Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Are You Rich Or Wealthy?

FYI: If one were to participate in one of my company’s meeting, they would most likely hear a conversation surrounding Charlie Munger’s concept of mental models. Munger believes one should study and understand the fundamentals of multiple core subjects, such as math and physics. Fundamentally understanding those subjects develops new mental models to solve an array of problems. Let’s take Munger’s mental-model concept and applying it to financial planning, and how there should be a theory of relatively for wealth.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/10/23/are-you-rich-or-wealthy

Comments

  • [Special relativity twin paradox]
    Because the twin traveling is moving close to the speed of light when they return, the time it took them to travel millions of miles may have only been a few days, while the lapse of time for the twin on Earth may have been multiple years. Time was relative to the rate at which the twin was traveling.
    Just another example of a financial writer lifting something out of context, not comprehending it, and then misapplying it.

    The whole point of special relativity is that there are no absolute positions or motions, everything is relative. (Only the speed of light is absolute.) You cannot say that one twin is traveling away from the earth and that the other twin is "standing still". Such a suggestion reeks of Ptolemy. From each twin's perspective, it is the other twin who is moving.

    If neither twin altered course (so that, relatively speaking, both continued traveling in straight lines), then each would see the other aging more slowly and each would be correct. It is when one twin reverses direction that the twin moves from one frame of reference to another and that time appears to "jump".

    Here's what's happening:
    https://properphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/a-no-nonsense-introduction-to-special-theory-of-relativity-part-4/
  • edited October 2019
    Mr. Bickmore should avoid astrophysics. He understands little. The incorrect explanation of “the twins paradox” Is one instance of his lack of understanding as @msf explained.

    Re a second assertion: “Einstein theorized there was no fixed frame of reference in the universe, and everything moves relative to everything else.

    Yes, originally. But Einstein later abandoned that concept after the 1929 findings by Edwin Hubble which pointed to an expanding universe. The now widely accepted “fixed frame of reference” is the Big Bang - from which everything is moving away

    Here’s how Wikipedia explains Einstein’s earlier static universe and how his belief changed as new data became available:

    “Einstein's static universe, also known as the Einstein universe or the Einstein world, is a relativistic model of the universe proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. Shortly after completing the general theory of relativity, Einstein applied his new theory of gravity to the universe as a whole. Assuming a universe that was static in time, and possessed of a uniform distribution of matter on the largest scales, Einstein was led to a finite, static universe of spherical spatial curvature.“

    “Following the discovery by Edwin Hubble of a linear relation between the redshifts of the galaxies and their distance in 1929, Einstein abandoned his static model of the universe and proposed expanding models such as the Friedmann-Einstein universe and the Einstein-de Sitter universe. In both cases, he set the cosmological constant to zero, declaring it ‘no longer necessary ... and theoretically unsatisfactory.’ “


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_static_universe
  • I feel like I'm both but probably not either in strictly financial terms. It all depends on ones perspective I suppose.
  • edited October 2019
    Mark said:

    I feel like I'm both but probably not either in strictly financial terms. It all depends on ones perspective I suppose.

    I’m always thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I ...

    No matter how well-off you feel, there’s a plethora of things that can jump up and bite you - “Riches to Rags” call it. For some perspective on how well we have it, take a walk down the sidewalks of virtually city and witness those less fortunate camped out under the store fronts and overpasses.
Sign In or Register to comment.