The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 540
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
Already at the initial stage, the following requirements were set for the system to be designed:
1. independence from the working instrument (forex, futures, stocks, ... sunspots ... i.e. any dynamic processes)
2. operability irrespective of the TF
2011.07.08 09:29 #98For those who are on the subject, the complexity of the problem is clear.
Incidentally, this problem has not yet been fully solved by anyone in the world.
Already at the initial stage, the following requirements were set for the system to be designed:
1. independence from the working instrument (forex, futures, stocks, ... sunspots ... i.e. any dynamic processes)
2. operability irrespective of the TF
2011.07.08 09:29 #98For those who are on the subject, the complexity of the problem is clear.
Incidentally, this problem has not yet been fully solved by anyone in the world.
I respect your intricacies and am loyal to them.
But concerning the given statement of the problem, the only desirable solution is an empty set. It perfectly satisfies all requirements.
I respect your quirks and am loyal to them.
But with respect to this problem statement, the only impending solution is an empty set. It perfectly satisfies all requirements.
The science of the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is against such flights, it rejects them outright. Every slightly educated person knew the categorical conclusion of science: flight on vehicles heavier than air is impossible. No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! Not in balloons, in dirigibles, yes, but not in those winged flying machines.
Here is, for example, the opinion of the great English scientist, Baron Kelvin, who excelled in many fields of physics - thermodynamics, electricity, magnetism, who invented many electrical measuring and navigating instruments. Erudition, intelligence, head! And what does Calvin say in 1895? Here's what he says:
- Aircraft heavier than air cannot fly.
They can't!
That's physics; what does mathematics think about it? And mathematics thinks the same thing. The famous professor of mathematics Simon Newcom, whose authority is recognized all over the world, including, by the way, Russia (Newcom was a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences), declares quite clearly:
- No combination of mechanisms and known forms of energy can make any vehicle heavier than air fly.
And he said this in 1903.
There you go. That's what science - both physics and mathematics - says.
=========================================================
There you go. There was only one solution then too - an empty set. ;))
Only a hundred years have passed since then and the fairy tale has become a reality. And what peaks in its development aviation has reached today! And this is not the limit!
The science of the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is against such flights, it rejects them outright. Every slightly educated person knew the categorical conclusion of science: flight by vehicles heavier than air is impossible. No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! Not in balloons, in dirigibles, yes, but not in these winged flying machines.
Here is, for example, the opinion of the great English scientist, Baron Kelvin, who excelled in many fields of physics - thermodynamics, electricity, magnetism, who invented many electrical measuring and navigational instruments. Erudition, intelligence, head! And what does Calvin say in 1895? Here's what he says:
- Aircraft heavier than air cannot fly.
They can't!
That's physics; what does mathematics think about it? And mathematics thinks the same thing. The famous professor of mathematics Simon Newcom, whose authority is recognized all over the world, including, by the way, Russia (Newcom was a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences), declares quite clearly:
- No combination of mechanisms and known forms of energy can make any vehicle heavier than air fly.
And he said this in 1903.
There you go. That's what science - both physics and mathematics - says.
=========================================================
There you go. There was only one solution then too - an empty set. ;))
Only a hundred years have passed since then and the fairy tale has become a reality. And what peaks in its development aviation has reached today! And this is not the limit!
they say rightly -"aircraft heavier than air cannot fly". the expression does not say anything about the speed of the aircraft, nor does it say in what environment.
Can you fly, Automat? - No? Hmm. That's what I thought.
If you're given a good boost, a kick, you'll fly. Moreover, any object will fly, even your pince-nez.
However, to reduce the kick force and the energy input, you need to give you a "wing" shape, a shape where the velocity of the environment above is higher than below, and if you knew the dynamics of liquids and gases, you would understand that this generates lifting force, because the pressure on the surface is lower when the velocity of the environment is higher.
to make flying cost effective for people like you and me who do not have proper body shape in general and limbs in particular, they built aircraft that are heavier than air and have suitable shape for cost-effective flying. the most effective aircraft remain, as before, lighter than air.
it follows from the above that in airless space your body shape would not help you, even if you tried, but there are many vehicles orbiting earth that are not only heavier than air, but also do not have a suitable shape for flying in a dense medium, and they do not need it, they fly with acceleration! - which is what was said above.
conclusion, your tractor won't fly, there's no force to make it do so, and no shape to keep it from sinking to the bottom. Equity is a measure of tractive force to mass ratio as applied to merchant systems. All right, the tractor thing... It'll fly, it'll fly... how do you mean it'll fly, it'll drive...
