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

I have the below so far, how does it read?

Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories, by using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information by using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) by 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.

The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''

 

Needs more periods.

 

Ok , thank you , I will edit with more periods, (I think you mean full stops we say in the UK).


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.

The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''


Does this read better now I have edited?

My next part below:

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.

1.Defining 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.

 

Usually, the Abstract is written after the full paper is completed.

 

I am aware that the abstract is normally written last, but I know what my abstract is and the intention of the paper . Is there any ''harm'' in writing the abstract first?

 

I suspect that will depend on the content of your paper once completed and whether it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

The content will show .........well you might as well call it the anti-science of papers that completely re-writes some of the present science and thinking about the universe. I can show a lot of errors and correct them errors but I am still reluctant because I do not want to be the guy that ''killed'' science.

 

Some links on the subject.

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/ug/research/paper.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474301/

 

Thank you , I think I need to stop ''holding back'' and being lazy in explanation, to try harder.

 

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.

The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''


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.

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 maths and maths 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.


so far? is it understandable and to the truth ?

 

Is English a second language?
I have never seen math used as a plural.
It would be "correct THOSE errors" not "correct THEM errors".

 

Thank you for the correction, I will edit tomorrow and continue with it then.

 

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.

The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''


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.


Hows it read so far? does it make relative sense? I am now stuck! What do I add next?

I feel my extensive introduction is complete. I am not sure how to continue from here, this is the point I keep getting stuck at.

 

Could I do it the below way to break off the introduction?

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.

 

Bolded= linguistic error
Underscored; Citation needed.

 

I think most people know what an axiom is without a citation, but if you want a link to what an axiom is :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Is this what you mean by citation?

I do not understand why the underlined needs a citation because this is just a general explanation ?

 

It does not matter. Academic papers need to be "over explicit" in that you almost have to assume the reader is an idiot, so even if your formulation seems clear, it needs citations. Only time you would not use them would be at something as basic as "Washington DC is the capital of USA." I am not sure whether what you have written would count as "self-explainatory". At least there should be a citation for some encyclopedia (obviously not Wiki) or something followed by either footnote or parentheses depending on if you use Oxford- or Harvard style citation.

 

So do you mean like this ?:Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28. 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 evident merit.

"Bellarmine (Ital. Bellarmino), Roberto Francesco Romolo", Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition.: 'Bellarmine did not proscribe the Copernican system ... all he claimed was that it should be presented as a hypothesis until it should receive scientific demonstration.' This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.


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.

 

Yeah, except in the text the citation should be more simple like An axiom is something that is self evidently true (OED 2012) then, in the reference list you will add details such as OED, Oxford English Dictionary, 2012. Link. [accessed]. (If 'Harvard' is the system you use).

Also, bare in mind that Introduction also should contain the (sub-)headings background, purpose, problem, limitations, method and outline.

 

A great way to ensure the reader is following is to, like a professor of mine said, "first you tell them what you are going to do, then you do it and finally, you tell them what you have just done." Again, this is the "assume your reader is dumb"-part. To examplify it would look something like;
Theory
Here will be presented the theories that blah, blah, blah, blah. An axiom is (...) In this section I have...

Academic papers are dull and autistic, I know it seems stupid and that's bevause it is. But, what can you do?

 

Btw. I haven't written an academic thesis since 2014, so my memory of the rules and guidelines are sort of blurred.

 

First of all, I wouldn't listen to Ritter too much. Your primary goal must be to lay out your ideas clearly and any formal issues can be dealt with later. If your paper turns out to be a good read, that's not an issue, it's a feature. That said, let me address the actual content.

I think most of what I have to say boils down to one main question. How do you decide whether a statement is self evident enough to become an axiom?

Axioms work well in mathematics because they don't have to relate to our physical reality in any way. Therefore, they can't be wrong (as long as they're clearly defined and there is no contradiction with other axioms in the applicable field). Axioms are the foundation upon which arbitrary mathematical fields are built. Those mathematical fields are the only justification for the existence of the underlying axioms. Any relation to physical reality can be treated as purely coincidental.

In the natural sciences, however, you're always faced with the ultimate arbiter called nature. When you throw something out there, it might turn out to be wrong, as you've pointed out before. Merely claiming that something is self evident is not good enough. It's not you or me who decide what's right, wrong or self evident, it's nature.

You've offered three axiom postulates.

What makes those three postulates self evident? What are some consequences that are measurable? In what way do those measurable results differ from those obtained by other theories in physics?

I hope that these kind of questions are helpful in writing your paper and fleshing out your ideas. Please keep us posted.

 

This guy might be able to help you...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1

 

They could quite easily do it all on-line where the author of the paper could just give relative links. Then so we have hard copies we could quite easily get somebody to type it all up for the record. My problem with citations, they do not account for anything new or queries of the citations to begin with. I could not cite for something when the something is new and queries the old information to begin with.

 

By removing all subjective thought and any paradox's from the statement, absolute objectiveness by use of conventional science and a dialectic approach. I sort of mix science and philosophy to achieve the goal of only having one possible answer and correct interpretation of the truth. There is no uncertainty in certainty .

Thank you for the advice, your post is slightly ahead of my paper, in the next part I was going to explain somethings , the nature of time and the nature of light, in explaining these things showing why the postulates are self evidently true and the only answer there is with no uncertainty.