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

Ok I ''see'' , thank you, I was thinking it looks rather ''messy'' the way I put the citation in , I think by just putting a ''prefix'' in, it may tidy it up but I am not totally sure.

 

I have decided for now to leave the citations out, I could easily add them at the end if really needed. This far I am at this, have I managed to change from the introduction to the notions ''smoothly''?

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality 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 consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . Showing construction of deductive proof's and falsifiable statement. A reality that looks at the true values of reality 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.

I accidentally ''fell'' into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination soon became a passion and within time I was learning and understanding the knowledge.
However in certain aspects of Physics and process the information I was learning did not seem to make logical sense to myself and often resulted in forum bans by me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

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 solid 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.

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 the 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 solid 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 the speed or length of increment measurement.

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 obejective. 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. 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.

 

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 immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between increments, 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 .


To be continued..... what you think? understanding yet?

 

continued...

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

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

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

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


So far?

 

Herby’s post is the best.

I don’t think you would care to answer his questions.

I would think that you should not use ‘’I’’, but on other hand it is a paper on a mixture of philosophy and science, and thus it has no relation to experimental philosophy aka natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, genetics and similar.

So you may be allowed to be full of yourself.

Newton separated philosophy from natural science and that was called the scientific revolution.

You goal is to mix them back as you have been taught from childhood.




I don’t think you would be interested, but I will make a few notes as a reflection to Herby’s post.



Axioms are not what a language dictionary says they are.

You have to justify or prove that you can use a common language dictionary.

Euclid geometry is based on 5 axioms.

Non-Euclid geometry is based on 4.

The less, the better is the rule #1:

“ We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose we say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”

Euclid geometry became a particular case of Non-Euclid geometry.

The axioms are not self-evident, - there are no such things as a point or straight line in nature.

But they work and it is all what matters, the result matters.

All complicated volumes of geometry are built on these axioms.

You can call it a circular logic.

Math and geometry are tools of experimental philosophy aka natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, genetics and similar.



As to the sciences themselves:

You said: -“ An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis “

In natural sciences there are 3 states of the matter, - liquid, gas, solid.

More solid sounds like more pregnant.

Thus from POV of natural sciences your statement is as idiotic as all statements of your teacher, all with no exclusions.

You cannot mix a little bit of philosophy with science without getting a personal belief, ideology and idiocy in the result.

Pillars of natural sciences are definitions which are not subjects to dictionaries or interpretations.



As an example, climate was defined to serve certain purposes in late XIX century.

There could be no global, or earth or international climate according to the definition.

That’s why one can know for sure that global climate change is a belief, ideology, pure idiocy.



Can you tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, except for "more solid"?

Can you make it as simple as possible following rule 1?

I can tell you that there is no practical use of a hypothesis, falsified or not falsified, except for forming beliefs, ideology and idiocy.

Any theory of experimental philosophy aka natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, genetics has a practical application.

The rule 4 which is my sig tells “no hypothesis” must be formed.

“This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered.”

Any theory is based on a set of assumptions and definitions which are not transferrable to another theory and less to a dictionary and must not contradict another existing theory.

All classical mechanics is based on 3 Newton’s laws and strict definitions.

They are not self-evident and they have no proof.

TOR, according to Einstein’s words is “based on a totally different set of assumptions” but “in spite of that comes to far reaching agreement” with Newton’s theory.

All thermodynamics is based on 4 laws which are not self-evident and which have no proof.

(Laws is quite vulgar, they are 4 beginnings of Thermodynamics if you want to call them correctly.)

In all 3 theories above they are expressed in math equations.

F=ma has no proof outside of the text of the theory given further in Principia.

You can call it circular logic.

You can accept Genesis of the Bible as a set of assumptions and definitions and see what will happen to your life by the end of the text and in the end result.

I like how somebody compared F=ma with a promissory note given by Newton and then cashed out in generation of different theories.

The assumptions you introduce do not matter, the end result and the practical use do.

 

Thank you for your comments, I will answer all the questions I am questioning in this paper, I do not make assumptions, I only deal with objective facts and not subjective dogma.

 

I have edited my last part, I have been informed my logic values were incorrect so I have corrected it.

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

twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately 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 .

 

Now I have added more, you will not have expected the next part saying what it says.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality 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 consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . Showing construction of deductive proof's and falsifiable statement. A reality that looks at the true values of reality 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.

I accidentally ''fell'' into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination soon became a passion and within time I was learning and understanding the knowledge.
However in certain aspects of Physics and process the information I was learning did not seem to make logical sense to myself and often resulted in forum bans by me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

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.

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 the 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 solid 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 the speed or length of increment measurement.

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 obejective. 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. 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. 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 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∀

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.

However in my mind this was still not enough, I needed to think even more. My thoughts were on the present , the ''now' moment. If twin one was on Earth and twin two was on earth in each others present, twin two could of never experienced less time to return back to the present of twin one. The significance of this being that the twins would occupy two different points on the time line, twin two being further back in time on the measurement of the time line than twins one measurement.

Thus completely 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.

