Paper help.

[exchemist]

Is it me, or is there some deluded members on this forum?. Why in any instant would a topic with help in the title be thrown into a cesspool, when the topic is asking for peoples help.
Member Russ-Walters has noticed the word help, and is trying to help me to correct my grammar.
Where as other members , one who even posts around the forum saying, make a paper if you think you have something, joins in the trollish behaviour.

In answer to Russ, no , I do not use a translator, I am English, but never finished schooling, and from a lack of use of writing, have a bad habit of mixing nouns and verbs etc.

I still however , can not see how my abstract does not say anything, it says the paper will crucify science in a big way.

No it doesn't, it is too garbled to say anything clearly at all. I tried to paraphrase your second draft just now and had to give up at "As opposed to naive set theories". This (a) isn't a sentence and (b) does not explain what is "opposed to naive set theories". (Why the plural, by the way? From what I understand there is something called "Naive Set Theory" but it is one theory, not several. Do you mean "naive set theory"? Then say so.)

And then there is another non-sentence " By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth." Does this mean "By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, this paper aims to construct a true reality…….."? And how is any science reader going to believe that a paper of yours can "construct a true reality", when the goal of science is to make pragmatic models of reality? People will rightly think this is an overambitious claim that belongs in philosophy if anywhere but not in science.

No one will accept a paper written like this for publication, anywhere.

P.S. I now see that you claim to be English. That's appalling. I'm afraid your written grasp of your own mother tongue is far too shaky for you to write anything for publication. Either your education was terrible and you need a remedial course in written English, or your intellect is not good enough for you to produce worthwhile written material. Sorry to appear brutal but it's the truth.

 

[origin]

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals. As opposed to naive set theories. This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true value of the practitioners creations, a range of approaches to help understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.

Edit - better?

Let me help. This is the abstract you should use.

Science all wrong. Scientist bad. Me smart. Me learn everyone good science.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

this paper aims to construct a true reality…….."?

And how is any science reader going to believe that a paper of yours can "construct a true reality"

I imagined him doing origami.

 

[Aqueous Id]

More like paper airplanes & spitwads during class. From the pages out of the books, no doubt.

I never met anyone who clung to their hatred of set theory for the rest of their life. Must have been traumatic.

One of the reasons they should never paddle them.

Ok I was thinking Jokes & Funny Stories but maybe Psychology. Post Traumatic Set Theory Stress Disorder (PTSTSD). Maybe countless victims will come forward and you guys will feel the guilt and shame of ridiculing them, only wishing you were still naive.

Somewhere near Cesspool, headed there but not locked, we need a forum called Dingbats.

 

[Yazata]

Philosophers of science have been trying to understand what scientists are doing for more than a century. My suggestion is that if you aren't already familiar with that subject, that you study it. Otherwise you might find yourself re-inventing the wheel, recreating ideas that were discussed at length and thoroughly critiqued a generation ago. That doesn't mean that those ideas can't be revisited, but if you hope to publish your paper in the professional journals, you will need to have something new to say about them.

Abstract

So what do you anticipate doing with your paper? Do you hope to publish it, or is it intended for some kind of class, at a university or something? Expectations might be significantly different.

This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals.

That seems to presuppose that all of science follows a single procedure and that it's possible to formalize it as some kind of algorithm. I think that most contemporary philosophers of science would question that. Many episodes in the history of science have been examined in great detail to determine precisely what scientists were doing and how their thinking evolved. What becomes apparent very quickly is that they aren't all doing the same thing and conducting themselves in the same way. The idea that there is a single 'scientific method' that all of science adheres to is a tremendous oversimplification of a much more complicated reality.

As opposed to naive set theories.

I don't understand that. Are you talking about model theory in formal logic or something?

This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true values, that humanity has quantified

You've completely lost me there. It's starting to sound a little bizarre.

Is this understandable in a science manner?

Not as it stands. You are going to have to explain what you are up to a lot more clearly than you have here.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No it doesn't, it is too garbled to say anything clearly at all. I tried to paraphrase your second draft just now and had to give up at "As opposed to naive set theories". This (a) isn't a sentence and (b) does not explain what is "opposed to naive set theories". (Why the plural, by the way? From what I understand there is something called "Naive Set Theory" but it is one theory, not several. Do you mean "naive set theory"? Then say so.)

