The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.  (Read 1394 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Abstract
This paper is intended to show the misconceptions of reality  based on self evidently true logic and incorporating the use of present science information and the discoursing of that information, using  my own logical semantics of the  information of which the truth conditions have to be specified relative to a model or definition.





Above is my opening abstract, is this presentable and my intentions understood?, (I know the abstract normally comes last),


I am going to write my paper seriously, then I am going to send it somewhere, or hopefully get the help to send it somewhere.


In a paper can I use quotes of present information and definition?  which I am going to discourse.







 

Offline sam7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #1 on: 21/01/2016 08:46:57 »
Your abstract isn't very clear at all, no.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #2 on: 21/01/2016 09:04:40 »
You can use any evidence you like, but if you use your own semantics, nobody else will read it.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #3 on: 21/01/2016 11:48:23 »
You can use any evidence you like, but if you use your own semantics, nobody else will read it.
In addition to Alan's point, if you use your own self evidently false logic, as you have on posts below, no one will want to enter into discussion and Spaceflow's comment will be judged corrrect.

Alternatively you can enter into a reasonable, sensible dialogue, but I suspect you don't really want to do that. So I'll leave you to it.
Good luck.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #4 on: 21/01/2016 13:16:58 »
You can use any evidence you like, but if you use your own semantics, nobody else will read it.
In addition to Alan's point, if you use your own self evidently false logic, as you have on posts below, no one will want to enter into discussion and Spaceflow's comment will be judged corrrect.

Alternatively you can enter into a reasonable, sensible dialogue, but I suspect you don't really want to do that. So I'll leave you to it.
Good luck.


self evident false logic?   how is it self evidently false when people in the thread have agreed it is obviously easily true.   Sensible dialogue?  now we are back to saying my writing is gibberish when my writing reads the same as your writing.

« Last Edit: 21/01/2016 13:34:04 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #5 on: 22/01/2016 13:28:50 »
self evident false logic?   how is it self evidently false when people in the thread have agreed it is obviously easily true.   
I have noticed that when someone agrees with one point you make, you tend to assume they are agreeing with everything you wrote. This is false logic/reasoning and is the error you made in the other thread.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #6 on: 22/01/2016 14:02:34 »
It is always best to write the abstract after the paper is complete. Once you are satisfied with the paper, the goal of the abstract is to summarize your key points not your method. You might use the introduction to present how your thinking came to be, and then finish the introduction by pointing out how you plan to approach your thesis. Your abstract above is a better way to finish the intro. It stills needs some historical background to explain why you think this is a good path.

The body contains the conceptual principles, the details and analysis applying your principles.

After you are done with the body, write the summary and then the abstract. The abstract is a simple summary, with just enough key results to allow the audience to know what the paper is about. Simple allows more audience, than complex.

 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #7 on: 22/01/2016 16:02:38 »
It is always best to write the abstract after the paper is complete. Once you are satisfied with the paper, the goal of the abstract is to summarize your key points not your method. You might use the introduction to present how your thinking came to be, and then finish the introduction by pointing out how you plan to approach your thesis. Your abstract above is a better way to finish the intro. It stills needs some historical background to explain why you think this is a good path.

The body contains the conceptual principles, the details and analysis applying your principles.

After you are done with the body, write the summary and then the abstract. The abstract is a simple summary, with just enough key results to allow the audience to know what the paper is about. Simple allows more audience, than complex.

Thank you Puppy, appreciated advice.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #8 on: 22/01/2016 16:03:56 »
self evident false logic?   how is it self evidently false when people in the thread have agreed it is obviously easily true.   
I have noticed that when someone agrees with one point you make, you tend to assume they are agreeing with everything you wrote. This is false logic/reasoning and is the error you made in the other thread.

When people agree with the key points, in my eyes they are  in total agreement. If the main point and focus is correct then so must be the rest.
 

Offline sam7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #9 on: 22/01/2016 16:23:45 »
No, I don't agree with most of what you say Thebox. I only agreed with the premise that anything which is nonzero is history, simply because this is a rather wordy (and stupid) way of saying anything that exists, exists. It's certainly not going to win a Nobel Prize...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #10 on: 22/01/2016 17:27:51 »
No, I don't agree with most of what you say Thebox. I only agreed with the premise that anything which is nonzero is history, simply because this is a rather wordy (and stupid) way of saying anything that exists, exists. It's certainly not going to win a Nobel Prize...

It will not win a Nobel prize on itself, I am going to show that simultaneity is simultaneous, I am going to turn special relativity inside out, I am going to end any dreams of time travel.  I am writing relativity, I am writing a unification, but you know what?  I do not care about prizes I just enjoy doing science, my brain is my world and my universe, because '' I am''.

''I only agreed with the premise that anything which is nonzero is history''

which proves everything I have said is correct, you just don't understand why the rest of it is correct but you may do in ''time'' ,


Consider in 5 minutes of ''time'' after/if you read this,  when/if you ''get there'' to the exact point of measurement of 5 minutes, you have just reached zero, the present.



