were a part of the inside club.


Smart mofo's? yes. But dont think science hasn't been hijacked as well with everything else. Modern science is corrupted too.


Nikola Tesla, imo, was the only one that wanted to make the world a better place for everyone, for free... thats why 'they' confiscated his most interesting, ie, world helping creations/formula's/patents and shut it out from the good people to see. Thats why he died poor - he didnt giveb a fuck about money...he really was on another level...or plane for that matter...

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:39 | 4233588 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

O'Brien : "We control matter because we control the mind, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature."

Winston: "But you do not! You are not even masters of this planet...the world itself is only a speck of dust. For millions of years the earth was uninhabited."

O'Brien : '"Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness....

For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse... Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?"



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:51 | 4233638 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

blotto...check out eric dollard and david wilcock. also, constable's work on ruth drown, steiner and reich (the cosmic pulse of life)

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:20 | 4233985 InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

dollard might be one of the most interesting case studies of modern times in terms of inpractical genius... i don't know if it is outside sabotage or inside that gets him, but sabotage always seems to lurk nearby.... Konstanin Meyl (spelling) is another voice to check out... stay clear of bearden.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:40 | 4234182 Four chan
Four chan's picture

that guy facinates the shit out of me, i think ive watched 100 hours of him blowing my mind.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:47 | 4234196 it aint easy
it aint easy's picture

You mean David Wilcock the con man? How's he doing now post 2012? I know he also made some "prediction" before 2000, then disappeared after nothing happened and resurfaced some years later with a new 2012 schtick.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:04 | 4234256 Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

See also Victor Schauberger.

A true genius, who ended up pretty much like Tesla actually.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:06 | 4233720 TwoCats
TwoCats's picture

Orwell might as well have written:

"The earth can be warming or cooling, according as we need it [ to impose taxes].  Do you suppose our dendrochronologists are unequal to that?"

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:37 | 4233591 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

science has not, and cannot, be hijacked.

that which has has been hijacked, is not science.

science is merely application of the scientific method in pursuit of knowledge.

people who call themselves scientists can be corrupted, but not science itself - no amount of bribes can cause 2 plus 2 to equal 5, nor the sun to revolve around the earth.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:39 | 4233617 Cursive
Cursive's picture


Wow, that's a naive statement. Reading that, I am reminded of the treatment of blowing smoke up the ass of drowning victims.  Look, if anything involves Man, it can and will be corrupted.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:55 | 4233687 Variance Doc
Variance Doc's picture

" can and will be corrupted."

Junked you for that.  As a Ph.D. mathematician and scientist, I can tell you there is a lot of work out there that is NOT corrupted and people who are not corruptable.  They come to the beauty of the material (like I did), not the money.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:16 | 4233762 TwoCats
TwoCats's picture

Nobody's incorruptible, Doc.  We all face the same temptations to sacrifice intellectual honesty for some more immediate gain, be it money, fame, etc.  Under the wrong circumstances, anyone would succumb.  Usually they don't even recognize the moment they first comprimise their principles, but they know it later.

If I were you, I wouldn't put too much faith in my peers' integrity.  A good friend I would trust (that's almost the definition of a good friend), but for everyone else, verify.  The nice thing about science is it's all supposed to be verifiable.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:23 | 4233996 Whalley World
Whalley World's picture

Of 50 Senators, only Barbara Boxer is working on Nuclear reform.  What about Fukushima, we are all getting blasted and what has science to say, sadly Sweet Fuck All!

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:35 | 4234012 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

Math and science advancements usually need to be replicated independantly, so you may earn 15 minutes of fame with a cheat, but your dogshit once you have been debunked.  When it comes to other fields of acadamia though, I believe you have a point.  Just ask the list of german politicians who were caught  plagiarizing their doctorate thesis forcing one resignation after the next.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:26 | 4234304 Variance Doc
Variance Doc's picture

Clearly you are not in any scientific field.  You really have *no* idea what you are talking about.  STFU.

On another note, it's really sad that ZH has become populated with morons.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:34 | 4234570 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Most have no idea on how we think, whether or not they publish on ZH, or elsewhere.


While it is true that some Scientists are corruptable the vast majority practice ethics.


It is just a matter of IQ, Doctor. Roughly 85% have IQs that are Normal and Below Normal. And since you are Third Sigma then you already know just how difficult it is to communicate with the vast majority.


Forgive them as they truly know not what they do.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:19 | 4234717 Andre
Andre's picture

The ones I have dealt with seem prone to drinking a LOT of Koolaid.

Academic accomplishment is no guarantee of integrity, or even intelligence beyond the ability to parrot EXACTLY what your program advisor likes to hear. At this point much of the academic world is absorbed in grantsmanship - research that gets you paid better. And, of course, "publish or perish."

This was less the case some time ago, but it certainly is the case now. And, when you think of it, both Krugman and Bernanke are PhD's, and Janet Napolitano is on staff in the U Cal system. This rather belies your commentary that PhD'd are so - noble? upright?

Even smart?

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 02:05 | 4235191 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Mathematicians and Physical Scientists are much less likely to violate the code of ethics than Economists or Politicians, those whom tenure deals with Politics..


Your anecdotal experiences are not a valid  justification for Gross Generalizations.


In Graduate School, before the degree is awarded, there are some whom will parrot their Academic Advisors. They tend to make mediocre Scientists at best and do not serve their advisors well by being Yes Men.


