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

I have no use for philosophical bullshit, hence why I didn't tear it apart. I do care about writing and about science.

I don't think so--I use the same username on all forums I'm on, so you could clearly find me. Sounds like you are a bit paranoid?

 

I am not paranoid, I have been ''followed'' onto forums where the posters aim is only but to get me banned. My apologies that not being you.

However it is not philosophy, maybe you do not understand the content? or maybe you are not considering I asked for help in the thread title and this is still a work in progress that is still incomplete.

Consider the paper title for one, relative correctness, the paper only really wants to correct the semantics of relativity to make it then correct.

The other two postulates, well what can I say, they change reality.

 

Of course you are paranoid if you think the above. Why would people chase you from forum to forum?


It's that I don't care about the content. I really don't care about the intricacies of relativity. It's not my thing. I do care about academic writing.

 

Again, if you are citing a dictionary or encyclopedia, you are including an unnecessary citation in most cases. The reason why you need citations is to frame your work based on past work that has been done. Find academic journal articles that wrote about similar ideas to yours. Summarize what they have done and explain how your idea is different. From the quoted paragragh, you may want to look at articles about metaphysics, philosophy of science, and/or philosophy of mind. A proper in text citation using APA style would be authors comma year, for example: (Jones, Smith & Buckley, 2007). Then you would have a reference page at the end with the full citation like this:
Jones, J. G., Smith, S. & Buckley, D. R. (2007). The importance of hypotheses and theories in scientific works. The Journal of Philosophy of Science, 3 (11), 375-392. doi: 10.1027.jps1234567890.

The italics are not working well, but here is decent website:
http://sites.umuc.edu/library/libhow/apa_examples.cfm

 

The problem with trying to find similar work is a problem because my notions are new and ''destroy'' some present science in the process. However I thank you for your help and link.

 

It might as well be about gardening. Your paper rambles, does not promote any scientific concept, and is more philosophy and sociology than physics. Just because you mention names means nothing.

 

Science works in small steps. Everything is built off others' work. If you cannot frame your work based on previous work, it will not be taken seriously. For example, you mention realism. Start referencing articles on realism and then tie those articles contents to your new ideas about axioms, theories, and hypotheses.

 

Do you mean something a bit more like the below but with citations as well?

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immeadiately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immmedaitely with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuos flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .



This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

If twin two accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q∀


This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.


p.s I know science likes models.

 

Like I said, all the information is not added, see my added model, I am sure you can agree that measurement and observations are an accepted form of science.

 

Your sentence about Einstein can have the last part written as: time can slow down or speed up (put your in text citation for the Einstein papers in these parentheses). You follow up by saying it was proven true by experiments (cite the experiments)

Also, drop all references to yourself and your feelings in the rest of your paper. Just express your thoughts, data, experiments, etc.

 

Thank you, I will look up what I need then add it to the relevant position in the paper.

 

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, analyses 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 {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". Encyclopedia 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..
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.


The meaning of math and math use dependency.

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.

It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the unreachable boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.

Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed or the length of measurement is.

Postulate two: Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: light and dark do not exist of free space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.

I quote: { Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.}

Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic

I quote:
{Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.}

Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity


This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety.

In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''

Citation:Wikipedia
Simultaneity

I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.


If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

If twin two accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is then objectively accepted,then subsequently →p=q∀



This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

Thus explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

 

This is the next part, hows it all looking? Is it starting to make sense ?

Let us now look for further evidence of falsifiable statement and we will look at the statement of {Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity)} from our earlier quote and citation of Albert Einstein on relativity.

Let us consider the train carriage is at rest relative to the embankment and the clock on the embankment and the clock on the carriage are synchronous to begin with. Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.
This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck. If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evident results, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidently if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one, twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them and synchronous too twin one.

 

→p=q∀ is a logical fallacy. Just because modus ponens is true for one set of p and q, it does not hold for p with all q. You are confusing validity of modus ponens with the truth of the statements within the modus ponens. For example:
p: it rained today
q1: the uncovered ground is wet
q2: the covered ground is wet
Most people would agree that if p then q1 is true. Most people would not agree that if p then q2 is true and given the premise there is not reason to think the covered ground is wet. Thus, showing that if p then q1, you cannot say →p=q∀.

 

RE: Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information. See Posting #137
※→ Equality, ---

Wow, I would reconsider your entire project.

(COMMENT)

Abstract-
The two paragraphs do not constitute an Abstract.

This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process.

R: • What does this mean?​

“dielectric approach”

R:• This is not a discussion between two or more peers. This is a challenge of some sort that attempts to stipulate flaws in “Relativity” (Special or General is not quite clear).​

“deductive logical proof’s”

R:• Your “deductive logical proof’s” (sic)(whatever the conclusion or outcome) does not trump multiple experimental tests and observational evidence that substantiate “Relativity” (Special or General).​

“true values of relativity”

R:• This is subjective, not factual. My eyes are very valuable to me, but of no value to you.​

Introduction-

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.

R:• Yes young minds want to know; so would the Academy of Science.​

The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved.

R:• You must define the “we” (who is “we” and what are their credentials?). You must stipulate what authorities you have.​

In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology.

R:• You are using “logic and critical thinking” to challenge “the entirety of physics science.” You need to mention this in your abstract. Not to mention the evidence you have to support this.​

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.

R:• What do the intrinsic details ostensibly indicate?​

“details that creates this mythology in science”

R:• Do tell! You need to mention this in your abstract. This would revolutionize our entire way of life.​

Paragraphs “Theory and Hypothesis” and “The meaning of math and math use dependency” need to be deleted.

R:• Everyone understands that the use of Theory and Hypothesis are key to the Scientific Process; but only in the front-end of the Scientific Process. And Math is the universal language used to communicate and record aspects of science.​

“The speed of time is infinite”

R:• Time is the inverse of frequency.
R:• Frequency is the inverse of time.

∆ ELF is between 3 to 30 Hz. Zero Hz is the END of the EM spectrum at the low end. There is no time conversion for the inverse of zero. It is an undefined equation.​

“Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation”

R:• Light is NOT dependent on EM Radiation; Light IS EM Radiation. EM Radiations have a frequency for what they emit. ​

“light and dark do not exist of free space”

R:• I’m not sure how you define “free space.”
R:• But I’m having a very hard time imagining any place within the light horizon of Earth that light is not visible.
R:• Free-space implies it is within the fabric of space. I cannot imagine the fabric of empty space. ​

OK, my daughter wants me. So, my recommendation to you is to scrap this project all together.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

The abstract is a farrago of nonsense. Are you trying to foist another Sokal type hoax?

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

 

With all due respect , can you not read?

It means the semantics of relativity are wrong, it means science understanding is wrong , it means I am going to correct it.

It quite amazes me how many people try to get me to give up and end the paper, I believe everyone is worries I am going to complete this paper and my second and third postulate is a big worry to people.

I will not be giving up on this paper.

Regards

Steve​

 

A what Hoax? Obviously this is no hoax and I am going to continue until we have relative correctness.

 

Sure. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more).

 

If you think it is a hoax then you should be able to show clearly any errors in the logic and science I have provided?

Did you know that it was Einstein who practically said to ignore real time and we will define time by the fingers of a clock.

 

Your writing is such a mash-up of jargon that it makes no sense at all. It is not coherent enough to have actually committed an error.

 

That is the beauty of measurement, you do not need to read a single sentence to understand the model diagram and the inference this has on the twin paradox and time dilation and simultaneity.
Relative correctness my friend.

 

My apologies for my reply, I just sore ''red'' when I read your opening. Thank you for the advice.

dialectical
dʌɪəˈlɛktɪk(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions.

 

RE: Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information. See Posting #137
※→ Equality (Steve), ---

Oddly, you mentioned again - the big question.

​

(COMMENT)

• What is the shape of Relativity?
• Would we know it when we see it?​

(OPINION)

I don't believe that "Relativity" is a thing that lends itself to view in structure and semantic form (relating to meaning in language or logic). Relativity is (in very thumbnail form) a "theory" about the fabric of space-time, and the equality of mass (gravity) and energy (just to name a few aspects).

And, I cannot say more vehemently, that the speed of light is constant and independent; whether is is traveling through a vacuum --- of the motion of the light source or an outside observer.

• How does the speed of light --- lend itself to structure and semantic form?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I must of missed this, my apologies. Let us look at your argument but in the correct context.

If I was on planet X and you was on planet Y,

My next chronological position on the timeline planet X is (tP) away

Your next chronological position on the timeline planet Y is ?

You are wrong my logic is an axiom, there is no error.