What is demand? Where does it come from?

Goldwing Tom wrote:Though your definition of gravity is accurate, it is not complete. Gravity is a force which creates masses by drawing small entities into larger entities such that the smaller entities lose their separateness of identity by becoming part of the larger mass. It is the basis for democracy (majority rules), and it is the force that creates "common sense." It is not coincidental that "grave thoughts" (aka common sense) bears the base word for gravity. It is because that is the force that creates the mass bearing those thoughts, whether those thoughts are valid or not.

There is a correlation, but you are missing the causation. It is not the physical phenomena that causes people to think alike, it by way of human interaction. People naturally look to other people to find ideas. Someone being very influencial does not mean that they have more gravitational force, just that something about his thoughts or the way they were presented was something that people decided to change their mind about. It might seem like a mysterious force pulling people to certain ways of thought, but it is really people making choices. Certain types of thought are more or less attractive to groups of people based on how well those thoughts meet each individuals preferences.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Your claim that "light" is merely a metaphor is equally short-sighted, for it will be the principles of enlightenment through which your dream for a free market economy will come to fruition. It will be dual-natured and quantitative, or your dream will not come "to light" within the gravitational masses as common sense..

The free market is not light. The light is not free market. The thing is, no matter how applicable a metaphor, it is still a metaphor. Just like words aren't the actual subject that we are talking of. For example, if I say "light", I am not meaning the free market surely, but I am also not meaning the word "light". Instead, I am describing those photons that we think are massless that move in waves. You see, just like words are useful in describing things and ideas, metaphors are good at describing them too. However, just as the word "light" isn't actually light, a metaphor isn't the actual reality... it just illustrates a perspective on the truth of the matter.

Goldwing Tom wrote:If you believe people's thoughts are immaterial, then the best you can do is accidentally defy the gravity of their thoughts. However, if you can start pulling apart their separateness from the masses that exist by using the principles of light, you will find your task much easier. I have not found that key, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. The best I have been able to do is to get concessions, but mostly I get arguments.

How can I defy something that doesn't exist? I believe that people have a tendency to spread ideas throughout their population, that doesn't mean that I think gravity is what does it.

Goldwing Tom wrote:So, if thoughts are not waves, and waves are not things, then I suppose Edison was just an idiot for thinking he could capture the words of Jesus, and the government had no need to seize his research when he died. Do you suppose he intended to go back in time or out into space, and what is the difference? I think he knew that there would be little gravity to contend with, and he would be able to find it by seeking out the "lightest waves," which, of course, would float above the "waves of common sense," which would be heavier because of the combined mass inherent in common sense.

Waves are things. I do not agree with these analogies like you do, so I can't really elaborate on them the same way you would.

Goldwing Tom wrote:While you contend that gravity only affects massive entities, you seem to miss that it bends light which is a photon that has no mass. Or maybe the stars we see are not really behind other stars and planets as scientists contend. Perhaps you think it bends only the particles, but those would only serve to create photons through quantitative interaction with electrons here. We see the photons, not the particles.

This is something that is still being investigated and has many unanswered questions for physicists. Light is an energy but shares some characteristics with matter. Regardless, light being bent by gravity does not convince me that thoughts are bent by gravity.

Goldwing Tom wrote:This is probably a bit deep for the economics board, and maybe should be a subject on the philosophy board. Both Keynes and Nozick went beyond economics into philosophy. The former you disagree with his economic platitudes, and the latter you are in concert with on his theory of economic justice.

Economics often leads to conversation of religion and philosophy.

Goldwing Tom wrote:You have an uphill battle, my friend. Your thoughts are light, not grave. If you can make them both, you will succeed. If not, then they will always be "over the heads" of common people floating out there somewhere that only Edison and the government know for certain.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I think you have a point. However, I am not willing to dilute my ideas simply because people want to hear something different.