Now let us look at the consequence of this on the present information, this certaintly shows that time dilation has no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner when concerning time travel or travelling twins and the speed of time.

However I found something else was amiss, all the forums of the land telling me I was incorrect and there was a time dilation and time slowed down, proving it without doubt by explaining time dilation was used in satellite systems in space to retain accuracy , this seemingly undistupatable. My thoughts were I was going crazy or they were just really not very clever people, because how could they not understand?
Then the thought occured to me, what if in some way they were being ambiguos about time and what they was defining as time, was not really time but something else?
Thus leading to a discussion about the mechanics of relativity, the mechanics of relativity being timing. Semantics causing misinterpretation worldwide of what a time dilation actually is, a timing dilation as it should be appropriately redefined too, is simply agreeable without ambiguity.

However we must archive any thoughts on time slowing down or speeding up , twin paradox's , time travel and simultaneity these been literally useless content , borderline compared to religion and subjective thoughts based on timing mechanism and synchronous of that mechanism , an offset in timing is not a change in the speed of time.
Thus I propose Newton to be correct and time is absolute, relative time being relative timing .


Well? am I doing ok with it ? not wrote one before so dont know if I am writing it right?

 

What this article lacks so far is in-text academic citations. You need one of these in each paragraph.

 

Thank you, we have discussed citations earlier, I decided I would first write the paper then add the citations I need after it was wrote, mainly to save ''time'' at this stage of the paper.
For later thinking about the citations, should I put the citations after each ''chapter'' or all of them at the end of the paper ? or make reference after each chapter then add them at the end?

 

Why are trolling people with a document full of sentence fragments? Even when you complete a sentence, it is just a jumble of words with little meaning. You do use some basic jargon picked up by very basic classes. Maybe you think if it contains some jargon it looks scientific? I am not sure what you are trying to achieve.

 

That is very strange, I find I can read your sentence structure quite well, your sentence is seemingly constructed of words, I believe these words to be the language of English. My sentence structure seemingly reads the same as your sentence structure. Except my sentence structure does not start with such as ''why are trolling people'', do you not mean why are you trolling people?

 

You are just posting nonsense to get others to reply to you seriously for your enjoyment.

 

Well, first thing, it would help if your paper was science, and not philosophy. Science involves data and/or observations and/or equations and/or descriptions. I don't see any of that in your philosophical meanderings.

Oh, and any academic editor will completely take out your silly introduction. Nobody in academia cares that you are a nobody.

 

Usually, in-text citations should be placed in the main text and you need to add the reference section at the end of your paper, corresponding with your in-text citations. For instance:

 

You are quite clearly incorrect, there is not only your reply in this thread from forum members. Nobody as mentioned sentence structure as being a problem. You say I am posting nonsense, so for you to conclude it is nonsense you must be able to show the errors in the paper and the provided logic and dialectic approach of investigation?

Please continue, this should be interesting...

 

Thank you , I think I understand , does it hurt to add the citations after I have wrote it?

 

Do you see any of the above you have said in the twin paradox or the things I mentioned that needed to be archived?

There is axioms, axioms are premise over anything. There is also science in it.

 

Sure, I got time to waste on you. I will just show how your entire abstract is meaningless.

A complete sentence, but the sentence carries no meaningful information. It is just a random assembly of words. If you cannot convey your thoughts in a meaningful way, they are worthless to the scientific community.

This sentence is a fragment.

Again, this sentence is a fragment.

Again, this sentence is a fragment.

Again, this sentence is a fragment.

Yay, a complete sentence. Sadly, it conveys no meaning. It is just a random assembly of words. If you cannot convey your thoughts in a meaningful way, they are worthless to the scientific community.

A complete sentence, but the sentence carries no meaningful information. It is just a random assembly of words. If you cannot convey your thoughts in a meaningful way, they are worthless to the scientific community.

Have fun rewriting.

 

Thank you for your opinion, I will not be re-writing. The truth is the truth after all and I care about the truth, a paper is not meant to be a novel, I disagree the sentences are fragmented. I noticed your silence in trying to point out the errors in the paper, complaining about literacy is hardly a counter defence.

 

Actually, the most important aspect of a scientific article is literacy. If you write incoherently, you will not be able to get publish, no matter the amount of "truth" you claim to express.

 

Why as nobody else mentioned it is illiterate then? Quite clearly the other members who have been giving me advice managed to read it ok, so why can't you read it ok?

 

Ask the other members to describe the main point of your article in their words. Plus, just because they replied, does not mean they read it.

 

They read it, they even told me to correct a few things such as the word : Solid.

Which part do you not understand?

Do you not understand the simple sentence below?

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

That implies science and the interpretation of reality is unstructured and the paper intends to give it a definite structure, or in simple terms no maybe's.

http://www.memidex.com/unstructured+lacking-definite-structure

 

The second sentence actually has meaning, but it is ambiguous. There are various ways something can be unstructured. Describe how they are unstructured and give examples with citations. Preferably, give citations from peer reviewed journals. Without citing your claims, that indicates they are your opinion and have no evidence.