Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Megadebt said:

Lack of accurate numbers allows psudoscience too: easy to be a climate change denier in the 90's,  with huge amounts of data and really obvious changes we all notice now and it is much harder to deny man made global warming

Let's steer clear of climate change debate for now as likely to be even more polarising that Covid 😉

But yes some of our cornerstones science didn't happen overnight. Evolution took Darwin much handwringing over unscientific reasons before published - and then possibly because he was worried Alfred Russell Wallace had discovered it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

If it was 3 dimensions then it would be inverse cube as per gravity.

I would have thought inverse square still applies as single action in spherical wave front which accounts for 3d - inverse cube is because of multipoles isn't it ( bit rusty) - so two or more inverse square law obeying items interracting to cancel each other - like magnetic substances. Sorry if this is Johnny age six explanation of it - hopefully someone can do better or happy to be wrong ( enlightened if explained)

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

I would have thought inverse square still applies as single action in spherical wave front which accounts for 3d - inverse cube is because of multipoles isn't it ( bit rusty) - so two or more inverse square law obeying items interracting to cancel each other - like magnetic substances. Sorry if this is Johnny age six explanation of it - hopefully someone can do better or happy to be wrong ( enlightened if explained)

Gravity is inverse square since surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2

Dunno about dipoles

Edited by Si1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought that droplet spread would drop off more quickly than an inverse square law, although there are other factors to consider. Direction is obviously important, but let's say for a given direction then in the absence of any other forces I agree that the droplet per unit area would decrease with the inverse square law. Air resistance will play a big part too though (there'll be a maximum spread it can reach due to that), and gravity, especially for larger droplets. Aerosol suspension too.

It would be a cube law if the same amount of droplets were being dispersed evenly over an increasing volume, but a wavefront is probably a better approximation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

I would have thought inverse square still applies as single action in spherical wave front which accounts for 3d - inverse cube is because of multipoles isn't it ( bit rusty) - so two or more inverse square law obeying items interracting to cancel each other - like magnetic substances. Sorry if this is Johnny age six explanation of it - hopefully someone can do better or happy to be wrong ( enlightened if explained)

 

14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'd have thought that droplet spread would drop off more quickly than an inverse square law, although there are other factors to consider. Direction is obviously important, but let's say for a given direction then in the absence of any other forces I agree that the droplet per unit area would decrease with the inverse square law. Air resistance will play a big part too though (there'll be a maximum spread it can reach due to that), and gravity, especially for larger droplets. Aerosol suspension too.

It would be a cube law if the same amount of droplets were being dispersed evenly over an increasing volume, but a wavefront is probably a better approximation.

It does drop off more quickly than the inverse square, but not as quickly as the inverse cube.

Not worth digging much deeper than this as the where it falls between the two has a lot of, it depends, factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he landed on the moon, Neil Armstrong said he was startled by the complete absence of dust smoke from kicked up regolith, and the fact that kicked up dust followed a ballistic trajectory sometimes far off into the distance. He knew there wouldn't be of course, owing to lack of atmosphere, from science. But it was so unintuitive it shocked him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

It would be a cube law if the same amount of droplets were being dispersed evenly over an increasing volume, but a wavefront is probably a better approximation

 

23 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It does drop off more quickly than the inverse square, but not as quickly as the inverse cube.

Not worth digging much deeper than this as the where it falls between the two has a lot of, it depends, factors. 

Cheers both as said I oversimplified to make it easier to understand. Great to see more detailed explanations though and certainly better / more detailed than I would have been able to give.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Megadebt said:

Philosophers construct perfect worlds whilst science attempts to deconstruct the world under imperfect conditions.

Philosophers have broader concerns than scientists. Epistemology, for example, is the domain of philosophy, rather than science, per se.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

For questions beyond the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world, we need to draw upon broader principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riedquat - I fear you are wasting your time arguing with the drones. You would have thought folk on here after years would have at least been suspicious of official advice but it seems not. I couldn't even bother replying before. It's like trying to explain to rocks.

They didn't mandate masks when they were needed i.e. when the transmission was high. Only when they saw the effect of reduced taxes. Why do people trust the state so? If they are not sending your to war they are trying this crap on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

 

Cheers both as said I oversimplified to make it easier to understand. Great to see more detailed explanations though and certainly better / more detailed than I would have been able to give.

 

  No simplifications required for us here,  we can keep up thanks. 

 Difference between a square and cubic function is literally another dimension, add the 4th variable which is time and complexity increases again exponentially.   