The ones whom excel are those whom challenge their advisor and surpass them.


I am more than aware of Departmental Politics but it is not as cut throat in Science Departments as it is in other Departments, and Colleges of the University Hierarchy.


Most Physical Scientists and Mathematicians do not compromise on principle. (Yes some do.) Not most.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 03:52 | 4235278 Andre
Andre's picture

"Your anecdotal experiences are not a valid  justification for Gross Generalizations."

And where there is smoke there is generally fire.

Your replies to others have elements of assumed superiority. Sorry, that's just the way it comes off. I have seen a great deal of this, and it is the reason I tend to look at PhD's with skepticism. The ones I have met more recently have a fixation on their intellectual accomplishments that make them inflexible at best, almost medieval in their caste consciousness. It is interesting to watch - from a distance. Yet it does not do to get too close. I have also found the principles of which you speak may apply within the group, but ONLY within the group.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:26 | 4233793 Cursive
Cursive's picture

@Variance Doc

OK, whatever Captain America.  Do you believe in the infalability of Man?  You would have to if you think that "Science" cannot be corrupted.  Do you think the NTSB isn't political?  What about the CAFE standards for the auto industry?  Sure, in a base 10 system, 10 times 10 will always equal 100, but are you absolutely certain the HIV always leads to AIDS?  How do you explain bloodletting and the use of leaches in early medicine?  These are questions of "Science" and the answers have changed greatly over the years.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:33 | 4234011 Its_the_economy...
Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

Fact is incorruptible.  But, application of fact, interpretation of, that's another ballgame all together.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:20 | 4234293 Variance Doc
Variance Doc's picture

Really?  NTSB, CAFE, HIV, and AIDS.  This is science?  You really don't get it, do you.

Do I really have to explain that the first one is a government agency, the second one is set by a government agency?  Where is the repeatable experiment in this "science"?

JFC, are you really that stupid?


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:45 | 4234039 ich1baN
ich1baN's picture

This is why you are a pseudo intellectual. You are only protecting your brand because it is your livelihood. 

If you think science is so incorruptible then why do we have things like ClimateGate? Why are there meteorologists that come and talk about how their department heads asked them to increase daily temperature ranges from their readings?

How about the million contrivances involved with evolution.... Hear of Piltdown man? How about Nebraska Man? This one is pretty hilarious as Nebraska man was a contrived neanderthal from a pig Nebraska Man was discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska.  A tremendous amount of literature was built around this supposed missing link which allegedly lived 1 million years ago.

The evidence for Nebraska Man was used by evolutionists in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.  William Jennings Bryan was confronted with a battery of "great scientific experts" who stunned him with the "facts" of Nebraska Man.  Mr. Bryan had no retort except to say that he thought the evidence was too scanty and to plead for more time.  Naturally, the "experts" scoffed and made a mockery of him.  After all, who was he to question the world's greatest scientific authorities?

But, what exactly was the scientific proof for Nebraska Man?  The answer is a tooth.  That's right; he found one tooth!  The top scientists of the world examined this tooth and appraised it as proof positive of a prehistoric race in America.  What a classic case of excessive imagination!

Years after the Scopes trial, the entire skeleton of the animal from which the initial tooth came was found.  As it turns out, the tooth upon which Nebraska Man was constructed belonged to an extinct species of pig.

Ya, you pseudo intellectuals at colleges that are about to become an extinct species along with the rest of the bubble bursting in education..... if you can't recognize that the entire business of being a professor with recognition all depends on the amount of stuff you publish vs quality information, then you are apart of the same crowd that claims great scientific achievements from fraudulent work like ClimateGate and Nebraskaman. GTFO. 

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:08 | 4234105 Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Let's not bring up the "science" of archaology hmmmm?

Too funny for words. Incorruptable lol.

PS The Great Pyramid is a tomb for Cheops.


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:48 | 4233639 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

I respectfully disagree...


How do we really know for sure? We only know what they have taught us... they call it 'theories' for a reason.


I believe we CAN go beyond the speed of light. 'They' (Einstein) tell us we cant because they dont want us dreaming or getting away from our enslavement on this tortured fucking planet...

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:52 | 4233671 Headbanger
Headbanger's picture

Then go do it and get the fuck outta here you wanker!


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:54 | 4233679 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” . Tesla
“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.” Tesla

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:57 | 4233695 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

which is how edward leedskalnin built coral castle

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:11 | 4233742 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

A cow, a rabbit and sheep all eat grass...yet one shits in patties, one shits in pellets and the other shits logs? And no one knows why.


Therefore since we dont know shit,

Science will and can NOT be able to answer everything. Its impossible. Only the illuminati with the help of the controlled main stream media would make you believe that everything has a scientific answer...

'Man', talk about conceited...


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:48 | 4234209 walküre
walküre's picture

Great example. Science cannot explain how we've come to be either. Scientific efforts to describe intelligent design are considered pseudo science when it should be funded and researched like nothing else. Instead we have politics and religion.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:47 | 4234394 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Tesla published a prepared statement on his 81st birthday (July 10, 1937) critiquing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The following is a portion of that statement:

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." — Nikola Tesla


Wed, 12/11/2013 - 01:55 | 4235175 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

That is amazing, unbelievable. I'm serious, that quote made my day, and answered a few puzzles in my head. It becomes monstrous over time.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:22 | 4233992 InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

frequency in time, not angular frequency... it is all about the impulse currents... the real part of the imaginary exponential....  dollard is very clear on this... plus if you study laplace transforms enough you will see that driving an exponential system with a real (not imaginary/sinusodial) exponential, one gets interesting results...

