You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 10
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
Man has never been a primate, and a primate never transforms into a human - missing the 1st chromosome, primates have 61 out of 64 possible variants and humans have 62. Why the 2 possible variants are not used is not clear. It is not improbable that super-humans with 63 and unicums with 64 chromosomes in genes will appear.
This is of course a humorous comparison with a grain of truth. Are you saying that man came from nothing (or was created by God) or is it evolutionary?
As space is infinite and it is filled with matter, so matter in its volume is infinite throughout its extent. Proceeding from the fact that out of nothing nothing can arise something, then matter existed also infinitely, otherwise it is physically impossible. And as the human brain is not capable to present infinity, it is easier for it to think in finite forms and it is easier for it to accept the fact of origin and creation. So the Big Bang was invented. In practice there was no Big Bang, the Universe has always existed. Try to tell such to a traditional thinker - he at once rebels, but cannot explain.
Therefore the remark about 13,5 billion years is fair.
Oh, no, you'll lose your way!
This science is a dense forest.
You can't see anything up close.
The only and best outcome:
♪ Look the professor in the mouth ♪
And repeat that he's lying.
"The saving truth of the matter
Will save you from all adversity,
"will help you get around the unevenness
And lead you into the temple of unquestionability.
Stick to the words.
Of course, the prime example is Russia's agreement with OPEC.
Interested in the notion of a perfectly competitive market, I googled it and here are its features
My understanding is that this is an idealised model, not found in nature. And further:In a real economy, an exchange market is most similar to a perfect competition market. In the course of observing the phenomena of economic crises, Keynesians came to the conclusion that this form of competition usually fails and can only be overcome by external intervention.
Here we go...
Can you give examples of markets with perfect competition?
I looked into this issue specifically when doing my undergraduate studies in economics. Of course, perfect competition is only a model, just like absolute monopoly. In reality, there are no perfect models, and in a perfect competition market there are opportunities to influence the price, and even for natural monopolies there are purely competitive constraints.
The textbooks cite the international frozen fish market as the closest example of a perfectly competitive market. None of the producers have a large share of this market, the products are very homogeneous and divisible, and it is easy enough to unify them. There are very few barriers to entry and exit - opening a freezing warehouse and then negotiating with fishing and distribution companies is not difficult. All prices are known and not very volatile. Accordingly, if you offer a lower price, they will take away all your goods in a jiffy. If you put a price higher - your fish will lie in warehouses for years (fortunately, frozen, it does not spoil, but, still, to maintain a frozen state need resources, fixed costs)
How was the worldview formed?
Man centre (reference point) = earth is flat, thought for a while, no earth is round and revolves around the sun, thought further and came up with the big bang theory, but didn't change the reference point. As if the explosion took place exactly where we are standing))). The big bang may have been local, I don't argue. But don't bullshit humanity about 13.5 billion.
The big bang hasn't happened so far is a mistake. We're still in a singularity, but scientists haven't figured out how to visualize it. We already know that space is a function of time. That is, where there is no time, space cannot exist. As we are in singularity, there is infinite gravitation, as we know, gravitation distorts time and space. But gravity weakens according to the cubic law of distance. Skipping further reasoning, the result is this: we are in a singularity, our time and space are created by the gradient of gravity of this very singularity. The flow of time is directed towards the singularity, hence it seems to us that there was a big bang and the universe is expanding. In fact, it is not expanding, we just "move" towards the singularity. Moving conventionally, in fact we are not moving anywhere, everything is just there and that's all. There is nothing at the centre of the singularity, absolutely nothing, this nothing is what we are, realising ourselves at the edges of the singularity, where space and time are already divided by the gradient of gravity. But all this is very contingent.
Man has never been a primate, and a primate never transforms into a human - missing the 1st chromosome, primates have 61 out of 64 possible variants, and humans have 62. Why the 2 possible variants are not used is not clear. It is not excluded that super-humans with 63 and unicums with 64 chromosomes in genes may appear.
According to modern biology, man is precisely a primate, an ape. Just as man is also a vertebrate and a mammal. The number of chromosomes is in biology not at all a rigidly established value for a species. There are species with variable numbers of chromosomes.
