Quantum trading system - page 28
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Берёте Квантовый генератор случайных чисел, в качестве модулятора передатчика, накладываете информационный сигнал и передаёте в эфир (свет, радиоволны).
I just have two questions. Where can I get a Quantum Random Number Generator for a cheaper price (a second-hand one is possible)? And how do you broadcast with it?
I just have two questions. Where can I get a Quantum Random Number Generator cheaper (can I get a second-hand one)? And how to broadcast with it?
http://antiques.shop.ebay.com/
Maybe it would be better to go back to elementary solutions. For example, I made a system, which makes profit if (1+2+3)/2 > 2. The work of such a system is shown in this graph of the system since April 1 up to now for EUR/Franc.
As far as I understand, the author of this thread is trying to overturn the ideas of the whole science. Einstein did it once in the early 20th century. I believe there will be someone who can do it again. If you're willing to put your life on it, I admire and believe in the result. But I am of the opinion that it is impossible to come up with a system that brings profit regardless of current factors.
My system (1+2+3)/2 > 2 implies that as the share increases the average open position price increases when selling, and its closing becomes profitable. The Expert Advisor has many additional functions that exclude selling in an uptrend or vice versa. I want to say that the system is profitable in certain areas, and you can go even into quantum mechanics (or whatever), but the system will not always be profitable in any area. If to invent such a system, it is possible to count on the Nobel Prize.
I think that every system must be pronounced in certain conditions and a trader should know on what conditions it should be applied.
If we assume the existence of energy in quoting processes, then it is possible to choose a model based on common sense. It can be approached from the point of view of DSP - there is a concept of signal energy. In any case this approach is not in principle worse than fibos, divergences, any indicators and other non-functional stuff. :о))))
In my article "Can one predict the Forex market...." I wrote that money is the symbols behind which the energy is, and consequently all laws describing different energy processes (including quantum mechanics) are applicable to it. I am not making this statement from the ceiling, I have 38 years experience in esotericism, or rather I am not, but it is my life, and using meditation I quite clearly saw the energy flows reflecting the movement of money. So you are on the right track, though for most it is not obvious. I also quite responsibly say that the market is not random and predictable. I hope to be able to prove it soon - by completing the "Piligrimus" indicator.
...I have been involved in esotericism for 38 years, or rather, I do not, but it is my life, and using meditations I have quite clearly seen energy flows reflecting the movement of money...
You see, what happens when you playfully open the veil of Ignorance woven by the hands of Mercy, from the Great Mystery - you give birth to Entities and they begin to surround you, becoming Meaning...
let's not make fun of each other over the method by which he gets something).
The topic is really only about conception, and making fun (as they did with Sh) is not relevant.
The influence of particles on each other and the presence of dark energy has been proven for a reason.
...I came up with a system that profits from the fact that (1+2+3)/2 > 2...
Perhaps for such a system, the inequality 3>2 doesn't look too good... Much cooler: (1+2+3)/2 > 2
Yes, apparently the author will soon reveal the secret of existence of systems like 2>1 and 10>7.
It is evident that we have something to strive for and there are enough systems for everybody!
P.S. I must say that I am beginning to get a special, sweet and addictive taste of schizophrenia in this thread.
How multifaceted and interesting this World is. It turns out that dark matter has already been proven to exist. Can I get a link to a scientific paper that proves it exists? I hope, you understand the difference between the description of the observed phenomenon and presence of the theory consistent describing the phenomenon and confirmed by experiment.
Perhaps for such a system, the inequality 3>2 doesn't look too... Much cooler: (1+2+3)/2 > 2
Obviously, soon the author will reveal the secret of existence of systems like 2>1 and 10>7.
It is evident that we have something to strive for and there are enough systems for everybody!
P.S. I must say that I am beginning to get a special, sweet and addictive taste of schizophrenia in this thread.
How multifaceted and interesting this World is. It turns out that dark matter has already been proven to exist. Can I get a link to a scientific paper that proves it exists? I hope that you understand the difference between the description of the observed phenomenon and the existence of a theory consistent in describing the phenomenon and confirmed by experiment.
Of course you are stronger in knowledge than I am in this field, I've read your debates with the Moors of this forum).
But here's an article on the subject: Dark Energy.
"The author thanks Alexander Chernykh, a lecturer at Novosibirsk State University, a senior researcher at the Institute of Automation and Electrometry SB RAS, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, for help in preparing the material"
"By "ordinary" matter we mean that which obeys Newton's law and experiences the same gravitational effects as ordinary matter. But it turns out that much of the "ordinary" matter in the universe is of an unknown physical nature. It is commonly referred to as "dark matter". The origin of the term is simple: dark matter particles do not emit light because they do not carry an electric charge. Thus, it is not a figure of speech, but really a characteristic of its properties. Dark matter probably consists of elementary particles unknown to modern science."
I myself do not believe strongly, but if candidates of physical and mathematical sciences are doing research in this direction I think one can think about it, when I was a student I helped my teacher to develop quantum physics, and all their discoveries are usually based on complex calculations, not observations ...
Einstein did it once in the early 20th century. I believe that there will be someone who can do it again. If you're willing to put your life on it, I admire and believe in the result.