Perhaps we are speaking about different things? I thought you were referring to the physical sciences specifically, rather than just physical analogies generally. I'll readily go along with analogies, but I'm less convinced about using physics equations to explain human conduct. That's where it gets murky for me.
A generally accepted logical reduction of the sciences is as such: All living things are biological therefore the root of biology is chemistry, the root of chemistry is physics, and the root of physics is mathematics.
Human behavior is too complex to model. Using physical analogies and math simply helps us to deal with this complexity. William Ross Ashby is the first scientist who embarked on such an approach systematically. You would be surprised how fruitful the world of analogies could be in trying to comprehend complex psychological phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ross_Ashby
I think you completely misinterpreted the tone of my post -- it wasn't one of criticism, but rather mere conjectures and ponderings about the nature of this thread. I am rather enjoying the discussion that is going on. I think our fundamental disagreement would be over the point that the past has no bearing on the future -- but that is an argument for a different time -- but to sum up my position in one line: trades have durations. What my intended point was in my post was that applying arbitrary models to a market must be coupled with a fundamental REASON as to why those models should correctly model the market and what it means when the market and model are out of sync. I was merely tossing around some concepts out loud, just to see if anything would stick. Just trying to raise some concerns that could be addressed which would only further solidify the fundamental theory underlying an indicator based on these concepts...nothing more.
BTW, I highly recommend reading of these two of the Ashby's books 1952, "Design for a Brain", Chapman & Hall, 2nd edition, 1966, ISBN 0-412-20090-2 (original edition, 1952) 1956, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", Chapman & Hall, 1956
Fair enough. Analogies often help us to both explain and understand. As for me, when it comes to the markets, I'm not that creative or lateral thinking. I have basically just identified a single objective pattern that repeats itself with sufficient regularity for my purposes. (By "pattern" I do not mean triangles, wedgies or the like. It is much more basic and, in my experience, more reliable than that.) This pattern has no "real world" analogy that I can think of, and is limited to the confines of a price chart. In my opinion, it is quite basic/generic and so I am hopeful that it will endure.
Yes, a similar idea. You can see the clustering of the events on it very clearly. Have you tried to normalize it? I am still working on my recent chart. Will post soon. Too many visitors today in our offices! Grrrrrrrrrrrr...............
It's called EXPERIENCE . And it is a corner stone of any applied research. You are very helpful. I always liked your down-to-earth remarks.