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:48 | 4234040 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

what did van tassel mean when he said soldana (the et from venus) told him: F=1/t

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:49 | 4234205 putaipan
putaipan's picture

@ jbvt ... sounds like your a canidate for Marko Rodin and his vortex math. me? i'm the balken in the bentov/balken/baba model of the universe. later stolen by homer/hawking as the 'universe as a jelly filled donut" . damned science thieves!

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:05 | 4233725 Variance Doc
Variance Doc's picture

"I believe we CAN go beyond the speed of light."

Idiot.  Do you even comprehend what science is?  Science is about falsifiable conjectures backed by replicable experiments.  We call them theories, simple because there could be an experiment tomorrow that, say, shows Einstein's General Theory is incorrect.  However, given the number of different confirmatory experiments carried out so far, it is *very, very* improbabile.  You need to STFU until you comprehend this.

The laws of Nature do not give a fuck about what you believe.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:17 | 4233759 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Sure we can, the Universe is millions of light years in girth - how else do you except one to traverse it? By going in knots? Or maybe steam power?



P.S. Improbable does not = impossible.

So watch your mouth, and keep reaching for the st*rs...


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:24 | 4233785 TwoCats
TwoCats's picture

Such scientific profanity.  The speed of light limit might be breakable depending on the geometry of other dimensions, which theorists are still working on (they are hard to actually observe).  General relativity applies to the 4 dimensions with which we are familiar.

Further, recall that General relativity superceded Newtonian mechanics, which were undeniably correct ... until we dealt with scales that were too big, small, fast, or massive.  Newton's laws turned out to be a special case and an approximation, and it took centuries for science to advance to the next level.  Why do you think General Relativity is different?

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:22 | 4233990 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

"The speed of light limit might be breakable"

It is, in a way. Galaxies already move apart at speeds greater than that of light.

You just have to make the space itself move:


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:24 | 4233998 InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

angular velocity of an electron (if they exist) has been measured (more likely derived) to be faster than the speed of light... just something to ponder... i am still not sold on the electron since maxwell's equation were derived with out its concept

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 23:57 | 4234983 jbvtme
Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:27 | 4234154 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Riddle me this. You have two objects you send them off in two opposite directions each going at 3/4 the speed of light. Now put yourself on one of those objects.

You will now note that the other object is going away from you at faster than the speed of light.

Can you "see" it ? Or even know that it exists?

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:10 | 4234262 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Good discussion, even if we went on a tangent.


I would rather to talk to loyal strange ZedHeds about heavy deep topics, then to talk to my friends about nonsense.


But to make a claim that 'i think we can go beyond the speed of light' is really not that out of the question. Why, because Einstein said its not possible? Fuck Einstein...Mileva Maric was smarter then he was anyway:)


Also its easy to explain and prove that 2+2=4, that is why we teach addition to 4 year olds. And then we teach theories of evolution, major scientific claims, etc to adults because most will just accept it as fact like we did when we were 4.

Look 2+2=4 and btw, we evolved from monkeys then flew to the moon using a comodore 64 in


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:26 | 4234309 akak
akak's picture


You have two objects you send them off in two opposite directions each going at 3/4 the speed of light. Now put yourself on one of those objects.

You will now note that the other object is going away from you at faster than the speed of light.

No, in fact it does not work that way at all, as Einstein's General Relativity and many empirical observations both demonstrate. 

It is counterintuitive, but what an observer standing on one of those two objects would see is the other object moving away at some small fraction of a percent less than the speed of light.  And it does not matter at what arbitrarily large fraction of the speed of light you make the two objects move away from each other --- they will still be observed, by outside observers AND by each other, to move away from each other at some tiny fraction of a percent less than the speed of light.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:15 | 4234698 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Good reply...Except...It is not Einstien's General Theory of Relativity which describes this. It is Einstien's Special Theory of Relativity which provides the Lorentz Transforms.


The General Theory of Relativity describes the Curvature of Space Time and Accelelrated Frames of Reference.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:31 | 4234752 akak
akak's picture


Hey, it's been a while since I took a course in Modern Physics --- longer than I care to admit.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 02:34 | 4235171 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Dr. Acula Source your claim that Galaxies already move faster than Light Velocity...


As for the Alcubierre Warp Drive




The Alcubierre metric defines the warp-drive spacetime. It is a Lorentzian manifold, which, if interpreted in the context of general relativity, allows a warp bubble to appear in previously-flat spacetime and move away at effectively-superluminal speed. Inhabitants of the bubble feel no inertial effects. This method of transport does not involve objects in motion at speeds faster than light with respect to the contents of the warp bubble; that is, a light beam within the warp bubble would still always move faster than the ship. As objects within the bubble are not moving (locally) faster than light, the mathematical formulation of the Alcubierre metric is consistent with the conventional claims of the laws of relativity (namely, that an object with mass cannot attain or exceed the speed of light) and conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation would not apply as they would with conventional motion at near-light speeds.

The Alcubierre drive, however, remains a hypothetical concept with seemingly difficult problems, though the amount of energy required is no longer thought to be unobtainably large.[5]


At Light Velocity it takes an INFINITE amount of Energy to travel if there is a Mass involved.