Moreover, the number of chromosomes can vary in humans as well and still be able to live. However, as far as I know, such mutants do not produce offspring.
Down syndrome is a trisomy of 21 chromosomes.
Kleinfelter syndrome is several variants of chromosomal trisomies
Schereshevsky-Turner syndrome is the opposite, a monosomy on the X chromosome.
There are also rarer genetic syndromes with changes in the number of chromosomes. People turn out to be quite viable, although they differ from 'normal' people not for the better.
The big bang hasn't happened so far is a mistake. We're still in a singularity, but scientists haven't figured out how to visualise it yet. We already know that space is a function of time. That is, where there is no time, space cannot exist. As we are in singularity, there is infinite gravitation, as we know, gravitation distorts time and space. But gravity weakens according to the cubic law of distance. Skipping further reasoning, the result is this: we are in a singularity, our time and space are created by the gradient of gravity of this very singularity. The flow of time is directed towards the singularity, hence it seems to us that there was a big bang and the universe is expanding. In fact, it is not expanding, we just "move" towards the singularity. Moving conventionally, in fact we are not moving anywhere, everything is just there and that's all. There is nothing at the centre of the singularity, absolutely nothing, this nothing is what we are, realising ourselves at the edges of the singularity, where space and time are already divided by the gradient of gravity. But all this is very contingent.
Everything can be contingent. Even you can be in a scientific shell and not go beyond it and not know about it.
It turns out that beyond your knowledge, space and time end and it is not needed there. There is no logic to this set of beautiful words.
I see, now the bans are coming from engineers, not physicists and logicians. If I give you examples of engineers using two-dimensional design (e.g. the blueprints they use to build), are the bans coming from the foremen?
You don't even know what you are talking about. Blueprints describe a 3-dimensional space. And the realizable objects in the drawings are meant to be 3-dimensional.
Now find me a drawing that describes a two or four dimensional object that engineers have built in 3 dimensional our. Very curious.
Firstly, this is not the case. Demand can be influenced by a variety of marketing methods, but you can't shape it much. All those expensive "iPhones" are just the usual swagger expressed in the device. In other words, there is no "demand creation" - there has always been demand for "arrogance", they just managed to direct it in the right direction, and it all depends on "getting into the flow" and not on whether there is a monopolist or not.
The 90s were a paradise for pop stars: any trifle was easy to get an audience, and lucky ones were able to gather stadiums. Laskovy Mai was a "monopolist", would you say? No, he just "got into the swing of it". The excitement died down and the pop's super profits deflated.
And secondly, even if someone had the ability to "shape demand" (not just influence it, but shape it), this would also not at all invalidate the principles of price formation, which does not depend on anything but the balance of supply and demand.
This "commonplace swag" led to the already trillion-dollar value of the appl.
Yura Shatunov is an ordinary star like Frank Sinatra or Lady Gaga plus the effect of an unsaturated market.
I'm not denying this law. There are markets where it prevails, but there are also markets where its effect is very tentative.
It was originally about gasoline and oil. It would not be enough to say that simply supply has fallen - you would have to go on and say that it was because of tax changes. So this law is secondary in this market and government policy is primary.
Everything can be conditional. Even you can be in a scientific shell and not go beyond it and not know about it.
It turns out that beyond your knowledge, space and time end and it is not needed there. What a set of beautiful words with logic does not come together.
Well yes all is correct, beyond our knowledge everything ends, and in sinuosity there is no space and time, there is nothing, emptiness. We do not know the world, we create it, i.e. everything works in reverse.
You don't even know what you're talking about. Drawings describe 3-dimensional space. And the realizable objects in the drawings are implied to be 3-dimensional.
Now find me a drawing that describes a two or four dimensional object that engineers have built in 3 dimensional our. Very curious.
It is enough for me that you acknowledged the possibility of describing the 3-dimensional by 2-dimensional. As was the case with the "authoritative scientist" you describe, who also used 2-dimensional to describe 3-dimensional. No need to jump further from one to the other (thus illustrating a violation of the law of identity).