« Last Edit: 22/01/2016 17:33:15 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #11 on: 22/01/2016 22:37:13 »
When people agree with the key points, in my eyes they are  in total agreement.
No, it depends how those key points relate to the other points

If the main point and focus is correct then so must be the rest.
That is false logic, again it depends on the exact relationship between the points.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #12 on: 23/01/2016 06:48:02 »

No, it depends how those key points relate to the other points


That is false logic, again it depends on the exact relationship between the points.


The key point is related to most points of science, people have admitted time is not real, it does not exist, we do not measure forward in anything. Thus time dilation is not real, time travel is not real, and simultaneity does not exist and some of relativity is incorrect.  The key of time is the backbone of science that connects everything together. 

Now you have fragmented pages of a book with no spine holding it all together.  Nobody ever understood my ideas about light being clear in space and the effect  of these ideas.  We do not see observe a pole attached between bodies, we observe objects inside the ''pole'' , we observe light from A to B not just at B.


Part Five - Defining Constant.

It is worldly accepted that the speed of light is constant to all observers in any reference frame when measured in a vacuum.  When talking Physics, the word constant refers to the speed of light and means that the speed of light is unchanging and can be measured to being the same speed by any observer. However, the speed of light is not infinite but is widely agreed to be finite.  To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength.  However it is of importance that we understand the word constant has other meanings.

Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour.

Let us now consider gravity, relative to us it is constantly pulling us to the ground.

So in our understanding constant is more than just a constant speed, it is any observation occurring continuously over a period of time.



Section Two - Understanding

Part One - Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

Like have said before, you all presume I do not know what I am talking about. I am deluded remember...


Part Two-Understanding the relative velocity of light relative to a bodies geometric position according to present information.




Light is a finite constant speed and takes a period of time to reach it's destination. Essentially when we observe an object in the distant Universe, we are observing that object in a relative geometrical location position where it was (the objects past) .

Let us take two vectors and call them X and Y and let us define two bodies, (A) and (B).

We shall define that body (A) is travelling vector X and emitting light Vector Y to the observer (B)

Let us  define the time it takes for a Photon (v=c) to travel the distance (d) to (B) of (Y) 8 minutes (t=8mins)

Let us define that (A) is travelling (X) at momentum (p) and will travel a distance equal to t=8mins while the Photon of (A) travels it's journey of the Y axis linearity.









« Last Edit: 23/01/2016 08:31:13 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #13 on: 23/01/2016 07:33:23 »
So far, all you have done is to state what we already know, in a pointlessly complicated and imprecise way.

To summarise

1. The human eye responds transiently to photons in the energy range 1.5 - 3.5 eV  (-ish! Other species can detect and discriminate energies slightly outside this range)

2. c is constant.

Nobody is going to argue with either statement of experimental fact, so why obscure the facts with waffle?

You will note that scientific writing involves very few adjectives or abstract nouns. If you can't define it or measure it, it's art (or philosophy, religion or politics, but I won't accuse my friend Box of any of those perversions of the human intellect) not science.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #14 on: 23/01/2016 07:39:14 »
So far, all you have done is to state what we already know, in a pointlessly complicated and imprecise way.

To summarise

1. The human eye responds transiently to photons in the energy range 1.5 - 3.5 eV  (-ish! Other species can detect and discriminate energies slightly outside this range)

2. c is constant.

Nobody is going to argue with either statement of experimental fact, so why obscure the facts with waffle?

You will note that scientific writing involves very few adjectives or abstract nouns. If you can't define it or measure it, it's art (or philosophy, religion or politics, but I won't accuse my friend Box of any of those perversions of the human intellect) not science.


I have not argued the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum. I am not arguing with any of your experiment results, I am simply saying your results/some of the results do not mean what you think they mean.

Waffle?  I quote your own facts which apparently I do not know.   I explain your facts, it is your science I have always used and tried to advance that science, so if you are saying my science is waffle, then your science must be waffle because all my ideas are based on and around your ideas.   

''1. The human eye responds transiently to photons in the energy range 1.5 - 3.5 eV  (-ish! Other species can detect and discriminate energies slightly outside this range)''


I am not arguing about the fact that we need photons to see, my point is we can see the photons both ends, A and B.   See the added part to the other post, I think you may of missed it.

Just consider this one sentence which other people on another forum understood easy enough

It may take 8 minutess for  light to travel a straight line to  Earth, but the mind see's the Sun  in the instant of now. 


What you refer to when you say you see objects in their past, is nothing more than the time it would take us to travel there at the same relative speed. Sight can reach great distances without any velocity of ourselves.   sight is different to a travelling object, the object has to move to make a journey where sight penetrates through space seeing any body in the now the same now we experience.


The value of time for any observer in any reference frame is zero/nothing.  0 is constant.


Observer A t=0

Observer B t=0


relative to both A and B , 0 is simultaneous and constant.


The length between 0 and 0 never changes,

anything more than 0 is history , people have agreed.

You can't measure forward time, you can only measure history, distance is a measurement of ''future time'' relative to the observer doing the measurement and relative to velocity of the observer.



A photon travelling from A to B and a Photon travelling from B to A both travel at equal speed and a simultaneous constant time of 0.   They pass through each other at the half way point, they meet/merge at 0 time , 0 point.

