Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Huh? That's a terrible example, gravity is easily observable here on Earth, hence why the theory was formulated using empirical experiments.

Way to find an example that supports my point.



Newtonian gravity is empirically wrong. sigh


That's not the same. It has held up quite well, wouldn't you agree?

A lot of financial models have never, ever worked in any sense when put to use in real markets.

It is completely different. These are mathematical models predicting the outcome of complex systems, not physical laws that are observable in every day life (even if the intuition can be wrong, only work above the subatomic level etc).

There's no "unifying theory" to uncover. A lot of the research is just plain garbage. Otherwise it would be easy to become wealthy through pure academic pursuit, wouldn't you agree? But markets don't work that way, and these theories can be easily tested and fail every time.


Nope. If you take the time to read Newton, you will discover he never wrote F=ma. His formula was equivalent to F=dmv/dt.

That is to say, he anticipated the force to be a function of the mass.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: