From theory to practice - page 536
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
Probably the expanding universe option would have been the one for comparison))
Alas, I don't believe in the big bang theory and an expanding universe.
Alas, I don't believe in the big bang and expanding universe theory.
That was as an example, but it seems that already the expansion of the universe is a proven fact, never mind, no argument here.
But with the market it is so there. Deflation and stagnation of production are unfavorable factors for the development of any state, i.e. a society does not get richer, does not develop, does not increase its wealth, does not increase the gross external product, in general all is bad (worse only at high inflation, when welfare is falling), so there are different measures of state regulation of the process, as a reduction of interest rates, support for business development aimed at obtaining cheap loans and controlled additional emission, resulting in a cheap money, d If inflation is high, the government has to "print" money to balance consumption, raising the interest rate. In general, it turns out that over time, no matter how you look at it, money keeps coming back to the market.)
But with the market it is so. Deflation and stagnation of production are unfavourable factors for the development of any state, i.e. society does not get richer, does not develop, does not increase its wealth, does not increase the gross external product, in general everything is bad (worse only with high inflation, when the welfare decreases), so there are different measures of state regulation of this process, such as reducing interest rates, supporting business development, aimed at getting cheap loans and controlled additional emission, resulting in a cheap money, etc. If inflation is high, the government has to "print" money to balance consumption, raising the interest rate. In general, the bottom line is that no matter how you look at it with time, money keeps coming back to the market.)
I agree.
I like to work on small TFs, but I don't like these snafus.
How do you predict them?
Watching high TFs and similar dollar behaviour on history. For example April 5,6(9) and September 4,5(6) 2018.
There is no forward movement in the price - the price is managed by central banks according to their pricing policy so it is naive to look for logic and all the more economic expediency in this.
And the universe has nothing to do with it and it is known that there is no cosmos and that science knows nothing about the universe at all.
Alas, I do not believe in the big bang and expanding universe theory.
BingBang only exists in the minds of scientists. And how can they not understand that redshift is a consequence of the curvature of the space-time continuum, and as a consequence of the fact - when the actual distance between two objects in the Universe is always less than the length of the path of light between them. To use an analogy with the surface of the Earth: when the shortest distance between, say, Moscow and New York City passes not through the surface of the Earth, but through the Earth. And the further the points are apart, the greater will be the ratio of the distance across the surface to the distance along the shortest line. The same is true of the space-time continuum: as the distance of objects in the Universe increases, so does the ratio of the length of the trajectory of light to the actual distance between them. This is the essence of redshift, but it is not the result of the Doppler effect.
(And Ostap gets carried away... )))
I apologise for being off-topic...
... to follow up on.... Einstein's theory no one can check it to 100% accuracy, yes there is a hadron collider and scientists can collide elementary particles at speeds close to the speed of light, but this is physics of elementary particles, not the space-time continuum and interaction between large objects in the universe
alas scientific theories are mathematical models that describe physical phenomena but they need to be proved by practical experiments, your example cannot be practically proven, well if you believe that the curvature of space-time continuum is a proven fact, so be it, say your "BingBang "
;)
... to follow up.... no one can check Einstein's theory with 100% accuracy, yes currently there is a hadron collider and scientists can collide elementary particles at speeds close to the speed of light, but this is physics of elementary particles and not the space-time continuum and interaction between large objects in the universe
alas scientific theories are mathematical models that describe physical phenomena but they need to be proved by practical experiments, your example cannot be practically proven, well if you believe that the curvature of space-time continuum is a proven fact, so be it, say your "BingBang "
;)
Oops - I don't want to talk about this topic in public now. Think of it as my schizophrenia.
Oops - I don't want to talk about this subject in public now. Think of it as my crazy.
No problem, we're human beings, we all believe in something.
what's the big deal here, or my interest, once again I'll refer you to the videohttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/221552/page525#comment_8564120
What's interesting about the presenter? - At the end of the video, he says that human beings are inherently objects of living nature and it is not inherent to them to live in the existing world - end of the video
if to think about it, all our science is a set of rules that we have made and we follow these rules. of course, technical progress shows that science "rules", but there is a "double-edged sword" - if science "rules" then it knows everything, but science cannot explain how other species (animals) explain the world without it - but they live and I think without problems
i.e. what I'm getting at:
- there's mathematics, there's the decimal system, there's arithmetic - well, hooray for that... But historically, for example, complex mathematics could be formed and we would answer the question "12 integers and 20 imaginary parts of day" .....
- nature doesn't have a mathematical basis, because it doesn't have these rules that people have made, but people are trying to describe everything around them with these rules.
- And to the topic to which I paid attention to your message, what you are trying to call the space-time continuum, well, this is the theory described by modern science, i.e. the environment which we have not seen and are trying to describe by mathematical methods which describe only the conventions of modern science.
Bottom line, a theory that is described by the conventions of mathematics and is not supported by anything, and we are talking about natural phenomena?
No problem, that's why we're human, we all believe in something.
what's the problem (or my interest) here in general, once again I'll refer to the videohttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/221552/page525#comment_8564120
What's interesting about the presenter? - at the end of the video he says that people are inherently objects of living nature and it is not inherent to them to live in the existing world - end of the video
...
Bottom line - a theory described by mathematical conventions and not confirmed by anything, while the matter concerns natural phenomena?
Many people live ina "comfort zone" and are afraid to leave it. Some just don't want to do it.