0→0←0

Both Photons arrive at their relative destination at precisely zero time relative to themselves but creating a history of themselves on the way.



« Last Edit: 23/01/2016 08:39:19 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #15 on: 23/01/2016 11:01:29 »
Quote
It may take 8 minutess for  light to travel a straight line to  Earth, but the mind see's the Sun  in the instant of now.

So what? It takes a letter 3 days to arrive from New York, but I read it when it arrives. Big deal? I think not. Information always follows the event, and everyone knows that.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #16 on: 23/01/2016 11:50:44 »
Quote
It may take 8 minutess for  light to travel a straight line to  Earth, but the mind see's the Sun  in the instant of now.

So what? It takes a letter 3 days to arrive from New York, but I read it when it arrives. Big deal? I think not. Information always follows the event, and everyone knows that.

So what? 

1. anything after zero is history, a self evidently true axiom
2. everybody knows that space is relatively ''see through'', a self evidentially true axiom
3. everybody knows that we can see a start and the finish simultaneously when there is a clear linearity of sight, a self evidentially true axiom
4. everybody knows that it is only curvature of the Earth that stops us seeing where the letter is being sent from.  If the Earth was flat I could see you with a telescope providing we had a clear linearity of sight.

So this means there is no simultaneity, it means GR and SR is incorrect, it means time is a constant and can't variate or have the said time dilation.  It means time is a continuous discrete constant.

Consider it this way

That every time 1 moves forward, i.e 123   , 0 moves simultaneously forward with it 000.

0123→
0000→

0123 is the act of measurement and observer effect and the history of the observer.

We can write the universe -

3210123
0000000

Imagine  cube matrices, a larger cube that contained zero's

0  =XYZ

Now imagine in this cube of zero's there was smaller cubes but with dimension quantities

1=XYZ


Now imagine the smaller cubes move about staying a cube but changing the zeros to its own dimension quantity has it passes through the cube space. When the cube leaves the space the space returns to zeros.




maybe ignore the red bit , maybe a bit to far





« Last Edit: 23/01/2016 12:39:16 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #17 on: 24/01/2016 00:27:47 »
Quote
So this means there is no simultaneity, it means GR and SR is incorrect, it means time is a constant and can't variate or have the said time dilation.
On the contrary, if an observer is equidistant between two sources and receives light from both simultaneously, he knows that the light was emitted from both sources at the same time. No problem with relativity, just common sense application of the constancy of c.

We also use the inverse principle: if we observe two 511 keV photons travelling in opposite directions simultaneously, we know they originated from an electron-positron annihilation - the basis of some radionuclide imaging systems.   

Quote
It means time is a continuous discrete constant.
A triple oxymoron! Continuous or discrete? Can't be both. And either way, it can't be constant. If you are going to use mathematical words, make sure you know what they mean. 

Quote
everybody knows that it is only curvature of the Earth that stops us seeing where the letter is being sent from.  If the Earth was flat I could see you with a telescope providing we had a clear linearity of sight.
But I still can't read the letter until it arrives! You might want to add to your own confusion by reading about the Scissor Paradox, but I suspect you are already sufficiently confused!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #18 on: 24/01/2016 07:18:42 »
On the contrary, if an observer is equidistant between two sources and receives light from both simultaneously, he knows that the light was emitted from both sources at the same time. No problem with relativity, just common sense application of the constancy of c.


I understand you but you do not understand me, in what we are discussing it is important that you can try to understand the constant-'constant which I have defined and the very simple common sense axiom of that we can see/observe the starting point of the Photons journey at the simultaneous time we receive Photons.
A single photon without the coupling of itself to matter would be the equivalent to packet loss relative to sight. A single Photon does not store sufficient information, it is the whole that transfers the information continuous from A to B.

This is apparent when you consider looking directly to the horizon, because if a single photon contained all the information of an object,  the reflective angles of earth and objects in space would give us flashes of pictures in our brain when a photon entered our eyes. i.e if a stray photon went into our eye.




« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 07:28:03 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #19 on: 24/01/2016 07:59:18 »
Alas, so far everything you have said falls into one of two categories

(a) obvious but badly expressed, or

(b) meaningless assemblies of jargon ("packet loss relative to sight").

A single photon is emitted by a single electron transition and obviously cannot convey an image of an extended object that is made up of lots of electrons (and other stuff), any more than a single pixel on your screen can convey this entire message. So what?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #20 on: 24/01/2016 13:58:32 »
Alas, so far everything you have said falls into one of two categories

(a) obvious but badly expressed, or

(b) meaningless assemblies of jargon ("packet loss relative to sight").

A single photon is emitted by a single electron transition and obviously cannot convey an image of an extended object that is made up of lots of electrons (and other stuff), any more than a single pixel on your screen can convey this entire message. So what?


So you can not see an object unless there is a ''piece of string'' from your eye continuously to the object.  Light propagating through space couples your brain directly to the object. The single photon travelling from A to B , it is irrelevant it takes time because the single photon is not how sight works.
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.
« Reply #20 on: 24/01/2016 13:58:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums