Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2012,01:04)|
If so you better don't even think about it.
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)|
|The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.|
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.
BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.
ETA: You may want to search Amazon for scientific writing.
The how to write a science paper websites were already helpful. In my experience though, the definition of pompous became: Needing one to crawl to self-appointed journal authority with public policy to immediately reject such theory, while their theory is already well enough presented at Planet Source Code and more.
Giving into that does honestly set a bad example. If this is their politics then it’s maybe best to leave them behind, like they asked for. As it works out, scientists who most matter to the theory and I have no problem figuring out what it’s all about from what they find on Planet Source Code. Ones who degrade that programming resource are more likely an administrator type or have (anti)religious reasons for demanding I report to a tribunal all set to brush it off for them.
I would seriously rather stay focused on following the evidence where it leads, than get stuck having to explain where we have already been which is more of a job for a gifted scribe. These days in science papers they are given credit by becoming a coauthor but it is more or less the same thing as in ages past in the search for how we were created. And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion. Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there. And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on. Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever. Kathy is a Catholic, so where what she gave to her church for direction that kept it going to spite science change becomes legendary she eventually becomes a Saint. I’m happy just getting credit as her science guy who helped light the path that she herself took, that won reelection after scientists vowed to make sure she's made gone ASAP. In Islam one can achieve status as a Prophet behind Prophet Muhammad, and modern scribes there already know where the theory’s at too.
It might of course also be a big help to get something published in a major science journal, even though it’s now at most explaining what’s already here and I sure can’t afford the publishing fees so would have to claim poverty on that. It’s like one thing adds to another then before you know it the science journalists are useless, but maybe wondering what’s wrong with the heads of scientists who well know what’s going on but just hurl insults and give pompous speeches on their behalf instead of giving me/us real help. I still need to finish the OOL related Reverse Krebs Cycle illustration that needs molecules drawn to show how they split at the end of the cycle, and have to make a coacervate video and describe propulsion but can’t afford a microscope like that or am in a field that studies its ionics. I’m simply so overwhelmed by what I need to finish for the theory that dumping all over me for being able to afford only time for that, looks plain scientifically dysfunctional.
Thankfully all is still well on Planet Source Code, where their creator sent best wishes to let me know I’m welcome to submit more like that, anytime. They only care that the code is all there, like it was. And I’m sure they don’t like being treated like a toilet either. The new found scientific empowerment that makes even the greatest of science journals powerless against us is just one more of those things that gives others who are normally left out of the fun the thrill of having experienced real power to themselves change science. The preferable outcome is here is that the ivory tower has to crawl to Planet Source Code for news of what’s new in science. And with all considered there’s nothing unscientific or unfair about it.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.