Masters in Electrical Engineering
Occupation in Semi-conductors
Who on this forum has a degree in economics?
@Orthogonal - thank you for your reply! It is quite fascinating to hear that they are currently working on testing their hypothesis on the electric sun model. I cannot wait to see the result of the experiment. If you have any more information on this, please update it on this thread and perhaps it will change a lot of people’s minds about the electric university theory.
For some reason, the electric universe theory appears to make a lot of sense to me.
I’d love to get a degree in economics, but I don’t think it would pay as well…
Who on this forum has a degree in economics?
I’m glad you asked, because I think it important to emphasize the differences between economics and physics since, say, Newton. I see three huge differences.
- Economics is still simple enough that all results can be deduced [and explained] in a short time from first principles.
Physics, on the other hand, is so advanced that it takes whole books full of intricate reasoning to prove something. In particular, you have to know tons of math to even understand the statement of some ideas.
- The first principles themselves are intuitive and one might say self evident.
In physics, this is not true at all. F=ma is far from intuive, not mention things like the uncertainty principle.
- A degree in Economics from a standard instituion of learning is worse than useless. It has no predictive value, quite the opposite. Plus, many a mind on this very site has been forever twisted and ruined by what it was exposed to in universities.
What is taught in physics courses is generally accepted as useful, and the proof is the predictive value.
Coclusion: without studying physics, one has no clue. Vitor wrote that it’s ridiculous to the point of an LOL to think that the Sun isn’t powered by nuclear explosions, but by electricity. Can anyone here who has not studied physics explain why he is right or wrong?
Contrast this with economics, where articles are written here all the time debunking various mainstream notions. There is nothing complicated about them, and they build on obvious first principles. An intelligent five year old can understand.
That’s why I ask when someone makes an assertion about this particular thread about their cred.
It would be better still if they would lay out the gist of their arguments. For example, something like, "The daily energy produced by the sun is X [with link provided]. Only nuclear reactions can possibly produce that kind of energy, given the Sun’s mass [equation plus link]. Electricity will not provide enough energy [equation plus link].
The other side could then show the flaw, if any, in that proof.
With a bachelor degree in economics you can make a solid $60K+ as analyst for a top tier BB. And that’s just base salary, not including bonus (which is not so great for first year analysts, something like $20K or less).
And if you have an MS or PhD you can apply for an associate position and earn well into $100K, with a bigger bonus. Not many people get a 6-figure salary on their first job, and most of them are Ivy League lawyers and doctors.
If you’re reasonably competent and hardworking you can expect to get promoted to VP in 5-7 years and managing director in 10-13.
Managing Directors are paid $300K-$600K plus bonuses that are often more than $1M.
So if you graduate from a good school with a MS on economics and finance at the age of 23 you are not being unrealistic to expect to be making $1M+ a year at the age of 35 and retire quite rich at any point after 45.
Of course you don’t need a degree in economics and finance to work for Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs, there are a lot of engineers, physicists and mathematicians, and of course the large majority of MBAs doing the less quantitative (boring) stuff bankers do (and making good money).
But it will help to have studied these fields. Of course MBAs have the possibility of becoming senior executives and making some real money, but MS and PhDs do cooler things during their careers, so that’s a tradeoff.
Of course all these figures were way juicier before 2008.
1. http://www.epi.org/publication/college_graduates_supply_and_demand/
The gist of that article:
Employers are now filling vacancies for recent college graduates in a number equal to only 20% of their class.
Many of the largest areas of future job growth in the American economy are in occupations requiring little skill, not even a two-year post-secondary credential – waiters and waitresses, retail salespersons, truck drivers, janitors, home health aides.
2. http://www.aeaweb.org/students/Careers.php
Average Starting Salary Offers to Inexperienced Bachelor’s Degree Recipients by Curriculum, Summer 2007
| Baccalaureate Curriculum | Salary |
|---|---|
| Chemical Engineering | $59,361 |
| Electrical/electronics Engineering | $55,292 |
| Computer Science | $53,396 |
| Civil Engineering | $48,509 |
| Economics | $48,483 |
| Finance | $47,239 |
| Accounting | $46,718 |
| Business Administration/Management | $43,701 |
How many economics majors are there?
89,000.
In 2003, there were 89,000 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in economics courses in the United States. This represents 0.4% of all enrolment for the year. 82.2% of economics students are under the age of 25, and almost 79% are enrolled in 4-year undergraduate institutions. In 2006 a total of 22,821 Economics degrees were awarded throughout the United States.
This fact is verified on : March 8, 2010. All facts are verified every 6 month after the last modification.
