I need some advice on writing a scientific paper! Please help

Did you generate that figure or are you using some published material? What do the other published material show?

 

I understand that. I do appreciate your advice it is also getting better . I tend to always write a bit brief, a bit lazy if you like. I now understand your advice and the fact that I am being incomplete. I will go over my paper and make it a bit more complete explaining things a bit more intricate, I just need get use to using the correct citations and presenting correctly.

Kind Regards

Steve

 

Any time. Good luck with your endeavors.

Best,
John

 

I was under the impression time could become infinitely slow in a massive enough black hole. What is changing? Time or gravity or both? If time becomes infinitely slow then it is fractionally zero or near to or at PT. Or IOWs it has stopped. What happens then? Are you saying time is a constant?

 

Yes I am saying time is constant , time never slows and can not slow because it is absolute. Timing of light can slow or speed up.

 

I don't think that works even as a thought experiment. You can take no journey that short. TP involves a Planck Length which is basically infinitely short. It is the shortest time or length one can experience and no human can experience either. Any journey two people experienced using two times involves different length journeys. You are modifying the Lorentz Equations. You cannot take the speed of light out of the equation and cannot go a short enough distance to change the equation or time contraction. Time dilation is relativistic but I don't think time actually changes under those circumstances. What changes is relative time between two observers.

But perhaps I don't understand where you're trying to go with any of this.

 

I did not take the speed of light out of it. Planck time is the smallest possible conceivable measurement that light can travel across a Planck Length. The thought experiment often used in the Lorentz contraction is the use of a travelling train carriage and a light clock . The light travelling from the front of the carriage to the rear of the carriage and then making a return trip. We call it a physical length contraction when the reality is it is a distance decrease the light has to travel accounting for the relative motion of the rear of the trains carriage.
However if at the front of the carriage we were to place a light clock that measured each ''tick'' over distance x by using (TP), there is no contraction in the process because the measurement of time by using (TP) has no length we could contract.

 

You are using a time and length that make no sense for a journey. You'd have to use a fraction of either TP or PL to end up with one or less of either for a journey. It would have to be one or less of either and that is a mathematical construct that is an impracticality in nature. So the relative time in a longer journey if part of the special relativity with Einstein (I believe) incorporating some general relativity into the equations. In this case I don't see you introducing anything new but again I might be missing something. It doesn't appear that time is changing.

Know without knowing more physics, it appears that gravity may actually change time although that might be relative as well. What say you?

 

What the actual time dilation shows us is a timing dilation of entropy, gravitational affect changing the rate of entropy loss, i.e the frequency output slows down. This a much more lengthy debate though.


I have edited my first part of my paper, this far I have this, does this now read better and do I explain the problem and is my intentions made?

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.




Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we are in on the action and can look at the intrinsic details, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science, looking to achieve relative correctness and the correct semantics of the thinking.



Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evident merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothesis

 

Quoting a dictionary for a definition is usually frowned upon in science. Dictionaries will define the semantic meanings of the words. You want the operatiknal definitions (I.e., how they used in scientific works). There have been many philosophical works that define theory and hypothesis. You may want to explore those.

 

You need one mentor.

 

He takes no mentors, no questions, no objections.

This^

 

Newtonian - inertial frame of reference.

Which demonstrates total illiteracy.

BTW black holes is a fantasy, a speculation.

 

Spitting jargon not connected to any reality, less physics, he takes no questions.

BTW, there no such thing as speed of time.

Spitting delirium.

 

I don't think you should be critiquing a physics paper in any form.

Just one of a plethora: http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2017-12

 

I would stay away from him. He is a black hole of intelligent thought.

 

A strange conclusion seems as my ''mentors'' in this thread have advised me and I have started to change it accordingly to their advice. Which quite clearly shows you have approached the thread with ''trolling'' in mind, trying to attack me instead of my papers merit.
If you have nothing to add to this paper in the way of advice then please refrain from making your bogus unsubstantiated claim.

 

Hello all, I feel this is my best effort so far, are the citations better?

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract-

This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.


Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.

''HYPOTHESIS (from Gr. ὑποτιθέναι, to put under; cf. Lat. suppositio, from sub-ponere), in ordinary language, an explanation, supposition or assumption, which is put forward in the absence of ascertained facts or causes''

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.

''The process of theory construction in organisational studies is portrayed
as imagination disciplined by evolutionary processes analogous
to artificial selection. The quality of theory produced is predicted
to vary as a function of the accuracy and detail present in the
problem statement that triggers theory building, the number of and
independence among the conjectures that attempt to solve the problem,
and the number and diversity of selection criteria used to test the
conjectures. It is argued that interest is a substitute for validation
during theory construction, middle range theories are a necessity if
the process is to be kept manageable, and representations such as
metaphors are inevitable, given the complexity of the subject matter.''

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 516-531

 

My post was in response to another person, not to you.

But for your post, what journal do you hope will publish your opinion piece (its certainly not a scientific paper)? And if you are not already familiar with that journal, read all the existing literature (clearly you have not) and have neither read the journal nor its guidelines for submissions, then you are not ready to publish.

 

You are correct it is a paper all about gardening, there is no science mentioned in my paper at all. NOT

Newton, Einsteins, Planck , time, etc, I believe that is all science.

 

Hello mentors, I now think I understand the citations and in practice have produced this practice piece.

An axiom {Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.} is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory {Davidson Reynolds, Paul (1971). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.} or hypothesis {Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.}. There is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism { Ben Dov, Y. Local Realism and the Crucial experiment}. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.


Does that look better? Do I have to quote something out of the citation in my chapter?

 

I've got a master's degree in marine biology--I've read hundreds of scientific papers on different subjects, including chemistry, physics, oceanography, biology and geology. What you wrote had no science. There was no data, no observations, nothing measurable. It wasn't science. It was just philosophical bullshit. That, and your introduction was just silly. It had no place in academia.

 

A sentence fragment does not mean a fragmented sentence, it means something that is not a sentence, but only part of one. A sentence requires a subject and a verb. Those sentence fragments all missed having verbs. They would have sounded ok in verbal English, but written English is different than verbal English. Academia requires sentences, not simply fragments of sentences. Also, sentence fragments are acceptable in novels. They are not acceptable in formal academic writing. I realize that English isn't your native tongue, but that just means you need to take criticisms to heart and fix things, not double down on your ignorance.

 

Trolls need to be treated harshly. He has refused the more tender advice, and doesn't have the sense to take the good advice. His paper will end up in File 13 anywhere he submits it.

 

I find it interesting that your best ''attack'' is to point out literate errors and not once do you try to point out any errors in the provided logic and science, I have made several observations in the paper this far, I believe you are trying to distract me away from writing and completing the paper. Your views are welcome but I will not be taking your views on board.

Quite clearly you know me from other forums, your writing style is very familiar.