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

You are trolling sir and avoid the questions asked to you when I am answering yours.

 

By axiom I mean things that are self evidently true i.e an apple falls to the ground

 

Perhaps he just needs more help than some imagined. But I'm just making a suggestion. Thank you for the civil answer.

 

He as not really tried anything other than a bit of name calling and pretending he can't read the paper. Quite clearly if he can't read the paper , English is not is native language.

 

Ok all, forget the paper for a while , let us talk science.

The question is how fast does time pass?

The question is not how fast do we measure time passing.

 

My answer from my paper which is still the same answer as I would give now,

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 firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

twin two seondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

 

Yes, I went through your abstract and showed that over half of it was sentence fragments and the rest was just a jumble words. I can continue on to your introduction and say it needs a complete rewrite. No scientific article has an introduction about the author. The introduction is meant to present the theoretical background and previous findings that you are basing your current paper on. Going on to your axioms, they are not self evident. I can demonstrate why probabilities are bound between 0 and 1. Can you demonstrate any of your axioms; however, this is putting the cart before the horse. You have no introduction, thus you have not framed anything that you want to explain.

 

Ok, I will take your advice on board, I ''give''.

So now let us discuss my axioms and deductive logical proofs, you say they are not axioms so discuss the reason you think they are not axioms. If you can convince me they are not axioms, then I concede to your ''victory'' and will just simply give up on science and admit I must be just really stupid.

 

You are confusing validity with truth. A valid logical form does not mean the premises and consequents are true. For example:
If humans are mortal then humans are immortal. Valid logical form with a false consquent.

 

That sounds like a strange answer, am I even suppose to understand that?

I will change the question for you to simplify,


How far away is your next ''now'' moment in time?

I will give you an hint,

hint: 1 second is far away compared to immediate.

 

Validity vs truth is logic 101. Modus ponens, modus tolens and disjuctive syllogism are examples of logical forms. Any arguments in those forms are logically valid; however, validity does not mean that the premises and consequents are true. Just because you set up your premise and consequent in modus ponens, it does not make those statements true.

 

It makes it true when relative agreement is reached, I asked you a question and you avoided a direct answer deflecting away from the question. I asked you how far away is your next ''now'' moment in time. If you can not understand the question in words I will ask you the question with a measurement,

Do you think your next moment of ''now'' is less than a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length away .


This part of my theory explains this in general.

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 .

 

If twin one firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (p),

twin two seondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (q),


Final edit will look something like this, does that look better JD?

Time Planck (TP) and a Planck length for those who do not, is fractionally 0.

 

I was not avoiding your question. I was clarifying my statement because you said you were confused.

Time is an active field of research and you do not reference any of the work. You seem to be confounding measurement of time , experience of time, and effects of time. You are superficially covering many aspects of time without going into the details and covering what has been discussed before. You cite a Wikipedia article without summarizing any points that you wish to expand upon. These styles of questioning makes it tough to seriously discuss your question.

 

You two premises could be true, but your consequent does not follow from the premises are is not necessarily true.

 

I have just provided a mathematical argument , you again have deflected from answering the question, the question is not tough to discuss, a child could understood the question.
To be honest there is not that much to discuss because I KNOW it is an axiom and re-enforced further more when I add the relative maths.

So regardless what I and you think, the premise is 100% factual .


You know if you agree with me it makes the question relative and an axiom , I think we all know on this forum there can be no disagreement. I have not spent the last several years thinking really hard to publish something for real that was not rock solid. There can be no uncertainty in certainty.

 

You need to tell us which time you are discussing. Are you speaking of Newtonian or relativistic time?

Einstein solved the twin paradox.

Is time related to relativistic speed (I don't think directly...but I'm not a physicist) as the speed of light is a constant (we think)? But time dilation does occur in the presence of massive objects....like a black hole. I don't know the physics or the math for those equations. I do know they exist. It also shifts with smaller changes in gravity creating gravitational redshifts and Shapiro time delays. I may very well be wrong as again I'm not a physicist.

Edit: I see where you have answered that for me in the interim it took for me to write this.

 

The consequence does follow though, think more and you will get it .

 

There is no relativistic time, there is relativistic timing . We are timing things relative to absolute time.

speed is d/t distance over time.

 

It is not lack of understanding, it is properly supporting your claim. Your responsibility is to clearly convey your ideas.

 

Stating an equation with time in non-elastic form does not prove time as non-elastic stick.

 

If it is so simple demonstrate it.

 

Ok,

I and you are identical twins, you start a journey into space using a device that can measure time in time Planck (TP). I also have an identical device.

Now according to the Lorentz length contractions and Einstein , there is a length contraction involved in time dilation.

So you return some ''time'' later and we compare our clocks measurements. Now because both our clocks was using (TP) to measure time, there is no negligible length of time to contract, both our clocks read the exact same amount of time passed, you left when it was now and you return to the present of now. You experienced the exact same amount of time as I did.

 

You are getting me to give away all my secrets , here is the true model of the Lorentz length contractions in basic form.

 

You are getting more descriptive, but in science your job is to explain each aspect you introduce. What are the lorentz length contractions? Why would the people think the clocks differ? Where were the twins traveling? Were they going the same speeds? Were they in equal gravitational fields? Why is it important to have identical twins?