An object with Mass cannot travel faster than Light Velocity. I am sorry. Even the Warp Drive you referenced only warps Space Time.


I want a SOURCE on your Galaxy Statement.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:20 | 4233979 ThirdWorldDude
ThirdWorldDude's picture

Looks good when you write it, but in practice it's utter nonsense.

Scientists have yet to step forward and explain some elementary stuff like whether photons are a particle or a wave or if Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive. Not to mention that you also need to come clean and regain some credibility after recent debacles such as ClimateGate and PlumeGate...

The laws of nature really don't give a fuck about what you present in your peer-reviewed papers.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:43 | 4234036 DannoH
DannoH's picture

A photon posesses the properties of both a particle and a wave (reference QED, by Feynman, for a non-mathematical theory of what is occurring). As for the cat, your question is nonsensical, as the original gedankenexperiment was just that; a thought experiement used to assist in poking holes in theoretical arguments (reference the EPR paper, by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen). Such thinking games serve to provide lively debate and often times insight into the underlying processes, but should not be taken as literal hypothetical experiments following presentation as a sound bite on NPR.

The penis-like shape in your avatar is a nice touch too.


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:03 | 4234095 ThirdWorldDude
ThirdWorldDude's picture

Well, Mr. scientist, in which cases does a photon act as a wave and in which ones can it be described as a particle? What is the trigger mechanism for this androgynous behavior? Your mentioned papers do not claim to have proven your theory of hermaphroditic photons by experiment, only by formulas. 

My point being, it's pure hubris to think mankind has the answer to Nature's riddles. Until we find humility within ourselves we'll be doomed to make costly mistakes like embracing nuclear energy without having a slightest clue about long-term (thinking millenia here, not decades) consequences and storage solutions.


And how nice of you to get a hold of my avatar. Hope you like it.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:51 | 4234215 putaipan
putaipan's picture

it's in the observation 3rdworld, depends what you're looking for.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 23:14 | 4234849 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Only by Formulas??? LMAO.


In 1905 Einstien demonstrated the Photoelectric Effect demonstrating that a Photon has Particle Like Properties. (That is the REASON Einstien won the Nobel Prize.) In fact the Photoelectric Effect has been demonstrated repeatedly and is easily reproduced every single time that you use you Automobile Remote, your TV Remote, any Radiative Remote Control, throughout a wide range of Photon Emission in the Electromagnetic Spectrum.


Yes. Einstien's First famous Equation, E = hf, where E is Energy, h is Plank's Constant, and f is Frequency is not as popularly iconic as the E=mc2 but is just as important. (If I had Greek Text capability I would have used the Greek Letter Nu, for Frequency, as that is commonly understood.)


The next topic is Wave Theory of Light. I am tired of writing so I will reference Wikipedia...


To explain the origin of colors, Robert Hooke (1635-1703) developed a "pulse theory" and compared the spreading of light to that of waves in water in his 1665 Micrographia ("Observation XI"). In 1672 Hooke suggested that light's vibrations could be perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) worked out a mathematical wave theory of light in 1678, and published it in his Treatise on light in 1690. He proposed that light was emitted in all directions as a series of waves in a medium called the Luminiferous ether. As waves are not affected by gravity, it was assumed that they slowed down upon entering a denser medium. [27]

Thomas Young's sketch of the two-slit experiment showing the diffraction of light. Young's experiments supported the theory that light consists of waves.

The wave theory predicted that light waves could interfere with each other like sound waves (as noted around 1800 by Thomas Young), and that light could be polarised, as if it were a transverse wave. Young showed by means of a diffraction experiment that light behaved as waves. He also proposed that different colours were caused by different wavelengths of light, and explained colour vision in terms of three-coloured receptors in the eye.

Another supporter of the wave theory was Leonhard Euler. He argued in Nova theoria lucis et colorum (1746) that diffraction could more easily be explained by a wave theory.


This is MEASURABLE and, once again, easily replicated.


Until you can demonstrate ONE DATA SET that contradicts the Theory the THEORY IS VALID.


Light seems to share both a Wave Property AND a Particle Property coinherent.


How can that be? Actually one must look at the Structure of the Electromagnetic Wave and understand what happens to Dimensionality in the Direction of Travel at Light Speed for this to make sense.


At Light Speed a Three Dimensional Object loses a Dimension. The length, l,, becomes Zero at Light Speed because the velocity, v, is equal to the Speed of Light, c, or v = c. So at Light Speed, Light behaves as a Wave because it is at Light Speed.


When you sufficiently slow or stop the Light, then l > 0 as it gains Dimensionality in the Direction of Travel and it behaves as a Particle. because it is a non-zero multiple of l0. (l0 is the length at v = 0)


l = l0(1 - v2/c2)1/2


Lorentzian Length Contraction, relative to that which is traveling at Light Speed, is Lorentzian Length Dilation as the object slowing, from traveling at v = c, to a velocity at v < c. It is RELATIVE to the Frame of the Observer. It works both ways.


Now if you want to argue that my equations are invalid then I just beg you to tell me how the Microprocessor in your Computer works. I beg you to tell me how your GPS works.


It is funny as we use those Equations to DESIGN every modern convenience that you enjoy the Internet. And yet you write that it has not been proven??? Are you reading this asshole? That is proof!!!


It was so much easier to get PAID to teach this then to write to clueless wonders that think that they have a clue when it is so obvious that they do not.


