Paper help.

No.
I don't.

Again, no.
And "transparency" is not a dimension.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would out science you, I know Pi is Pi, the point was i played around well with numbers.
You can't even have the decency to discuss the topics, a proper troller, what is your kick you trolls get, I don't get it because in no way do you upset me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that is because your brain will not allow you to visualise it because you are set bot 1.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The point is "different pi amount" is meaningless crap, not maths.

 

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.
A reality that looks at the true values of reality, that humanity has quantified, and showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

Contents.

• Introduction
• The primary rule
• Evidential observations of axiom values concerning the nature of EM radiation
• Time dilation shown to be fallacy/fallacious by using the Universal Constant of the speed of light to record the passage of time
• The Big bang singular point, axioms of logic that show space existed before the Big Bang and matter is expanding into space
• Maths being an invention to fit a purpose
• The visual Universe is not the Universe and matter occupies the space of the Universe
• Time and space being of void qualities and only accountable by matter interaction by adding values to interactions.
• Conclusion

Is this presentable and understood so far?

 

It should be fine if the presentation is to a group of people with traumatic brain injuries or mental patients.

 

Why would you do something so despicable to people with traumatic brain injuries or mental patients? Surely they've suffered enough already.

 

Nicely said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Except for the facts that....
[1] You have no scientific paper that has been listed or presented, and I doubt you ever will.
[2] You ignore totally the scientific method
[3] You have no evidence, observational or experimental.
[4] You have no axiom.
[5]You have no theory

What your dreams do have......
[1] Childish Imagination
[2] Delusions of grandeur
[3] Inflated ego
[4] Fairy tales
[5] Obstinance
[6] Stubborness
[7] Stupidity

 

Absolutely nothing! Well, electricity. And antibiotics. And agriculture. But other than those three things, nothing!
And maybe flight, air travel and the like. And spaceflight. And communications satellites. And the Internet. But other than that . . . . well, and sanitation. And medicine. And worldwide communications. And TV and radio. And the exploration of our seas. And weather forecasts. And telescopes that can find planets around other suns. Computers are pretty cool I guess. And it's nice to know where we came from and all and how we work. And how the world around us works.

But other than agriculture, electricity, modern medicine, space flight, aircraft, communications, video, radio, computers, astronomy, weather forecasting, biology, geology, atmospheric chemistry, paleontology. . . science has done absolutely nothing!

Just means I can support my statements with actual real-world experiments. Not as much fun as just making stuff up, of course.

Is this where you replace any semblance of rationality with personal attacks? You're following the program nicely. Next I predict the GRAND TRAMPLING EXIT where you vow to never again post somewhere who doesn't appreciate your brilliance.

 

By the posts in reply I take it so far my paper I am writing is looking a major threat to science .

 

Just the usual nonsense from TC.

 

It is not about whether or not you agree with me or not, I am writing this paper and it is for you not to decide whether it gets listed or what ever happens to it, I am asking for help with the paper because i do not know how to write or present a paper to science.
Is it presentable so far? Does it explain my intentions?

 

It's perfect. I'd recommend you submit it to Science and Nature as soon as possible.

 

I have got to write the rest of it yet, and I do not know whether to take that perfect as not being sarcasm?

Is it presentable please answer truthfully?

 

It will, of course, be rejected because it is nonsense, not because of any formatting issues. I recommend you submit it, since you are immune to learning here. Perhaps a rejection from a scientific journal will be a more useful learning experience for you.

 

You have not even read what I am going to put yet, I took time and effort to get the abstract correct, I will do the same with all the content and get the details precise and accurately worded, I will supply evidence from your own science, but I still need to know a few things.

What do i write the introduction about, do I explain myself and where and which scientist of the past , I got the ideas from, a brief history of how i got to this stage?

And what is a citation exactly?

 

I've read what you have posted here, and have no reason to think your paper will be any different.

This isn't science, it's basic English composition. An introduction introduces the paper - the reason it was written, the research it was based on, errors you wish to correct, other goals of the paper. (This is where you would, for example, say "your science claims X which makes no sense at all." This will make it easier on reviewers to classify your paper.)

It's just a reference to another source. Scientists do not invent their own science; they "stand on the shoulders of giants" (as Issac Newton once put it) in order to see farther. Due to your contempt for scientists, references may be out of the question for you.

 

Yeah, but you'd save a lot of time and effort if you just submitted it now instead of writing the whole thing and submitting it. The outcome will be the same either way.

Oh, dear God.

 

A brief history of how you got to this stage might be helpful, but maybe not in the way you think.