0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dominus - You start by affirming that "Seen as physical quantities, time and space are almost always thought of..." well no, they are not.
you say "we have the vertex of a cone" - you need to explain why you invoke this idea.
You say "... have to be made in small ascending bits (there is no other choice)" - there is no basis in your argument for this claim etc.
It is possible the argument is consistent in your mind - but you have failed to make any form of logical progression from agreed axiom to conclusion. It is also a bit disconcerting to see a page of text to wade through - you can easily shorten your ideas by removing chatty references that do not really add to the piece. It is impossible to really identify flaws because the argument is incomplete. I hope you are able to put a better version up in the future. Regards
Quote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23Dominus - You start by affirming that "Seen as physical quantities, time and space are almost always thought of..." well no, they are not. Hello Imatfaal - Yes, I see your point. Although, I must say that even men of science prefer time and space in their “big” size. Not many out there thinking of the inner structure of space or trying to give to time a physical identity.
QuoteQuote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23you say "we have the vertex of a cone" - you need to explain why you invoke this idea. I did say “Let us think of the process as being an electromagnetic process for the physical creation of time and space which we can easily identify, as I am now doing, with the existing electromagnetic spectrum”.
Quote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23you say "we have the vertex of a cone" - you need to explain why you invoke this idea. I did say “Let us think of the process as being an electromagnetic process for the physical creation of time and space which we can easily identify, as I am now doing, with the existing electromagnetic spectrum”.
QuoteQuote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23You say "... have to be made in small ascending bits (there is no other choice)" - there is no basis in your argument for this claim etc. Well, I was talking of a process first through Aristotle writing and then going one step further myself. If we accept a process, by a definition of English dictionaries, as being <<a gradual phenomenon marked by natural changes>> the changes must be ascending seeing that we are talking of the physical creation of something. In the matter at hand the creation of the wavelength expanding in time and extending in space.
Quote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23You say "... have to be made in small ascending bits (there is no other choice)" - there is no basis in your argument for this claim etc. Well, I was talking of a process first through Aristotle writing and then going one step further myself. If we accept a process, by a definition of English dictionaries, as being <<a gradual phenomenon marked by natural changes>> the changes must be ascending seeing that we are talking of the physical creation of something. In the matter at hand the creation of the wavelength expanding in time and extending in space.
QuoteQuote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23It is possible the argument is consistent in your mind - but you have failed to make any form of logical progression from agreed axiom to conclusion. It is also a bit disconcerting to see a page of text to wade through - you can easily shorten your ideas by removing chatty references that do not really add to the piece. It is impossible to really identify flaws because the argument is incomplete. I hope you are able to put a better version up in the future. RegardsI read the topic a couple of times and thought about it. Yes, I agree, it is not well presented, I should have done better. As for my ornaments, it’s just my writing style, my apologies.
Quote from: imatfaal on 15/03/2011 12:13:23It is possible the argument is consistent in your mind - but you have failed to make any form of logical progression from agreed axiom to conclusion. It is also a bit disconcerting to see a page of text to wade through - you can easily shorten your ideas by removing chatty references that do not really add to the piece. It is impossible to really identify flaws because the argument is incomplete. I hope you are able to put a better version up in the future. RegardsI read the topic a couple of times and thought about it. Yes, I agree, it is not well presented, I should have done better. As for my ornaments, it’s just my writing style, my apologies.