Do you enjoy your fucking machines??? That is PROOF.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:47 | 4234046 ich1baN
ich1baN's picture

The funny thing is Mr. Pseudo Intellectual above doesn't even know the speed of light has been decreasing.... it is not a constant, yet he wouldn't know this fact because his head is so far up the collective ass of other pseudo-intellectuals, he is having a hard time reading.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 00:54 | 4235079 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture



Is it possible that distances and times were mismeasured SINCE c is a VELOCITY and Velocity is a Function of BOTH Distance and Time, both subject to Special Relativity.


Where is your source? I'd like to review that paper.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 01:05 | 4235071 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Really? LMAO How do we know for sure?


The first point is terminology. There is a difference between speed and velocity. Speed is a Scalar whereas Velocity is a Vector. Velocity is a Speed with an associated Direction.


Have you ever read about the Lorentz Transform? Is the GPS Satellite System a good enough example for you? That is the basis for how it works.


It is a matter of Time Dilation. Time is slowed down by the Lorentz Transform at their Orbital Velocity. The onboard clocks run slower than those on Earth. Due to that Time Difference they are about 70 feet from the position of where they ought to be if the Lorentz Transform were, "supposedly" invalid.




You have read that E = mc2 right? Do you believe it? Are Atom Bombs a good enough demonstration for you?


Have you ever heard of Mass Accretion?


Well according to Special Theory of Relativity objects increase in Mass at increased velocities.


It is such that m = mo/[(1 - v2/c2)1/2] where m is Relativistic Mass, mo is Rest Mass, v is Velocity, and c is the Velocity of Light.


Multiplying each sideof that Equation by c2 yields


mc2 = moc2/[(1 - v2/c2)1/2]


Since E = mc2 and substituing that into the previous Equation yields


E = moc2/[(1 - v2/c2)1/2]


Note that the term, [(1 - v2/c2)1/2], is the Demoninator of the Fraction, is the Lorentz Transform.


If we were to allow v, our velocity, our speed, to approach that of c, the velocity of Light then the term, v2/c2, approaches One. At v = c, v2/c2 = 1.


Therefore the Denomiator of the fraction, [(1 - v2/c2)1/2] , at v = c, EQUALS ZERO. Thus the Fraction,  moc2/[(1 - v2/c2)1/2] = moc2/0, and is UNDEFINED in the Algebra.


But in Calculus we are interested in what happens while the Fraction is becoming undefined. As v approaches c the Fraction grows to become INFINITE.


Thus the LIMIT, as v approaches c, of E = moc2/[(1 - v2/c2)1/2] is equal to INFINITY.


Remembering that E is Energy it takes an INFINITE amount of Energy for a Rest Mass, mo, to travel at the velocity of Light, c.


There are LIMITS to the Physical Universe, in the Physical Universe.. I am sorry but there are LIMITS. This happens to be one of them.


Now you can deny the validity of the Lorentz Transform if you want. But the Physical Evidence of your Global Positioning Satellite Systen is a fact. An entire technology has been developed as a result of this EMPIRICAL FACT.


You can deny Einstiens Mass-Energy Equivalence statement, E = mc2, if you shall so choose. But again the facts of Hiroshima, Nagasaki,  and every single Nuclear Reactor in existence are testimony to the validity of that statement. It is an EMPIRICAL FACT.




But you can live in Fantasyland if you so shall choose. This is not about what "they" tell you. This is about the FUCKING MATH. This is about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE....what we have SEEN...OBSERVED.


It is not about "them" wanting to stifle your dreaming or your "...getting away from [y]our enslavement on this tortured fucking planet..."


It is about telling you the TRUTH about REALITY so that you can be informed so as NOT TO WASTE YOUR FUCKING TIME IN DREAMLAND and take proper measures to care for yourself and those whom you love.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:15 | 4233754 Kayman
Kayman's picture

2+2=100 in fractional reserve banking.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:46 | 4234038 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Theoretically.  Some "believe" it can go higher, and are working to prove it so.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:03 | 4234251 pomlad5
pomlad5's picture

10+10=100 in binary

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:14 | 4233757 Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

True stacking. All the millions of dollars in .gov grants floating around, has given us the wondrous science of climate, where we now can say with absolute accuracy what temperature the earth will be in 50 years, but not whether or not it will rain today.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:08 | 4234111 Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Aw. That impartial titan of incorruptable science, Dr David Suzuki, must have detected my sarc.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:17 | 4233971 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

"no amount of bribes can cause 2 plus 2 to equal 5"

Fortunately 2+2=4 doesn't depend on the scientific method.

"The a priori categories are the mental equipment by dint of which man is able to think and to experience and thus to acquire knowledge. Their truth or validity cannot be proved or refuted as can those of a posteriori propositions, because they are precisely the instrument that enables us to distinguish what is true or valid from what is not." -


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:37 | 4233602 Cursive
Cursive's picture


Tesla was reared for the priesthood.  Never showed interest in women (or men).  True genius.  Einstein will be mostly discredited in another century.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:45 | 4233864 frenzic
frenzic's picture


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:41 | 4233619 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

Ben Franklin gave important inventions away.  Einstein wanted to try to take one back,  to save everyone.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:57 | 4234075 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Confiscated nothing, he had over 300 patents to his name all part of the public record. You can look them up and use them, build them, whatever you like, without asking anyone's permission and without paying a cent.

