14-12-2016, 12:40 PM
I've read the "classical Elements versus physical Elements ("matter" - essay You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)."
There are not much points on which I agree.
I always have a big problem with papers where assumptions are made and then taken too far along the road. (apologies for any bad grammar)
The assumption of the basic elements is ok, you could even use all of Aristotle works and use it as an overlay, but it is only convincing if there are many similar works, and referenced images from the particular period. Those other references should not only look almost the same but should have accompanied text that would describe the same as what we see in the VMS. Or at least one of these. For example. Stamping a Rosette with the label earth need more backbone.
The theories in the paper and the referenced links, lack both (referenced text & images) and are not convincing for me at this point.
Yet, the angle is interesting and could be subject to more research and elaborate efforts.
There are not much points on which I agree.
I always have a big problem with papers where assumptions are made and then taken too far along the road. (apologies for any bad grammar)
The assumption of the basic elements is ok, you could even use all of Aristotle works and use it as an overlay, but it is only convincing if there are many similar works, and referenced images from the particular period. Those other references should not only look almost the same but should have accompanied text that would describe the same as what we see in the VMS. Or at least one of these. For example. Stamping a Rosette with the label earth need more backbone.
The theories in the paper and the referenced links, lack both (referenced text & images) and are not convincing for me at this point.
Yet, the angle is interesting and could be subject to more research and elaborate efforts.