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

Did you consider including some science in your paper? That might help it get published in a scientific journal.

 

Of course not, it is a paper about gardening.

 

A scientific paper on gardening?

You going for a Federal Grant?

 

Huh? a new theory with axioms does not really need anything else involved in my opinion, my paper is not an opinion it is fact. There will be citations put in it afterwards, when I have wrote it I will look for a co -writer who can put in all the citations needed.

 

What do you mean a scientific paper? there is no science in the paper according to the people trying to ''troll''.

 

You are claiming to want help writing a scientific paper. I've read through the thread, came across you stating it's a paper on gardening.

Now I wonder who is the toll taker.

 

That was called sarcasm to the poster who was attempting to ''troll''. It is obviously a paper on science .

 

One must strive to be well written otherwise risk being taken lightly. So literacy should be important. If you ask for help try to avoid the semblance of appearing defensive. You'll get there. And perfection is contrary to a well written paper. Too much work to get that last bit of 'perfection'.

Don't confuse theory, hypothesis, and fact. Theories can even be built on high percentage possibilities as in high energy physics. The same is true for experiment and observation. We observe variables beyond our control. We structure experiments to observe variables with hopefully some sort of control mechanism.

If you sorta doing thought experiments here then you are entitled to some leeway but keep it to a minimum in a scientific paper. Your observations of thought might be seen as philosophy but don't allow that to creep into your paper. You must be concise and very logical in a way that your reader can understand your process.

You do not have to cite definitions unless you prefer. It depends on your audience. The less sophisticated the more you need to cite. An axiom is well defined. However, if you are writing as you are then I would tend to be more definitive of my thought. The same for a theory and hypothesis. If your audience is post doctoral then it is not necessary. If you were talking to cardiologists, physiologists, MDs etc then you don't need to cite CO=HR X SV or cardiac output is equal to heart rate times stroke volume.

 

Gotcha. I get bleary @ 02:47....

 

Thank you Primate for your ''solid'' advice. I just don't want to present a paper that in anyway looks ''messy''. I also am sort of trying to get it pre-peered by posting it ''live''.

 

LOl me too.

 

You are quite thick. As I said before, a paper without citations is just an opinion. Science is built off others' work. If you had any sort of training or read a single peer reviewed article, you would have known this. Your paper is full of nonsense and by admitting you will add a co-author to cite for you is an admission that you don't care.

As I stated in the beginning, you are a simple troll. Your paper contains zero scientific content. Any advice given to you is either ignored (e.g., using citations or using complete meaningful sentences) or haphazardly (e.g. adding periods in your abstract) applied. Finally, calling something an axiom does not make it an axiom. Here is real axiom: probabilities are bound between 0 and 1. Your "axioms" are only called axioms because you lack the ability to argue the truth behind those statements.

 

Science is built off other peoples work? define something that is new?

New means it as not been said or done before. So the irony of your statement is it contradicts itself. You seem quite worried about my paper, I suppose anybody in a job in science that their field is any of the archived subjects I mentioned, will be worried about their Jobs and not want me to end this paper. I think you are just trying to hamper this thread, you do not seem very interesting in giving me any good advice.

Quite clearly your only response is insults and to personally attack me because you can not show the paper to be a lie and have nothing to say in defence against the paper.

I already explained ''you'' in my paper.

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.

 

Certainly and how most are taking it. I'm sure it will be fine in the end.

 

I see no reason to be so harsh. Pointing him in the right direction will serve more than non-constructive criticism. After all, it's his paper and his consequences.

 

Ok if you wish to discuss probabilities , The probability that my logical statement of the two twins being true is P=1

The probability that time dilation is a timing dilation is P=1

In fact , the probability of the paper defining the truth P=1

I await your defence of time dilation and all mentioned.

 

You asked for help and then argue or half heartedly apply it. You don't listen, which makes thick, and you say obviously taunting messages, which makes you a troll. If you are the only that understands your work, that is your problem. I went through your abstract and pointed out the sentence fragments and sentences full of nonsense. The rest of your body of work is filled with ramblings. There are no signs of coherent thought. You refuse to address the issues brought up in your abstract; thus, you are here just to argue with people. My criticism is just on clarity and grammar. You do not have any part of this paper ready to argue the substance.

 

I tried that multiple times, and yet he refused. So his purpose is just to troll.

 

Thank you for demonstrating again that you refuse to accept any serious help.

 

No, I am now waiting your counter argument on my paper, I gave you the opportunity yesterday to do this in which you failed even to attempt it.. So again today I await your defence, please discourse my papers content and not the literate quality.

 

Start here - Do you disagree?


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.

 

Your paper is in no form to argue it and your request was for help.

 

You are just spouting more opinion.

 

There are many mathematical axioms that have been disproven. Many ideas were accepted as true only to be proven false later. From the theorem that Fermat numbers are all prime (they are not) to Weierstrass functions and differentiability (functions thought to not exist, even Gauss thought they did not exist).

And by the way, while math can be abstract from the natural world, it almost always has applications in the natural world, and often mathematical hypothesis - and sometimes theorems - are proven wrong because they fail in the natural world.

 

Yes I have asked for help, but you are the one who said the content is nonsense , so if you still hold to that, you then need to provide your counter argument or take back what you said about it being nonsense. There other forums it is on, there is only you who claims it is not literate.