So every single year there are 22,000 new job openings in economics? Why is there a need for 22,000 new economists each and every year, forever? What is crying out to be done out there that needs an army of 22,000 economists more every single year to do it? Which companies are tearing their hair in frustrations as we speak, crying out, “If only I had a few hundred more economists working for me, then I could really make money! My kingdom for an economist! What a lost opportunity, what a shame, that all 22,000 economists from last year’s batch were hired by the competition. Now I’ll have to wait for next year, and grab me some economists from the new crop. Oh, had I only acted sooner!”
And they will all be making $1M+ a year at the age of 35? This means, of course, that their companies are making more than $1M+ a year because that economist is sitting there in his office, or else he would be laid off. What exactly are these 22,000 people going to be doing at age 35 that is worth a million dollars a year to their employers?
Putting these statistics together, every year all the companies across America are pulling in over $22 billion more than the year before, each and every year. And all because they hire 22,000 economists each and every year.
I dunno, maybe this is all true. Maybe all I have to do is hire an economist and my business will grow exponentially. I better get in on the ground floor here, and hire ten or fifteen.
Dude, there are a lot of things an economics major can do in the private sector besides being a government technocrat or a professor of economics.
My post was about one career path in the business of financial quantitative analysis, for which I have more knowledge, but there are many others, like trading, actuaries, logistics, marketing research, big data and so on.
Of course few or none of these jobs are offered exclusively to economics majors, but most white collar jobs are like that.
Of course job offers for junior engineer in a chemical plant cannot be filled by an accountant, but these are the exceptions.
Most engineers end up doing something more or less unrelated with their major.
Toxic, that last post of yours does read like something a university trained economist would write in response to my questions.
So yes, expect success in your chosen field.
Walter Block must be an incompetent economist, as he is supposed to make only $160,000-$180,000 a year, much of which he makes from selling books and giving speeches. What a dummy for not making $1,000,000+.
One more thing I should have put in my first post that is worth clarifying. The Electric Model of the Sun does not reject fusion occuring in the Sun, only that it rejects the current theory of fusion occuring at the core of the Sun as the primary reaction. The Electric Model claims that very little if anything is happening below the surface. Instead, the model explains that whatever fusion is occuring is happining in the Chromosphere, just above the surface of the Sun in electro-magnetic z-pinches.. Interestingly, the z-pinch is the primary method that most fusion energy projects on earth are attempting to re-create.
An interesting side note. Eric Lerner, who is a Plasma Physicist and a man who also rejects the Big Bang as evidenced by his book “The Big Bang Never Happened”. He’s not affiliated with the Electric Universe folks, but he has collaborated with them, I think he advocates Steady State Universe He is currently working on an anutronic Dense Plasma Focus device using a pinch method quite different than Tokamok (the Gov’t boondogle) to achieve fusion. As of the end of 2012 they are the closest to achieving net positive energy fusion. They have achieved 2 out of 3 requirements for fusion: confinement time and minimum temperature threshold, they only lack the necessary plasma density. Lerner predicts they will achieve this in 2013. It would be a momentus occasion in fusion development, and the fact that it came from some scientific outcasts, working basically in a garage and funded solely on donations and private investors, is a fantastic statement about the power of markets and idea’s outside of government funded establishment dogma.
If you are interested, here is a 2007 Google Tech talk Lerner gave on his DPF device.
I do, so never ever ever question what I say on Economics because those without a degree in the subject can’t say anything of use about it. Further never ever question my brother on physics since he has a Theoretical Physics masters. Bow before the might of government accredited institutions.
I’m glad Physiocrat understands how things really work.
Clayton: Prove what?? Physicists themselves tell us that the center of a black hole is a point of infinite density… “Physics” that invoke infinite physical magnitudes is not physics, it is metaphysics.
Infinities have shown up before in physics. Usually they are taken to indicate a lack of understanding, rather than accepted at face value. For example, this infinity was a harbinger of QM theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
Electric Universe theory would probably have infinities too, if it had actual equations.
Orthogonal: The Electric Model claims that very little if anything is happening below the surface.
They have achieved 2 out of 3 requirements for fusion: confinement time and minimum temperature threshold, they only lack the necessary plasma density.
If only the plasma had enough density… like, for example, from having the weight of a frigging star bearing down on it.
>They have achieved 2 out of 3 requirements for fusion: confinement time and minimum temperature threshold, they only lack the necessary plasma density.
If only the plasma had enough density… like, for example, from having the weight of a frigging star bearing down on it.
Huh? The Fusion projects are using electromagnetic Z-Pinches, a completely different mechanism than the CNO Fusion cycle proposed in the core of stars.
As for black holes, they are non-sense. They don’t even satisfy the mathematical model for their existence. The assertion of black holes came about because Cosmologists were at a loss to explain extreme energy events in space but only having Gravity, a relatively weak force, to explain it. However, the solutions for the black hole are not consistent with General Relativity.