As for dying broke, at the time of his death he had 2 suites at the Hotel New Yorker in New York City, which he had occupied for over 10 years. He had all the money he needed and plenty of wealthy and influential friends.

Just because he didn't  ride down Broadway in a limousine full of show girls throwing champagne bottles out the window, do not assume he was broke.

He died during WW2 at a time that his homeland was occupied by  Hitler's armies and his nearest relatives were German subjects. No wonder the government did not want to hand over his inventions, patents etc.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:11 | 4234418 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

The Tesla knowledge disinformation guardians are out in force. I have some theories on where they originate, but I'm not even sure the Hedge is ready for my speculation. Yeah, his patents are out there, but his working notes were taken, and I, for reasons that remain murky, can't peruse them even today. That fact alone is anomalous. It would be interesting to know who has physical possesion of those notes. We do know the FBI was involved, so you can make basic assumptions at that point.

Here are some more facts for the cover up bridgade. Edison and his people broke Tesla, and he was forced to literally dig ditches to survive for a year. He died broke. I read an account, so I may confuse some details, but he was broke, and a small pension from Serbia was arranged. 

As for the last part, on our friends in the "government", OK, so why hasn't what they hid from Nazi Germany been released, and I'm not talking about his patents. He was attacked his whole life when it became apparent that he had the ability to change the World. If Tesla walked today, he would have been assissinated is my best guess. They won't allow a mind like Tesla to exist. They snuff them out on a regular basis.

Diogenes, tell us, who is your master? Who do you take orders from? This isn't someone injecting an interesting comment, this is someone with an agenda. What is your agenda, and who created it for you? Tell us more about the origin of this post. I'm very interested. Tell us what you can, if you dare.



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:20 | 4234518 akak
akak's picture

Not to attack you personally, Nick, but I have found that those who most hold up Nicola Tesla as some kind of suppressed and persecuted genius are almost invariably the least technologically knowledgeable.  His inventions and ideas may have been threatening to certain powers back in his day, but I have yet to EVER read anything specific on just what those ideas or inventions actually were --- not airy speculations and vague references, but cold hard, scientifically literate suggestions and facts. 

If you can supply any such references and facts, I would appreciate reading them.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:57 | 4234616 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

I appreciate the dialog. I've been a Tesla bug on and off for years. Something will catch my eye, and off I go. Least technologically knowledgeable, hmmm, I have an engineering degree, and a minor in one of the sciences, and I work in the field. Uh oh, meta data harvest. I really don't know if you are trolling or not, but take a look at Wardenclyffe. Funny how something like that gets destroyed, all resources pulled, but then again, I'm the least technologically knowledgeable, and I'm sure Tesla hit a dead end with that line of inquiry.

Here is a funny quote from our friiends at wikipedia. Kind of closes things nicely, and with good reason too. Remember, they are always looking out for your health and well being.

"In July 4, 1917, during World War I, the tower was demolished with dynamite on orders of the United States Government which feared German spies were using it and that it could be used as a landmark for German submarines.[10][11] Tesla was not in New York during the tower's destruction".

I think you are a troll, a guardian. All this information is easily available, on what happened. For the whats, there is good hard reference for you. The whys, hmmm, now we can start speculating.

It just never stops fascinating me. Here is another quote from our friends at wikipedia.

"George Boldt wished to make the property available for sale. On April 20, 1922, Tesla lost an appeal of judgment versus his backers in the second foreclosure. This effectively locked Tesla out of any future development of the facility"

So wikipedia let it out, boo hoo, Tesla was willing to fight the bankers for this project. Maybe he did think in the end it had some merit. I'm not sure if I really give the inventor of AC electricity any credence to his wacky belief system.

Come on man, give me a clue, a riddle, on who is behind this and you. It is almost as fascinating as Tesla, but not really.



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:00 | 4234660 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Being an engineer, if that is the case, then why did you not respond that Tesla is directly responsible for the Electricity being upplied to Akak's Computer as it is Alternating Current manifested through Mechanical and Thermodynamical means...


If you did not know that it was Tesla who is responsible, being a Self Proclaimed "Tesla Bug", then I am shocked at your lack of knowledge...


Then you have the arrogance to insult Akak as a Troll???


Read my response to Akak following this reply.


Fuck you.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:48 | 4234621 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Tesla was directly responsible for the Alternating Current Induction Motor. (That is why Edison did not like him.) This is too easy to verify.


Tesla gained experience in telephony and electrical engineering before emigrating to the United States in 1884 to work for Thomas Edison. He soon struck out on his own with financial backers, setting up laboratories and companies to develop a range of electrical devices. His patented AC induction motor and transformer were licensed by George Westinghouse, who also hired Tesla as a consultant to help develop a power system using alternating current.


You ought to read about him.



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:00 | 4234655 akak
akak's picture


Thank you.  Yes, I did know about Tesla's association with George Westinghouse, his development of AC electrical delivery, and his early association with, and later animosity with, Thomas Edison.

My earlier comments regarding certain Tesla proponents are far removed from any of that, though --- many of them talk vaguely about unscientific theories such as "free energy", "scalar waves" and other such nonsense supposedly developed by Tesla, but I have found nothing but pseudoscientific gobbledygook in such speculations and theories.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 01:09 | 4235097 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

You guys are funny actually. I mean seriously, I'm having a good laugh, and that is worth its weight in gold. There are some strange creatures on this site, that is why I like it. Keep the love my friend, keep the love.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:36 | 4234160 putaipan
putaipan's picture

got that right blotto- i'm thinkin' this lil' anecdote was before he was given the "keys to the city" .. you know a little traumatizing teaser to make him ripe for initiation.  just speculatin', but i don't think he lost like that after being made ward of the bank.

inna better world -stacking, inna better world ....