The science of the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is against such flights, it rejects them outright. Every slightly educated person knew the categorical conclusion of science: flight by vehicles heavier than air is impossible. No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! You can fly balloons, dirigibles all you want, but not those winged flying machines.
Here is, for example, the opinion of the great English scientist, Baron Kelvin, who excelled in many fields of physics - thermodynamics, electricity, magnetism, who invented many electrical measuring and navigational instruments. Erudition, intelligence, head! And what does Calvin say in 1895? Here's what he says:
- Aircraft heavier than air cannot fly.
They can't!
That's physics; what does mathematics think about it? And mathematics thinks the same thing. The famous professor of mathematics Simon Newcom, whose authority is recognized all over the world, including, by the way, Russia (Newcom was a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences), declares quite clearly:
- No combination of mechanisms and known forms of energy can make any vehicle heavier than air fly.
And he said this in 1903.
There you go. That's what science - both physics and mathematics - says.
=========================================================
There you go. There was only one solution then too - an empty set. ;))
Only a hundred years have passed since then and the fairy tale has become a reality. And what peaks in its development aviation has reached today! And this is not the limit!
Most likely the phrase was taken out of context or referred to a different field. Either that or they are completely strange scientists. The physicists and mathematicians in 20 century could not make such mistake, simply observing the nature gave them a lot of examples - animal world, paper aeroplane (probably then the bird was - origami), fireworks are known from ancient times, firearms were actively used, ballistics was not a mystery for a long time:
The first studies regarding the shape of the curve of the projectile flight (from firearms) were done in 15 37 byTartaglia.Galileo established his parabolic theory by means of the laws of gravity, in which the influence of air resistance on projectiles was not taken into account. This theory can be applied without great error to the study of the flight of nuclei only at low air resistance.
We owe the study of the laws of air resistance toNewton, who proved in 1687 that the flight curve cannot be a parabola.
Benjamin Robins [en](in 1742) was engaged in determiningthe initial velocity of a nucleus and invented theballistic pendulum still in use today.
The first real solution to the basic problems of ballistics was given by the famous mathematicianEuler. Ballistics was given further impetus by Gutton, Lombard (1797) andObenheim(1814).
From 1820 the effects of friction began to be studied more and more, and the physicistMagnus, the French scientistsPoisson andDidion and the Prussian Colonel Otto worked extensively in this respect.
Kite! Lomonosov and Richman were flying kites in the 18th century to catch lightning, two not the least scientists of the time clearly understood that kites are heavier than air =)
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=полёт+on+apparatus+over+air+impossible&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Take a look. ;))
Of course, there were different points of view. But the opinion of a major scientist was always valued. And that's where the puncture came in...
Both then and now, and always the opinion of an authority was very weighty. (What is worth seeing the constantly flashed here on this forum references by dilettantes to Nobel laureates).
One should always remember that it is human nature to make mistakes, and therefore, do not make idols for yourself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=полёт+on+apparatus+more+than+air+unable&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Have a look. ;))
Can you provide a link to the original source? Because the internet likes to quote each other and it becomes unclear if "there was a boy".
https://pikabu.ru/story/istoriya_odnogo_isporchennogo_telefona_4765808
Here's what I see:
"One often hears that Newcome tried to scientifically prove that a heavier-than-air aircraft cannot fly just shortly before the Wright Brothers flew. Strictly speaking, this is not true. Indeed, in the 1870s Newcom was very critical of the work of Samuel Langley, in which he claimed that he could build a flying machine powered by a steam engine. And in 1903, he wrote less categorically:
"
Link
Already at the initial stage, the following requirements were set for the system to be designed:
1. independence from the working instrument (forex, futures, stocks, ... sunspots ... i.e. any dynamic processes)
2. operability irrespective of the TF.
The problem is similar to the decision to build a car that will go on the road as a Lamba, and on the dirt road - as a Niva. Well, this is an obvious utopia, because the tools are obviously and significantly different, one goat will not approach them, any adaptation to a particular environment is required.
Can you provide a link to the original source? Because the internet likes to quote each other and it becomes unclear whether "there was a boy".
https://www.mql5.com/go?link=https://pikabu.ru/story/istoriya_odnogo_isporchennogo_telefona_4765808
I understand your interest.
There's nothing stopping you from searching for primary sources yourself.