  Likewise your 'sound wave'  wavefront analogy for "2d"  particle projection/thermofluid dynamics/trajectory  is crassly misunderstood...but I get the general idea which is valid.

 Broadly in agreement with most of what you have said,  just this ain't twitter or facebook, precision is key and simple minds here either get shot down in flames or ignored.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Megadebt said:

  No simplifications required for us here,  we can keep up thanks. 

 Difference between a square and cubic function is literally another dimension, add the 4th variable which is time and complexity increases again exponentially.   

  Likewise your 'sound wave'  wavefront analogy for "2d"  particle projection/thermofluid dynamics/trajectory  is crassly misunderstood...but I get the general idea which is valid.

 Broadly in agreement with most of what you have said,  just this ain't twitter or facebook, precision is key and simple minds here either get shot down in flames or ignored.  

 

 

But talking to 3 people who get it or 30 people who see the words thermofluid dynamics and stop is a bit more key. If people won't read a study easily obtainable by Lancet they are unlikely to read up a post of complexity. Mass detail is great but keeping things easily understandible for lay person is better if we want a wide audience. That is not being patronising - I've had meetings with seemingly intelligent people and looked around as they speak, watching others eyes glaze over.

It is why we have the 2m rule - easily understandible, remembered and followed. Same for 10,000 steps or 5 fruit & veg.

The fact we've had pages of posts that masks aren't effective and show me evidence, but it has taken a simplified post about distance travelled to get those with knowledge to pitch in points to a lot of assumed knowledge. Some days this very much does feel like Twitter given content 😉 but get your point.

But in a nutshell if the study reduces the max distance travelled, and 2m is considered the safe enough zone for people to interract. The mask is shifting what would have been encountered at 2m back further still. 

I know different particles will be affected differently dependent on size and inverse square assumptions no absorbtion. So even that could be flawed when introduce barrier of facial cover. Unless we move the point source to other side of mask and assume a weaker source ( as implied by reduced distance).

Happy to do another more detailed post with all but lets do a simple to follow version as well with caveats explained. If anything the original posts will underplay the mask effectiveness rather than overstate. If someone else like to do the donkey work happy to let them takeover too.

Going back to simplified version - if without a mask 2m is 'safe enough' and the mask shifts that 'safe enough' zone back to 1m or less then that is a hell of a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
 

Killer Rabbit

Prices have fallen 10-20% already.

On reopening there will be 1.5-3m extra unemployed.  Furlough is just the politicians pretending all is well.

Company bankruptcies will be in the 10s of 000s.

They will not slash borrowing rates (unlike 2009).

This is a Real and Nominal HPC, as official inflation is almost 0 anyway.

This is it Lads and Lassies. 

It's been a long road...

As I tweeted (anyone who follows me) I'm looking at ~30% off, nationally, over the next few years.  After that, even wage rises will be punched back by higher interest rates.  Look at 1974-76.  ~50% rise in wages.  ZERO rise in HPs.

 

Going forward, rates will rise, as deflation turns to inflation.  Expect 1970s levels of inflation by the end of the decade.  Oh, and interest rates too.

So, what's going to happen to house prices over the next 10+ years?  It's just maths.

Not immigration.  Not 'demand' (!!!).  Not we're an island.  Not but it's London, init?!  Not the government won't allow it.  Not wage rises.

It's ALL easy/tight lending and borrowing rates.

ENJOY!

Split hairs if you wish.  Disagree if you wish.

No doubt they WILL introduce / increase yet more Communism into house prices in 2022 or 2023.  But that is then.

 

For those interested, I came back a few months ago, as it happens, to read what you've been saying.  I knew something was building.

It wasn't the time to post.  It is now.

 

 

Prices up 5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
 

Dont be rude.  

What's rude about saying a stopped clock?

 

Average house price soars to a record £323,530 as sellers cash in on huge demand during stamp duty holiday

  • Prices rose by 1.1 per cent and are now £16,818 higher than same time last year
  • Experts expect growth to continue until new year and it could peak at 7 per cent
  • Market enjoyed 'mini-boom' due to pent-up demand and removal of stamp duty

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What's rude about saying a stopped clock?

 

Average house price soars to a record £323,530 as sellers cash in on huge demand during stamp duty holiday

  • Prices rose by 1.1 per cent and are now £16,818 higher than same time last year
  • Experts expect growth to continue until new year and it could peak at 7 per cent
  • Market enjoyed 'mini-boom' due to pent-up demand and removal of stamp duty

 

Despite you making 2,500+ posts, I'm not convinced you've understood the difference between asking and selling prices...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.