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:35 | 4234342 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

As I get older, aging like a fine wine, I put on my monocles, and take a quick look around for what is NOT happening. Tesla invented the 20th century, almost single handedly. What is NOT happening is as a society, a world, we pursue every piece of recorded knowledge of the smartest scientist known to modern man, recreate all his experiments, and extemd that knowledge. That is not happening. A few men are trying, but for reasons that remain murky, resources refuse to flow in that direction. Science, my ass, education, university, r&d, a big practical joke played on humanity, as contradictions are not explored, but covered up.

I can see clearly what is not happening, but I read tonight, the Kards are showing couter on TV for all the slaves to see, lol.


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:21 | 4233529 Balvan
Balvan's picture

Iscaac didn't have Yellen and QE

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:24 | 4233538 Its Only Rock N Roll
Its Only Rock N Roll's picture

But Sir Isaac did not have the benefit of 3:30 PM Ramp Capital LLC 

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:26 | 4233549 Sufiy
Sufiy's picture


Wake up and Smell the tulips - When will the Bitcoin Bubble burst?

  "Madness of crowds is presented on the chart above and it is our top pick for the chart of 2013. Erik Steiner has created a very good presentation on Bitcoin: discussing in depth advantages and disadvantages of this particular crypto-currency and why it is now in the Bubble stage. His observations about the possibility that the Ponzi Scheme architecture is created by design in Bitcoin are very intriguing.

  We will add that recent push of Bitcoin by Bank of America, CITI and Merrill Lynch are not very aligned with the "freedom fighters". It looks more and more that corporate interests are already running it wild if they were not the creators of "Gold 2.0" from the beginning in order to distract 99% from the real values of Gold and Silver. 

  Latest report from China shows that not all the world went crazy these days."

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:30 | 4233556 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

Does Obamacare cover schadenfreude?  Because mine has been acting up lately.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:38 | 4233605 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

On a happier note, I've noticed it's better than any antidepressant on the market.  I'm happy and the only side effects are those of the others suffering.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:39 | 4233569 Frozen IcQb
Frozen IcQb's picture

Been there also. :(

BTW, vote up if that has never happened to you

or vote down if it did.

survey says...

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:34 | 4233586 Cursive
Cursive's picture

He is a fool who owns equities and considers himself an investor rather than a speculator.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:34 | 4233587 JailBank
JailBank's picture

Damn near the same chart reflects my jump in to PMs about 3.5 years ago. At least I have them still.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:01 | 4233708 long-shorty
long-shorty's picture

When gold topped in the early 80s, the value of the gold above ground was roughly equal to U.S. M2 money supply. The same was true in 2011. At times, the ratio of the value of gold above ground to M2 has gotten as low as 0.25x.

If we get a couple more years of QE, gold at current prices could be pretty close to the midpoint of its historical range.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:44 | 4233589 frankTHE COIN
frankTHE COIN's picture

Humans are the only mammals in history to rely 100 percent on standing and running upright. The human body is the greatest engineered machine in history. It carries the greatest computer, the Brain.
Aristotle studied humans running and discovered the Center of Gravity and Rotary Motion. He invented Physical Science or Physics. ( it was improved upon by Newton later )
Newton wrote Principia Mathmatica which defines the field of Physics as we know it today. Inside Principia he invented Calculus, explained his theory of Gravity and his 3 laws of Motion. 1) A body at rest remains at rest. 2) A body in motion remains in motion 3) To every action is an equal and opposite reaction.
The core of these principles are what the HFT have molded into their trading programs with a hint of Probability analysis.
It's almost as if we are versus the terminator.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:49 | 4233873 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

So you flunked high school physics, eh?

"Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarized as follows:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3]

Second law: The sum of the forces on an object is equal to the total mass of that object multiplied by the acceleration of the object. In more technical terms, the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object. Force and acceleration are both vectors (as denoted by the bold type). This means that they have both a magnitude (size) and a direction relative to some reference frame.

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."'s_laws_of_motion

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:06 | 4233955 frankTHE COIN
frankTHE COIN's picture

Ouch. I see you don't know how to spot paraphrasing.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:09 | 4234110 YuShun
YuShun's picture

Ouch.  You confuse "know" and "no".
Are you drunk or just very young?

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:11 | 4234117 YuShun
YuShun's picture

Congratulations on correcting your error.
Clearly you are not drunk. 

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:32 | 4234165 frankTHE COIN
frankTHE COIN's picture

And you are a fair and honorable fighter.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 21:27 | 4234545 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

Flunking high schools physics is an asset in my mind. Flunkies may be able to recognize a contradiction, and you won't get on your high horse about how smart you are, and appeal to authority. I would take a flunky any day of the year before one these academics. A flunky may actually be able to observe without trying to preconclude. Thank you good people of the Hedge. I've had my rage reduction completed for the day. We will see tomorrow. It may get easier, but I doubt it.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:40 | 4233613 jtz5
jtz5's picture

“To buy when others are despondently selling and sell when others are greedily buying requires the greatest fortitude and pays the greatest reward.”

