Sultonov differential indicator - page 44
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
Which ones?
Are you familiar with the"geocentric" and "heliocentric" concepts of the universe? Both concepts contain a "slight" difference: in the first one, the Earth is supposed to be the centre of the solar system, and in the second one, the Sun is supposed to be the centre. The given difference in views on the celestial system in ancient times was not essential from the point of view of scientific research, as astronomy was in its infancy, however scientists' devotion to one or another theory in the following centuries determined the objectivity of their perception of the investigated world.
Or, for example, the difference between the invention of concrete and reinforced concrete. Much time has passed between them, until one clever French gardener has guessed to reinforce concrete with a metal mesh. While the structural difference was negligible, it resulted in a tremendous qualitative difference.
There are a lot of examples, believe me.
Read materials on the history of technical and scientific development. It's very fascinating.
Are you familiar with the"geocentric" and "heliocentric" concepts of the universe? Both concepts contain a "slight" difference - in the first one, the centre of the solar system is assumed to be the earth, while in the second one, the sun is assumed to be the centre. This difference in views on the celestial system in ancient times was insignificant from the point of view of scientific research, as astronomy was in its infancy, however scientists' devotion to one or another theory in the following centuries determined the objectivity of their perception of the investigated world.
Or, for example, the difference between the invention of concrete and reinforced concrete - a long time had passed between them until one clever French gardener guessed to reinforce concrete with a metal mesh. While the structural difference was negligible, it resulted in a tremendous qualitative difference.
There are many more examples, believe me.
Read material on the history of technical and scientific development. It's very fascinating.
1. The geocentric and heliocentric theories are not "little deviations in numbers and calculations". The geocentric theory does not and has not had any calculations.
2. The same deviation in calculations does not exist in reinforced concrete. And there is nothing ingenious about reinforced concrete - just that the structures are stronger than they were.
1. The geocentric and heliocentric theories are not "little deviations in numbers and calculations". The geocentric theory does not and has not had any calculations.
2. The same deviation in calculations does not exist in reinforced concrete.
Reread my post carefully. I was talking about small differences in calculations, views and approaches (not just calculations).
I gave two examples:
1. An insignificant difference in viewpoints of the ancient world, gave rise to two concepts that were of colossal importance to scientists of future centuries.
2. An insignificant difference of approach to the structural content of the main building material of our history, which allowed mankind to create skyscrapers and gigantic bridges.
A deviation in calculations is a consequence of a deviation in thought or approach. Therefore, one should not look at the similarities or differences in calculations, but at the underlying meaning of a different view, which can bear incredible fruit.
1. The geocentric and heliocentric theories are not "little deviations in numbers and calculations". The geocentric theory does not and has not had any calculations.
2. The same deviation in calculations does not exist in reinforced concrete. And there is nothing brilliant about reinforced concrete - just that the structures are stronger than they were.
1. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. In geocentric one there were great difficulties with calculations - epicycles and so on. The heliocentric one simplified everything and was presented by Copernicus as greatly simplifying the calculations.
2. Talk to civil engineers on this subject. You will learn many new and interesting things.
1. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. In the geocentric one there were great difficulties with calculations - epicycles and so on. The heliocentric simplified everything and was presented by Copernicus as essentially simplifying the calculations.
2. Talk to civil engineers on this subject. You will learn many new and interesting things.
1. ichto counted????? In geocentrism, only two Ptolemy and Cappa tried to do the calculations - the first one understood everything himself and refused, and the second one was defeated by the Arabs. The point here is that a complete model did not exist, and so there could not have been an error which led to heliocentrism. There were unsuccessful attempts to stretch mathematics over theory, which were all disproved by Copernicus.
Reread my post carefully. I was talking about small differences in calculations, attitudes and approaches (not just calculations).
I gave two examples:
1. An insignificant difference in viewpoints of the ancient world gave rise to two concepts which were of colossal importance to scientists of future centuries.
2. An insignificant difference of approach to the structural content of the main building material of our history, which allowed mankind to create skyscrapers and gigantic bridges.
A deviation in calculations is a consequence of a deviation in thought or approach. Therefore, one should not look at the similarity or difference in calculations, but at the underlying meaning of a different view, which can bear incredible fruit.
Gosh, and again - so-mnogabukoffniochem...
1. ichto counted????? In geocentrism the only two who tried to do the calculations were Ptolemy and Calypso - the first understood everything himself and refused, and the second was defeated by the Arabs. The point here is that a complete model did not exist, and so there could not have been an error which led to heliocentrism. There were unsuccessful attempts to stretch mathematics over theory, which Copernicus disproved.
How easily you lose the thread of reasoning. The topic is not historical but philosophical.
The point is that a small difference in views and approach (and hence calculations), can make a total difference to the outcome.
1. The geocentric and heliocentric theories are not "little deviations in numbers and calculations". The geocentric theory does not and has not had any calculations.
2. The same deviation in calculations does not exist in reinforced concrete. And there is nothing ingenious about reinforced concrete - just that the structures are stronger than they were.
Reinforced concrete is brilliant because it is an invention of composite material. But it's not new, before that many people had guessed to mix straw into clay, also a composite material. Now they're making carbon fibre and fibreglass based on that.
Well, composites themselves are a pre-Christian invention.
The Hyksos used composite bows 3500 years ago.
There's nothing genius about it.
How easily you lose the thread of reasoning. The topic is not historical but philosophical.
The point is that a small difference of opinion and approach (and hence calculations), can make a total difference to the outcome.