And then there is another non-sentence " By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth." Does this mean "By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, this paper aims to construct a true reality…….."? And how is any science reader going to believe that a paper of yours can "construct a true reality", when the goal of science is to make pragmatic models of reality? People will rightly think this is an overambitious claim that belongs in philosophy if anywhere but not in science.

No one will accept a paper written like this for publication, anywhere.

P.S. I now see that you claim to be English. That's appalling. I'm afraid your written grasp of your own mother tongue is far too shaky for you to write anything for publication. Either your education was terrible and you need a remedial course in written English, or your intellect is not good enough for you to produce worthwhile written material. Sorry to appear brutal but it's the truth.

Exactly that, this paper will not only de-evolve science, it will evolve a total new look at science in a reality perspective.
I have enough knowledge of present information to de-construct science.
You have probably heard this a 1000 times, but in all honesty , I really understand.
I create and have Pragmatic models, including a model, that by logical axiom and absoluteness of model, will completely put a shadow of doubt on relativity. My relativistic model and explanation to the model, is of absoluteness.


I am a genuine Theorist, I do not leave room for any errors. In learning science , I see misuse of definitions, explanations sounding of glamour, rather than actual. I do understand my English still needs improvement, but when someone is saying they think that they truly see reality, and can over rule a lot of science by axioms of logic, someone who has persisted against all the odds of forum life and bans, then just maybe this person is not a troll, has learnt , and does believe they have genuine reason for concern.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly that, this paper will not only de-evolve science, it will evolve a total new look at science in a reality perspective.
I have enough knowledge of present information to de-construct science.
You have probably heard this a 1000 times, but in all honesty , I really understand.
I create and have Pragmatic models, including a model, that by logical axiom and absoluteness of model, will completely put a shadow of doubt on relativity. My relativistic model and explanation to the model, is of absoluteness.


I am a genuine Theorist, I do not leave room for any errors. In learning science , I see misuse of definitions, explanations sounding of glamour, rather than actual. I do understand my English still needs improvement, but when someone is saying they think that they truly see reality, and can over rule a lot of science by axioms of logic, someone who has persisted against all the odds of forum life and bans, then just maybe this person is not a troll, has learnt , and does believe they have genuine reason for concern.

You are free to imagine whatever you like about your abilities and your prospects of success.

 

[Yazata]

In answer to Russ, no , I do not use a translator, I am English, but never finished schooling, and from a lack of use of writing, have a bad habit of mixing nouns and verbs etc.

I'd assumed that your first language wasn't English and that (hopefully) you planned to write your paper in your native language.

I hope that you don't find this suggestion insulting, but you probably should consider enrolling in an adult school writing class. The ability to write English prose reasonably well is a skill that you will find very useful in life.

I still however , can not see how my abstract does not say anything, it says the paper will crucify science in a big way.

That's an awfully grandiose ambition. It sounds Quixotic to me.

Unfortunately, your abstract doesn't give readers any idea of how you propose to do it.

Exactly that, this paper will not only de-evolve science, it will evolve a total new look at science in a reality perspective.
I have enough knowledge of present information to de-construct science.
You have probably heard this a 1000 times, but in all honesty , I really understand.
I create and have Pragmatic models, including a model, that by logical axiom and absoluteness of model, will completely put a shadow of doubt on relativity. My relativistic model and explanation to the model, is of absoluteness.

Things are getting increasingly bizarre and crank-ish.

I think that this thread probably needs to be moved to 'alternative theories'.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think that this thread probably needs to be moved to 'alternative theories'.

Nope.
It needs to be Locked and Cesspooled.
Like ALL of the OP's threads/ posts.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I'd assumed that your first language wasn't English and that (hopefully) you planned to write your paper in your native language.

I hope that you don't find this suggestion insulting, but you probably should consider enrolling in an adult school writing class. The ability to write English prose reasonably well is a skill that you will find very useful in life.



That's an awfully grandiose ambition. It sounds Quixotic to me.

Unfortunately, your abstract doesn't give readers any idea of how you propose to do it.



Things are getting increasingly bizarre and crank-ish.

I think that this thread probably needs to be moved to 'alternative theories'.

I can not post model diagrams on here. This thread is solely on help, in getting my own abstract worded in the correct understanding of what I intend on saying in the paper.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Nope.
It needs to be Locked and Cesspooled.
Like ALL of the OP's threads/ posts.

