You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 2
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
I believe in it, otherwise how can one explain the fact that the price of oil falls - gasoline becomes more expensive, the price of oil rises - gasoline becomes more expensive too. Gotta know the shortcuts! ))
It is very simple to explain - the price of a commodity depends solely on the supply/demand ratio, and is not at all dependent on how much the raw materials cost.
If raw materials become cheaper, this simply leads to an increase in profit for the producer. The price will not change (assuming constant supply and demand).
If the price of raw materials increases, it leads to a decrease in the manufacturer's profit. The price will also remain the same. If the commodity becomes too expensive, it will not be produced.
But if demand increases or supply decreases the price will go up, even if the raw materials have become cheaper.
By the way... in addition to the topicstarter's speech...
I really like it when they easily turn the RESULT of a calculation into a real physical "object"
Force is real. It can be measured NON-REAL.
Let that force cause the spring to deform.
You take one, multiply one by the other... and rrrrr, done!... Get it - ENERGY !.. (I emphasize again - RESULT OF MATHEMATICAL OPERATION). Now the spring is already storing some crap called "energy", for which they instantly invented the Conservation Law... ...and successfully made up a mountain of other nonsense.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone here can think of more than one other example of similar nonsense
and what's wrong with the energy in the spring? It is logical, we have spent 5 volts to compress the spring, and now, if it uncompresses, we will get that 5 volts back. The watts are a very real thing, which is .... How much work we can get. Everything can be calculated. With power and drag you can calculate the maximum speed. The good thing about science is that everything is connected and depends on each other.
A question completely off-topic, but very curious to me. In Internet wars of 2012-2015 on the subject of "logic in fundamental physics" I have observed the usual psychological picture: people trust authoritative physicists, but do not dare even to subject their statements to any criticism. Not even a thought. Here, says a famous physicist about wormholes, so they exist. Lobachevskiy calls a curve a straight line, so it must be. About strings, about virtual current world (matrix), about ether and quantization of space I am even silent. There are some who believe that the whole world does not exist, because the whole world is in their minds, and the subject cannot prove the reality.
In general, our human world is interesting, and I am interested in the opinion of people who deal in any way with logic - programmers. It is a field where there is no room for free imagination, but only logical chains work. And compilation will bring you down to earth by thumbing your nose at your mistakes.
Just a little survey of programmers on the subject of logic:
A reputable scientist picks up a piece of paper and says that the plane of the sheet is the surface of the sheet. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is the volume, and that what is outside the sheet is NOTHING. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is space, which has a volume. That is, ours, the real thing. Next, he takes, bends the leaf, and says, "now the distance from one edge of the leaf to the other edge of the leaf has shrunk. It's called a wormhole." And because of it, one day, we'll be able to travel faster in space."
Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with the authoritative scientist? :)
1) Both physicist and Lobachevsky are talking about models, not real objects.
2) Formal logic is unfortunately (as Gödel has shown) not a universal means of knowing.
3) Do we agree with the statement about the existence of an electron that no one has seen?
1) Both physicist and Lobachevsky are talking about models, not real objects.
2) Formal logic, unfortunately, (as Gödel has shown) is not a universal means of knowledge.
3) Do we agree with the statement about the existence of an electron that nobody has seen?
It is very simple to explain - the price of a commodity depends solely on the supply/demand ratio, and is not at all dependent on how much the raw materials cost.
If raw materials become cheaper, this simply leads to an increase in profit for the producer. The price will not change (assuming constant supply and demand).
If the price of raw materials increases, it leads to a decrease in the manufacturer's profit. The price will also remain the same. If the commodity becomes too expensive, it simply will not be produced.
But if demand increases or supply decreases, the price will rise, even if the raw material has become cheaper.
You are definitely not of a technical mindset,
If demand goes up, why do raw materials get cheaper? And vice versa?
It is very simple to explain - the price of a commodity depends solely on the supply/demand ratio, and is not at all dependent on how much the raw materials cost.
If raw materials become cheaper, this simply leads to an increase in the producer's profit. The price will not change (assuming constant supply and demand).
If the price of raw materials increases, it leads to a decrease in the manufacturer's profit. The price will also remain the same. If the commodity becomes too expensive, it will not be produced.
But if demand increases or supply decreases, the price will rise, even if the raw materials become cheaper.
Oh, Georges the analyst is on the line! Come on, explain to us why the rouble fell in December 2014?
What's wrong with the energy in the spring? It makes sense, we spent 5 watts to compress the spring, and now if it uncompresses, we get that 5 watts back. The watts are a very real thing, which is .... How much work we can get. Everything can be calculated. With power and drag you can calculate the maximum speed. The good thing about science is that everything is connected and depends on each other.
What's wrong with energy in a spring is that the force - can be directly measured; the change in spring size - can be directly measured (they actually exist). Energy, on the other hand, can ONLY be calculated (!)... Energy is the RESULT of MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS...
How do you imagine the Law of Conservation of RESULT or the flow of RESULT from one form to another during the oscillation of a pendulum...?
By the way... in addition to the topicstarter's speech...
I really like it when they easily turn the RESULT of a calculation into a real physical "object"
POWER is real. It can be measured UNREASONABLE.
Suppose this force caused deformation of spring.
You take one, multiply one by the other... and rrrrr, done!... Get it - ENERGY !.. (I emphasize again - RESULT OF MATHEMATICAL OPERATION). Now the spring is already storing some crap called "energy", for which they instantly invented the Conservation Law... ...and successfully made up a mountain of other nonsense.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone here can think of more than one other example of similar nonsense
and what's wrong with the energy in the spring? It is logical, we have spent 5 volts to compress the spring, and now, if it uncompresses, we will get this 5 volts back. The watts are a very real thing, which is .... How much work we can get. Everything can be calculated. With power and drag you can calculate the maximum speed. The good thing about science is that everything is connected and depends on each other.
It's like a piezoelectric? You squeeze it, you think it will kick back, but it, bang, gave out a spark to the left, + and - were compensated and that's all - no kickback.
Or even easier, you squeeze the spring, it's cracked. Where did the energy go?
Are there any shortcuts?)
1) Should the model describe real reality?) or not? If yes, then there is no such thing as flat volumetric in reality. If not, then the model is physically useless.
1) I'm not sure that it has to, but it may well - and sometimes not in a way that is clear to everyone. The example with the sheet says only that our 3-dimensional prv can be nested and curved in a 4-dimensional one. By way of analogy, the example of a 2-dimensional sheet in our 3-dimensional prv is given. This is of course a profane presentation of this model (like electrons drawn as balls) - you need to be a physicist with the appropriate specialisation to fully understand it.
2) Absolute if we are talking about statement logic and not so much if we are talking about higher-order logic. Segments seem to be constructed by means of second-order logic (dedekindian sections)
3) Practice cannot prove - only disprove or leave something undisproved. Sometimes, something disproved continues to be used (Newtonian gravity, for example) - I think it will be about the same with the electron.
1) Both physicist and Lobachevsky are talking about models, not real objects.
2) Formal logic, unfortunately, (as Gödel has shown) is not a universal means of knowledge.
3) Do we agree with the statement about the existence of an electron that nobody has seen?