You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 3
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
A reputable scientist picks up a piece of paper and says that the plane of the leaf is the surface of the leaf. 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? :)
what's wrong?
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...?
Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with an authoritative scientist? :)
Authoritative scientists communicate with each other only in a language they understand.
With other people who do not understand their language, they communicate in the language of analogies and interpretations, thus losing the underwater part of the iceberg of meaning.
The example of the piece of paper is a clear proof of that.
And personally, even though I'm not an authoritative scientist, I understand the meaning of space curvature in the analogy with a piece of paper. And I share and understand the fact of curvature of space and the hypothesis of existence of mole holes.
A question completely off-topic, but very curious to me. In Internet wars of 2012-2015 on "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 those who believe that the whole world does not exist, because the whole world is in their mind 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's a field where there's no room for free imagination, and 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? :)
Of course, I agree.
" And the compilation will bring you down to earth by poking your nose at your mistakes. " Spell it right :) By writing a program, you become the creator of a little world that lives by your laws after compilation. Trading is a separate topic.Different levels of abstraction are always used. One suggested, others thought and agreed, it seems like a logical suggestion. And it seems a lot of things were built on this model, everything works. But science evolves, that is what makes it different from religion. If you do not agree with the fact that the compressed spring has energy, then offer your model, perhaps it will be really better and more accurate.
Actually, in this example, I'm more interested in the fact that there is a lot of distortion of the true SOURCE of things.
Let the concept of energy be introduced. But, it must be consistent with the truth... and used strictly for its intended purpose.
Otherwise, they invented the object "energy". Bypassing the description of the essence of this object, they start using it everywhere,... and don't even bother to explain how, if energy can't come from nothing, it came from... and surrounds us in such untold quantities?
And it's been a mess since kindergarten:
- they have balloons that fly because they are LIGHT OF AIR
- they have rockets that fly because they LEAVE a jet of gas
- they have money that is a THING
- and the country should be run by "clowns" elected by vote, not by those selected by test results PROFESSIONALS in their respective fields.
And then, we sit here and complain that everything around us is so bad and unfair
Just a little survey of programmers on the subject of logic:
An authoritative scientist picks up a piece of paper and says that the plane of the leaf is the surface of the leaf. 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? :)
It depends who you call authoritative! As a matter of fact, Einstein was mentioned here with his burrows and all sorts of dimensions and jumps in space, here, I personally am waiting for him when and where he comes out of! And it was also mentioned about nothing, and here I agree with it personally, because I believe that everything has a projection, that is, thoughts are not materialized as some claim - and are mistaken; a thought tries in its desire - to materialize, and this is two big differences; So, thoughts can be grouped into ideas, but for this purpose they need an object that groups them and converts them into matter, which over time will be materialized and will become more complex (grouped), but the original will always live in it, and 10 000 years ago we created it and turned it into matter - a thought - and still we see it, as it is recorded in the informational RNA, from which data enter the DNA, etc.д. And the last scientist who thought about people and did everything for the sake of people was Newton and the like, who made their things in three dimensions; all other scientists (destroyers), who are baffled by prizes, etc., as well as priests with believers and with bags of cash, gold and diamonds, can wait for someone from where, in other words - the un-honesty will soon spread from everywhere, we should pull the net tight, otherwise we will miss the show of alien angels.
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 - exists in reality. It can be measured UNLESS the force is 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 am more than sure that almost everyone here can give more than one more example of similar nonsense
The concept of force is only introduced by defining it via Newton's second law, F=ma, which also introduces the concept of mass. There is no means of measuring force separately, mass separately, unless this law is applied. Energy, unlike these two concepts defined only through each other, can be measured in independent experiments. Even its units of measurement show a connection with phenomena of a non-mechanical nature, the calorie = 4.16 joules. A calorie is how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water (1 litre) by 1 degree; a joule is how much energy it takes to lift 1 kg of mass to a height of 1 metre against the force of gravity with an acceleration of free fall of about 10 metres per second per second.
That is on the contrary, it is for calibration of springs that a force standard is required, and there is nothing to measure the force itself, one can only compare weights on lever scales in the field of the earth's gravity. And to distinguish hot water from cold water is possible even by hand, without thermometer and scaling of temperatures from freezing to boiling water in the range of 0-100 degrees Celsius - that is what mothers do, with their elbow, before bathing little children, accurately and responsibly. Energy in all its various forms has a law of conservation, but force does not. Mass, momentum, energy have it, but force does not. Force has little basis for claiming objective existence, it is the result of calculation. Much more so for energy.
Since it is a topic I will try to bring it closer to the topic of the forum.
It would be interesting to know what reality in currency exchange reflects the concept of "closing a deal". Or is this action purely virtual, made-up? And there is and can be no "withdrawal to the interbank"?
Authoritative scientists communicate with each other only in a language they understand.
With other people who do not understand their language, they communicate in the language of analogies and interpretations, thus losing the whole underwater part of the iceberg of sense.
The example of a piece of paper is a vivid confirmation of this.
And personally, even though I'm not an authoritative scientist, I can understand the warp of space in the analogy with a piece of paper. And I share and understand the fact of space curvature and the hypothesis of the existence of mole holes.
Well, the curvature of space has long been experimentally proved by astronomers, and with mole holes, moving into the past (we all constantly move into the future), temperatures of -100500 deg. Kelvin and below are just theories.
What about burrows, there is still no clarity with gravitation.
Another question - how did people learn to work diamonds if they are the hardest substance on earth? After all, in order to work something with high hardness, it is necessary to prepare a tool with hardness no less, and preferably higher.
Or, to exaggerate the question in a harder form - how can a plasticine knife saw through a steel beam?