No offence, but you are seriously a troll. I am asking for help with my abstract, anyone in their right mind, can clearly see, that I AM SERIOUS.
Are you one of these god trolls, always out to stop science?.
Please do not post in my threads if you are going to be a troll.
I will report you the next time you troll my threads, you have no call to try and stop me learning, you are a troll sir.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No offence

That would be incorrect.
Your posts are an offence.
Your claims are offence.
Your persistent publicly-flaunted ignorance is an offence.
And your overweening and totally unjustified arrogance is an offence.

anyone in their right mind, can clearly see, that I AM SERIOUS.

You may well be serious.
But you're deluded.
You don't know anywhere near enough to even start doing what you claim to be capable of.

Are you one of these god trolls, always out to stop science?

You're not doing science.
You don't know what science is.

Please do not post in my threads if you are going to be a troll.

Like I said earlier: you stop posting cr*p, I'll stop pointing out that it's cr*p.

I will report you the next time you troll my threads, you have no call to try and stop me learning, you are a troll sir.

You don't learn.
You have, persistently and consistently, shown yourself to be incapable of learning.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That would be incorrect.
Your posts are an offence.
Your claims are offence.
Your persistent publicly-flaunted ignorance is an offence.
And your overweening and totally unjustified arrogance is an offence.


You may well be serious.
But you're deluded.
You don't know anywhere near enough to even start doing what you claim to be capable of.


You're not doing science.
You don't know what science is.


Like I said earlier: you stop posting cr*p, I'll stop pointing out that it's cr*p.


You don't learn.
You have, persistently and consistently, shown yourself to be incapable of learning.

Again you are making presumptions, you do not and could not possibly know what I have learnt. What I have learnt is enough for what I am writing about.

I use Khan academy, I have gone out of my normal ways to even learn some language of maths. I do not claim to know everything.
Are you a teacher?, are you qualified to even make an assumption?.
Just because yourself does not know the word, objective, it does not mean other individuals are not objective with themselves.
I am sure by now, the true science community can see that all your posts, are seemingly of a none constructive nature , a none teaching nature, and not even science related or related to the questions being asked. You are on almost every forum, nearly everyday, people can clearly see that yourself has medical issues, and are living a world inside your head, delusions that you are real scientist.
Absolutely any individual , can give the present information and tell everyone they are wrong.
This is what you do all day every day.
You will never be recognised for mimicking someone else's work.
I do not intend to be a mimic scientist, and in about approx another 6 months, I will be A level standard UK.

 

[Yazata]

Nope.
It needs to be Locked and Cesspooled.
Like ALL of the OP's threads/ posts.

I don't like the idea of Sciforums' moderators determining what can and can't be said. (With some exceptions, such as posts that might create legal problems and cleaning up spam.) But I'm ok with moving some threads to the alternative fora.

Given the increasingly crankish and bizarre nature of this thread, it would seem to be a perfect candidate for that kind of move.

But it doesn't need to be silenced. If 'theorist-constant 12345' can be enticed to post a few of his ideas and arguments, it might be an occasion for some interesting discussion of the philosophy of science. I might enjoy that.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Again you are making presumptions, you do not and could not possibly know what I have learnt.

As you yourself have previously noted, and as I have pointed out, this isn't the first time we've encountered each other.
I've seen what you claim to be "learning".
And, in every case, it's been worse than abysmal.

What I have learnt is enough for what I am writing about.

Sheer nonsense.

I have gone out of my normal ways to even learn some language of maths.

You've learned SOME of the language of maths?
And you're planning on effectively rewriting the whole of science...

Are you a teacher?

Have been.

are you qualified to even make an assumption?.

I'm MORE than qualified - but in this case it's not an assumption.

Just because yourself does not know the word, objective

Ah, now THAT is an assumption.

I am sure by now, the true science community can see that all your posts, are seemingly of a none constructive nature , a none teaching nature, and not even science related or related to the questions being asked. You are on almost every forum, nearly everyday, people can clearly see that yourself has medical issues, and are living a world inside your head, delusions that you are real scientist.

And here's several more.

in about approx another 6 months, I will be A level standard UK.

Yeah, let me know when you get past degree level, and actually practice science. Then you can talk to me as something approaching an equal...

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't like the idea of Sciforums' moderators determining what can and can't be said. (With some exceptions, such as posts that might create legal problems and cleaning up spam.) But I'm ok with moving some threads to the alternative fora.