There are 2 known solutions to the alleged black hole using Einstein’s field equations. The first solution uses a set of field equations that define a universe with no ojbects, just empty space. Obviously, the universe is not empty so this solution is irrelevant. The 2nd solution for black holes uses a set of field equations with only 1 object in the Universe. This is non-sense, since the universe obviously has more than 1 object, it’s further non-sense because gravity requires a minimum of 2 objects. There needs to be one to pull on the other.
There are no known solutions for a Black Hole using field equations with 2 or more bodies. However, that didn’t stop mathemeticians from substituting the solution for a black hole with equtions from single body field equations and putting them into field equations for N bodies and then finding a solution. It is a qualitative illegal operation.
@Orthogonal : do you happen to know if there was any response from the Electric Universe community regarding the recently discovered Higgs’ Boson particle? How is this discovery (if proven to exist) fit into the electric universe theory/model? What do you think about the Hadron Collider? Please lend me your thoughts.
I haven’t heard any response from them and a quick search on their main site didn’t yield any results. I’m not sure they even care what establishment physics claims any more.
Quantum physics is just a theory of particles, so the only explanation it can have for anything is another particle. What’s never explained ithe physical model for how the particle does what it’s supposed to do?
Strong Force? The gluon, how does a gluon pull on a proton? They never explain, they just say its a field, like gravity, but what is a field? If you ask them to draw it or make a movie about it, they are at a loss because it is just a concept. The “field” explanation is just a placeholder to tell you something is going on, but they can’t explain it rationally.
Gravity? It’s a graviton, it imparts Negative Momentum. It’s like saying if you were hit with a baseball, instead of being knocked back, you were pushed towards the impact. Nevermind the fact that this sounds like complete lunacy, you are supposedly emitting graviton particles as we speak, you are also being relentlessly pelted by gravitons by every other object in the universe that impart negative momentum to push you towards them. Considering how absurd this is, it’s been mostly shelved and no serious investigation is being pursued, but Quantum demands it exists.
Higgs is no different. It’s a particle that imparts “Mass” on other particles. Ok, then what gives mass to the Higgs? It’s just moving the goal posts. There will always be more particles for them to find, otherwise their funding will dry up so don’t worry, they’ll postulate more and keep building ever bigger colliders to find them.
Not sure if you’re trolling or just seriously misinformed… anyway you’re being the exact opposite of what Mises is pleading for here:
“What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence” - Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economics
The assertion of black holes came about because Cosmologists were at a loss to explain extreme energy events in space but only having Gravity, a relatively weak force, to explain it.
Wrong. “The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783” - See “Black hole” on Wikipedia
However, the solutions for the black hole are not consistent with General Relativity.
Wrong again. “The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations” - See “Schwarzschild metric” on Wikipedia
The first solution uses a set of field equations that define a universe with no ojbects, just empty space. Obviously, the universe is not empty so this solution is irrelevant. The 2nd solution for black holes uses a set of field equations with only 1 object in the Universe. This is non-sense, since the universe obviously has more than 1 object
That’s incredibly dumb. So every equation in physics is irrelevant because it doesn’t account for every object in the universe? Meanwhile you are typing this drivel on a device built up on simple formulas like V=IR.
it’s further non-sense because gravity requires a minimum of 2 objects. There needs to be one to pull on the other.
Protip: objects are generally made up of multiple pieces. The Einstein field equations involve a stress-energy tensor: “a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime” - See “Stress-energy tensor” on Wikipedia
There are no known solutions for a Black Hole using field equations with 2 or more bodies.
And there are no known closed-form solutions for 3 or more rocks: “it is currently necessary to approximate solutions by numerical analysis in the form of numerical integration or, for some cases, classical trigonometric series approximations” - See “Three-body problem” on Wikipedia. Yet, people still produce ephemerides.
OK, I’m tired of refuting the BS for now. Try growing a few neurons and reading a few physics and math books.
Strong Force? The gluon, how does a gluon pull on a proton? They never explain, they just say its a field, like gravity, but what is a field? If you ask them to draw it or make a movie about it, they are at a loss because it is just a concept.
The protons have little hooks on their periphery and the gluons attach grappling hooks and cables to effect their tiny pulls. Also, water molecules appear blue because the constituent atoms are surrounded by a shell of tiny blue pigment particles.
Is that the explanation you’re hoping for? That microscopic events aren’t at all subtle or abstract, but rather it’s turtles all the way down?
Higgs is no different. It’s a particle that imparts “Mass” on other particles.
No, the Higgs field imparts mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field.
There will always be more particles for them to find, otherwise their funding will dry up so don’t worry, they’ll postulate more and keep building ever bigger colliders to find them.
I know… predicting fundamental particles and then finding and measuring them… like Electric Universe theory hand-waving would be a better way to do science.