I've been doing this since 2011 and it hasn't worked.  Going against the crowd has not worked since 2009.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:46 | 4233621 Randoom Thought
Randoom Thought's picture

It makes perfect sense. The so called "markets" are designed to trap logical people who believe in free market dynamics and to steal money from them. Newton being highly intelligent and logical must not have understood that the market was (and still is) a complete scam designed by immoral and unethical dirtbags.

What free market moves in the opposite direction of sentiment? None? Right! Proof done. It is not that amateurs do not understand sentiment. It is that amateurs are honest and trusting people and cannot conceive that the market is specifically designed to defraud and transfer money and power to the insiders who run it (and their cronies ... such as bought and paid for politicians).

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:44 | 4233634 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

Today, he would just pout to Congress and then they would give him a bailout. 

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:41 | 4234180 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Sir Isaac Newton also spent considerable time and effort with alchemy. That is he tried to create gold out of lesser metals. A fiat experiment in its own way.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:09 | 4233740 koan
koan's picture

South Sea > Bank of England > good lord what a can of worms this all is.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:15 | 4233750 muleskinner
muleskinner's picture

The South Sea Company engaged in the business of slave trading.  The business was prone to mutiny on slave ships.  Capturing slaves and selling them into bondage was a standard practice in the Eighteenth Century and the South Sea Company was looking to have a monopoly.  The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.  Isaac was hoping to cash in on the deal.

Sow the wind, reap a whirlwind.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:38 | 4233848 AUD
AUD's picture

Bullshit. The South Sea Company did nothing.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:35 | 4233827 highwaytoserfdom
highwaytoserfdom's picture

In the words of Sir John Templeton,

“To buy when others are despondently selling and sell when others are greedily buying requires the greatest fortitude and pays the greatest reward.”



John also said in 2006 that US real estate was 90% yea thats right ninty percent overvalued. 


This selling Yellin is awful smellen.



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:37 | 4233838 Fix-ItSilly
Fix-ItSilly's picture

Why would anyone use Isaac Newton for a reference?  For years he chased alchemy.  Sure, he had his famous moments, but he had immense failures other than that described above.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:44 | 4233863 bdub2
bdub2's picture

Someday they'll look back on BernankeYellenSpan referencing their utter pawn like contribution to the total collapse of Merica. And I hope someone steps up and defends them saying, "sure they collapsed a once proud nation, and created financial genocide,  but they had their good points too. 

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 01:29 | 4235137 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

His Physics works. It is an accurate description of the Physical Universe. It is pragmatic.


As for his expeience in Alchemy he was at least exploring of what was to become Modern Chemistry.


It is much better to explore than to sit and contribute nothing.


So what have you accomplished in your life? Where is your name in the annals of Scientific Knowledge? What have you contributed to the advancement of civilization? Nothing?!? I thought so...


So just who are you to judge?

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:57 | 4233900 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

that graph looks like my house price



Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:17 | 4233974 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Hey, Twitter is up 25% in the past week, no worries!

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:43 | 4234031 deflator
deflator's picture

 We are at "Newton exits happy".

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:06 | 4234099 Sokhmate
Sokhmate's picture

Newton calculated world ends in 2060. Should we believe him?

Thu, 12/12/2013 - 15:39 | 4240643 David Wooten
David Wooten's picture

Actually, Newton said the world would end no earlier than 2060 - and said so in reply to those of his time (as in all times) who were saying the end times are 'near'.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:23 | 4234142 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

This chart reminds me of investing in Gold in 2012.

Truth IS a bitch, eh?

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:58 | 4234235 it aint easy
it aint easy's picture

In dollars it's been a bitch, admittedly. In ounces it's currently a blast.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:24 | 4234147 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

How ironic that the person who invented Derivatives went broke.

I guess he was too busy to take the 2nd Derivative.

/math joke

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:20 | 4234198 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

“I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men.”...

You certainly may not have been good with your investments.

But how prophetic your words were "on the madness of men", especially the ones that commit scientific fraud dealing with objects in motion 284 years later in a place called Gaithersburg Maryland.

Thanks for doing what you did better than anyone else with your Laws I, II and III

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 19:56 | 4234226 walküre
walküre's picture

How ironic that Newton's science was instrumental in creating computers and of course "Algos" much much later. He was on the right track but way ahead of his time. Clearly he should have held on a couple hundred years longer and made a huge profit again.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:12 | 4234276 monad
monad's picture

Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - PKD

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:26 | 4234312 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

That probably contributed to why Newton was a fucking asshole to anyone who went against his grain.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:53 | 4234398 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Yeah that might be true.

Especially when scientists dedicate there professional lives to seeking truths and knowledge about the world and universe that surrounds them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Issac got drunk after losing that money at least once and belted out something about the member of the Rothschild family that probably talked him out of more money on the "South Sea" deal, and how those who manage money as a profession tend to be the most corrupt and dishonest unlike in his.

Wed, 12/11/2013 - 01:37 | 4235144 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

It is not a "might be true". He was an asshole, and a Royal Asshole at that. (I can understand. There was few which he could hold an intelligent conversation with.)


On Newton's Deathbed he was asked what he felt was his greatest accomplishment in his life. He answered that he was dying as a virgin.


He never got laid.

Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:40 | 4234370 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

It's a binary question = Has the Fed successfully "outlawed" gravity with QE ^ ?


Tue, 12/10/2013 - 23:23 | 4234873 reader2010
reader2010's picture

"Education doesn't make you smarter." —Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!