studiot

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.

Any half ways decent Engineering course will incorporate the necessary Maths and Physics as a matter of course (pun intended). Most have 'common core' subjects with many different branches of Engineering. Remember to concentrate on the underlying basics / fundamentals. This is because of the pace of change, particularly in your chosen area. Water will still boil at 100oC in one hundred year's time, but I doubt that the OPV302 laser diode will still be around, except in museums. Go well in your future studies and career.

Yes. +1

A few paragraphs. Considering the first one ( or should I now say 0/0? ) in the OP are you encouraging more? Gulp! Allkey, please take a breath (preferably many) and approach this a bit at a time. You have too many concepts mixed up with too many non standard usages of words for people to read and respond too. I will take only one of your points and one of your words. What makes you thing the old sailors' meaning of cardinal as applied points of the compass is the same, or even related to, the very specific meaning of cardinal in mathematical number theory? The mathematical expression 0/0 is neither 1 nor 0. It is indeterminate without context and maybe not even determinate then. Please also be aware that zero and nothing are not the same in mathematics, although colloquially they are. So discussion based on mixing these is fruitless. I am giving you a balancing upvote so you can start with a clean sheet to try and save your thread before the moderators close it altogether.

You should read this book The attacking Ocean by Brian Fagan I see it can be obtained very cheaply second hand or perhaps your local library will have it.

This nicely embodies my comment, which is not about the general correctness, but about the detail or presentation. I prefer the phrase "for every point in that small region." I think it can be confusing for many to be emphasising the thermodynamic idea of a state function which is a single representation for a whole system, and then considering something like a tensor function which varies from point to point within a system and has no overall single representation. Indeed zero may feature as an overall average. I know this and you know this but... Sorry to be so pedantic.