SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (66254)5/18/2006 12:21:20 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 173976
 
"At best you asked a question on one item. And even beyond that it looks more likely that you're using a different defintion of dimension are wrapping it up now as if it's the same definition."

I did not. I used your explanation of how time qualifies as a dimension and applied that to other areas that could be similarly qualified. You have made several mistakes in this discussion regarding form and application. I have clarified for you on each occasion. Apparently you are still tripping over the same logic.

"You may not see a reason why the same rules would not apply but you can't apply those rules."

I said I see no reason why not and you still haven't offered one.

"Change" is obviously flawed as a dimension. We measure change in the context of the one or more dimensions. What is your measure of change in the absence of any of the four dimensions of the univers?

We measure time in the context of material events taking place in space. We measure change in the same manner.

You saw no reason why the same rules don't apply. Go ahead establish a measure of "change" without using the four dimensions.

Change is a concept, just as time is, that has dimension according to its application.

Gem
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext