Engineer Garin's Paraboloid - page 17
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
It's just the way it's established in theoretical science: Centrifugal, that's what happens when there's acceleration normal to the path of motion - that is, when there's a deviation of uniform motion from a straight path. If there are frictional forces, for example, or anchoring as in turbine disks or slings, or rolling on a surface (as in the car example) then according to Newton's 3rd law, centripetal occurs, but not per se - it is a reaction to the presence of centrifugal force. The difference in the examples: the car has centripetal - friction between the wheels and the road - and the car tilts; because centripetal is a volumetric force and its equidistance is applied to the centre of mass, while centripetal is applied to the wheels - it is friction between the wheel and the road. But there is no centripetal force in milk, or rather, it is negligibly small (because the drag force in a liquid is small), and milk is divided into fractions under the action of centrifugal force without sufficient reaction force, because the mass of particles is different - so you get butter, cream, sour cream and removed milk - residue ))))))).
I did not doubt your erudition. thank you, as the alphabet again read))))
No, it is clear, that is what I mean, why the centripetal force is regarded as a separate direction, it is a component of the complex inertial force
I did not doubt your erudition. thank you, as the alphabet again read))))
No, that's understandable, that's what I mean, why centripetal force is regarded as a separate direction, it's a component of complex inertial force
Mechanics is my diploma speciality: research mechanical engineer... contact me if you need anything ;) ..... Yes - the centripetal force itself does not exist, just as there can be no reaction to an impact without the impact itself....
chtd
Hey, hey, whoa! Where the hell are you all going? Floodgate's in the next thread. Get to the point, gentlemen!
About the paraboloid: the indicator is alternating - up and down and up and down, etc. But one cannot use it just for rebound - either oscillation near the initial deposit or a slow drawdown. One cannot work only on the breakout - a flat sweep removes all trend achievements, and a flat, as many young naturalists believe, lasts 80% of the time. So, what should we do? That's right, enter the market with a pair of orders.
What does it give you? First, a confident entry - you know that you will always close the first order with a profit, regardless of the direction that the price will choose. This alone is an incentive. Second, you know that out of a pair of open orders only one of them can close with a loss and a part of the loss will be compensated by the first order which is always in the plus. In other words, the drawdown loss is smaller than in case of a single order. Thirdly, you will get double profit from one part of the price movement, as no one can argue that the price moves in a saw-tooth pattern, alternating the movement in one direction with reversals or reversals in the other. This happens because of natural market resistance because there are always opposite positions pushing the price back.
In the special case above where you are offered to enter with one order in the direction of the previous price move, you can easily slide into a flat or slow-moving market where candles from different directions alternate, which will result in a continuous losing streak for all of your open orders! In the case of a parabaloids, we work on the natural sawtooth price movement, and we are guaranteed to take the first move in profit.
It's funny!? People asked for help and they're all about their maths, physics, chemistry, and so on! Whatever you ask for, they've got their own headaches! ))
When you close the profitable one, where is the guarantee that the price will go to you? And if you are good at finding the reversal point, it would make more sense to trade in the retracement direction with one order, like in euronotes.
And in normal trading there are two. The first opens on the first parabolic signal, then closes on the next signal and opens the second order. It's the same with the lot, only both orders open at once.
I don't detect anything at all, but the parabolic is very much so. Only the signal of a parabolic is either a pullback or a breakout. When trading only on pullback or breakout, it will be a slow drawdown or near the initial deposit. That is why we need a paired entry.
It's funny!? People asked for help and they're all about their maths, physics, chemistry, and so on! Whatever you ask for, they've got their own headaches! ))
Light would travel 732km (in a vacuum) in about 732/300000 = 2.44ms.
So the assumed ratio of excess to light speed ( 60 ns / 2.44 ms ) = 24.6 * 10^(-6).
And, I remember, it was written somewhere (I can't find the link) that when some pulsar/magnetar flashed, the difference between neutrino and light (which supposedly came later) was about 4 hours. Divide 4 hours by 24.6 * 10^(-6). We get 160,000 light-hours, i.e. about 18 light-years. That's a bit short: we would have been burnt out by that flash...
Go to JonKatana, you quoted him. He will help (with new grail designs).
And some of coders living in that branch, maybe, too - on pure enthusiasm. There are his fans there, I know.
They can hardly help here: all branches are jammed with floodlights and they don't want to help poor geniuses, even for a reward worth tens of thousands of demobucks...
It is simply established in theoretical science: Centrifugal, that which arises due to the presence of acceleration normal to the trajectory of motion - that is, when the uniform motion deviates from a straight trajectory. If there are frictional forces, for example, or anchoring as in turbine disks or slings, or rolling on a surface (as in the car example) then according to Newton's 3rd law, centripetal occurs, but not per se - it is a reaction to the presence of centrifugal force. The difference in the examples: the car has centripetal - friction between the wheels and the road - and the car tilts; because centrifugal is a volumetric force and its equidistance is applied to the centre of mass, while centripetal is applied to the wheels - it is friction between the wheel and the road. But there is no centripetal force in milk, or rather, it is negligibly small (because drag force is small in liquid), and milk under the action of centrifugal force, without sufficient reaction force is divided into fractions, because mass of particles is different - so you get butter, cream, sour cream and removed milk - residue ))))))).
Let me be clear: there are no centrifugal forces in the "earth" (inertial) frame of reference. There is a force of friction deflecting the car from a rectilinear trajectory, it, as well as an acceleration vector created by it, is directed to the centre of trajectory curvature. It also creates a torque in the vertical plane that tilts the car. Characteristically, if the car's centre of mass were below the road, nothing would fall. There is no centrifugal force in this frame of reference. H's 2nd law would be written: centripetal acceleration*mass = frictional force.
In the "car" (non-inertial) frame of reference, the observer feels the centrifugal force (which can also be called the "force of inertia"), but feels it only because the system itself "actually" has centripetal acceleration.
It is simply established in theoretical science: Centrifugal, that which arises due to the presence of acceleration normal to the trajectory of motion - that is, when the uniform motion deviates from a straight trajectory. If there are frictional forces, for example, or anchoring as in turbine disks or slings, or rolling on a surface (as in the car example) then according to Newton's 3rd law, centripetal occurs, but not per se - it is a reaction to the presence of centrifugal force. The difference in the examples: the car has centripetal - friction between the wheels and the road - and the car tilts; because centrifugal is a volumetric force and its resultant force is applied to the centre of mass, while centripetal is applied to the wheels - it is friction between the wheel and the road. But there is no centripetal force in milk, or rather, it is negligibly small (because drag force is small in liquid), and milk under the action of centrifugal force, without sufficient reaction force is divided into fractions, because particle masses are different - so you get butter, cream, sour cream and skimmed milk - the rest ))))))).
ZS, So this is - in general: unprofitable lokas do exist - proven )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Because centrifugal force exists ..... ))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Vladislav, I appreciate your love of Euclidean logic, but I do not understand your thesis about forces "arising from the presence of accelerations". Maybe you can explain, as a mechanic to an electrician?