The guy is utterly clueless and doesn't learn.
It's the likes of this poster that made me leave a years ago, and the forum has gone down (significantly) while I was away.
The longer he (and certain other posters) are tolerated [sup]1[/sup] the more likely it is I'll leave again.

If 'theorist-constant 12345' can be enticed to post a few of his ideas and arguments, it might be an occasion for some interesting discussion of the philosophy of science. I might enjoy that.

Only if the topic is taken up by others and he stays entirely out of it.
He doesn't know what logic is, what philosophy is, what science is.
He's irrational and seriously deluded as to his own abilities.

1 Almost seemingly condoned if not outright encouraged.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I don't like the idea of Sciforums' moderators determining what can and can't be said. (With some exceptions, such as posts that might create legal problems and cleaning up spam.) But I'm ok with moving some threads to the alternative fora.

Given the increasingly crankish and bizarre nature of this thread, it would seem to be a perfect candidate for that kind of move.

But it doesn't need to be silenced. If 'theorist-constant 12345' can be enticed to post a few of his ideas and arguments, it might be an occasion for some interesting discussion of the philosophy of science. I might enjoy that.

Thank you Yaz and if I could upload diagram models, the discussion will certainly change, I have a good insight into Einstein's thoughts on time and space, I have a new model that explains it all.
I can not upload it, it is url only.
I am fighting my corner without my bullets has such, so you only half of the picture.
It is ok though, the duck will get me banned , long time member so favouritism speaks.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The guy is utterly clueless and doesn't learn.
It's the likes of this poster that made me leave a years ago, and the forum has gone down (significantly) while I was away.
The longer he (and certain other posters) are tolerated [sup]1[/sup] the more likely it is I'll leave again.


Only if the topic is taken up by others and he stays entirely out of it.
He doesn't know what logic is, what philosophy is, what science is.
He's irrational and seriously deluded as to his own abilities.

1 Almost seemingly condoned if not outright encouraged.

You are just stubborn in your ways, I understand, it is what you learnt and you have probably been a teacher teaching maybe even science.
However, you are really wrong about me, you sort of have tried make it personal every forum.
If you were truly an objective to yourself person, then you would hear me out. I personally think you know I can give science a really hard time, already on this forum, showing time dilation to be garbage, and several other things showing that just maybe science is not so correct in all departments after all.
May I suggest to the mods, that if You please do not ban me, on merit of other individuals criticism, to contain all posts to one thread, as I believe I have so much to say.
I have learnt a substantial amount of knowledge, and I do see it very differently including the invention of maths to fit the process.
Besides this thread is still paper help.

You are trying to tell me , I can not write a paper or article , and try to get a published piece of work, even if it ends up in sci fi, somewhere.

 

[Dywyddyr]

However, you are really wrong about me,

Not so far.

you sort of have tried make it personal every forum.

No.
Nothing personal about it.

If you were truly an objective to yourself person, then you would hear me out.

Every single thread you've started, every single claim you've made has been wrong (and, in the majority of cases, has been shown to be wrong).
In other words you've sabotaged yourself, and have not given anyone ANY reason to hear you out. In fact you've done exactly the opposite.

I personally think you know I can give science a really hard time, already on this forum, showing time dilation to be garbage, and several other things showing that just maybe science is not so correct in all departments after all.

The portion I've highlighted shows that you haven't got a clue, and don't have a hope in hell of "giving science a hard time".

I have learnt a substantial amount of knowledge

The highlighted portion above shows this to be a false claim.

You are trying to tell me , I can not write a paper or article , and try to get a published piece of work, even if it ends up in sci fi, somewhere.

If you intend it as science fiction then don't claim otherwise.
Apart from anything else your command of English is deeply flawed and I doubt any reputable publisher would entertain you. It'd cost them too much in proof-reading and correction.

 

[Yazata]

I can not post model diagrams on here. This thread is solely on help, in getting my own abstract worded in the correct understanding of what I intend on saying in the paper.

Ok, so... what do you intend to say in your paper? You still haven't told us. All you've said so far is that you are going to 'crucify', 'deevolve' and 'deconstruct' science, along with proving Einstein wrong and something I didn't understand about reality only existing in people's heads.

That's a hugely ambitious agenda and almost certainly too much for a single paper. You need to narrow your focus, decide on a single more modest point that you want to make, and then argue for it persuasively and well