studiot

All I can say is that phi has more patience with these folks than you or I do. Pretty well all the people I know who have turned away from their religion did so as a result of some traumatic event in their life, such as a stillborn baby or worse. I have never known one turn away by reason from other folks, though some have realised the hollowness of it all for themselves. But having said all that I am unsure of your point or question, was it how to persuade these people?

There is a big difference between the processes of 'rational' and 'logical' and thought. As I already said logical thought is concerned with establishing a truth value of something consistent with initial premises or axioms. Those premises are simply statements of fact ie they have assuumed truth values and no more. Such as' the grass is green' On the other hand rational thought processes have a much wide ambit. They can analyses aims, goals and desires and provide courses of action. Wanting or not wanting an ice cream have no different truth values. Few would say I fancy an icecream is alogical thought, but many would consider it a rational one in the right circumstances. Actually the North Americans have not moved forwards, like the English so have kept many of the words they their founding fathers took with them, whilst the English have enhanced the dictionary with new words. A prime example would be your faucet and our tap coming from our jolly tradition of tapping a beer barrel. Cheers.

Ravell, I asked you a polite direct question to which you have not responded, contrary to the rules of this forum.

Yes, but that is not the essence of my comment. Mathematically the variable that forms the parameter in Mathematics is a dummy variable and can be replaced with another so long as the mathematical form is maintained. However my comment was about comparison of something, say the value of g or perhaps the water level at inlet and outlet, at one location with the value of that same something at another location, irrespective of time. This process allows us to establish a change, irrespective of time.

Perhaps I should offer the use of my famous toilet seat that does not have nothing in the middle. Good explanation. +1 In this case time is mathematically called a parameter. This means that both processes are functions of the same variable. This has implications in the study of dimensions.

Thanks +1 But you could always join the discussion.

First of all neither time nor space are things so their fundamentality is moot. Yes indeed they are abstractions, but distance is not the same as space (or a generalisation of it) any more than an interval is the same or a generalisation of time. An no, time is most definitely not the most general abstraction of change, if it is an abstraction of change at all. Change is (a process of) comparison which may or may not involve time as Marcus pointed out, but they are separate abstractions. For instance I can measure/observe the value of pretty well any point variable at two or more points and compare the change from one point to another. Which brings me to my thoughts that both sides of this dicussion have made valid and questionable points but have not articulated either particularly well (don't claim any better I just hope that another worm's eye view might help) I can sympathise there since it is very difficult to get one's head around these ideas. Personally I think of the abstractions (both time and space) as chosing and naming variables as suitable for the purpose of working (mathematically) with what we observe about the world around us. I often find this approach to entropy switches on the light bulb for people who find that idea difficult. I do indeed (often) say that nothing exists - and offer demonstrations / rationalisations. But I also say that Nature is more perverse and diverse than Man's best endeavours and has more tricks up her sleeve. So space is a set of some or all points. The points are members of the set. But Nature offers us sets whose members are conspicuous by their absence. For example a shadow is a set of points there there is an absence of light.

Interesting exchange that leads me to ponder thus: We think we are the highest level on evolution on our planet, and further as far as we know we are the only religous creature. But what does that mean? Well for one thing perhaps there is a critical level of evolution that is needed to be religous. But taking this one step further, Animals know about fire, but are a fraid of it and run away from it. A bit like humans and religion. Humans have learned to control fire, to some extent, but have they learned anything but the most basic aspects of religion. That is, are they at the same evolutionary level with religion as animals are with fire? Could a future more evolved human then surpass religion?

Exactly so +1

Oh, sorry. I thought it was a type of ice cream. (one cornetti)

Well I can't remember learning about this one so I got out my 1960 copy of Vogel and hey he has a whole chapter on the subject. Here is the first page

No, but I do have a soft spot for Koti's infinetti.

Logic implies premises, rationality does not. So no, I think the original was best put. I also note that eveyone has so far assumed that religion is about 'good'. Why so? How about self worship? Or the worship of Mamon? Are they not both rational in that they are compatible with the principle of natural selection and the theory of evolution? Zapatos have I stirred your pot enuff?

No one has said your interpretation is not correct, and you are as entitled as anyone to have one. Mine is different, which is not suprising since although couched in pretty good English the OP was woefully lacking in detail. But that is not reason for you to attempt to deny me my interpretation or lay into my comments the way you have. Furthermore I ask you can it be said that the OP has a successful briquette making industry if he needs this boost? Nor have I precluded the sale to domestic users, the old 'phurnacite' nodules are/were as much for domestic as industrial consumption. I still stand by my comment that users want an efficient, but long burning fuel after ignition and that adding accelerants willy nilly is not the best approach.

Granite is an essentially intrusive rock, so is not exposed anyway. Hard to tell what role the atmosphere might have. It carries the dust clouds from extrusive rocks. But both types need the internal magmas to happen.

Yes indeed and whatsmore we have the phrase "Hard Cheddar" +1

Especially if you add potassium nitrate and sulphur to it.

Several questions arise about this idea, not least being Where does all the water come from? Worlds with tectonic activity (as we know it) get that way because there is sufficient trapped heat in the core, created as the heavier material 'sinks' to the centre during the planet's formation and early history. The planet then spends billions of years trying to slough off this heat, creating the driving conditions for tectonics in the process. This will not happen if the planet is just not big enough - and of course those are the most likely to be totally submerged ones. So the end result is, as always, a balance of competing factors.

There are several thing the OP could do. He has two marketing opportunities for instance. No one who buy logs as basic fuel would buy ones which burned too quickly. They buy miniature 'logs' as matchwood for lighting the fire. In the same way, small pellets catch fire more easily since they have a large surface area to mass/volume ratio and smaller heat capacity. So the OP could market lighting pellets and/or gas pokers and bottled gas supplies. This would be far cheaper in the long run as well. I am far from conviced that introducing extra incendiary chemicals into the main bulk fuel is the way to go. Further all current furnaces are designed for maximum efficiency with current fuel types, not extra flammable ones.

You need to answer the comment in Janus' opening line. What do you mean by see? Can you describe the mechanism by which you propose the travelling observers monitors the Earth Clock?

I have come to really look forward to Janus' clarity of response. +1

Are you suggesting that they currently manufacture briquettes that don't burn? Yes gas pokers were a Victorian invention. But bottled gas is available pretty well everywhere. Because they said so.

Isn't this the (recent) second thread on this subject? Edit Yes I thought so

Why would they wish to burn their product? Surely the industrial buyer has gas pokers?

What industrial use would this be? Gas pokers are usually used to promote rapid combustion industrially so this has never been a problem.