Universe's, Intelligent Design

[Chacmool]

FRIPRO, I'm afraid I seriously doubt many people will ever read your entire manuscript. It is very hard to read due to the endless language errors, the cumbersome construction and the unforgiveable factual errors.

You will be well advised not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text. Also, you can't have entire paragraphs of questions and then jump to some wild conclusion - science does not work this way. For each premise you must have a test or at least a decent argument, then scientific observations, and only then a carefully considered conclusion.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

FRIPRO, I'm afraid I seriously doubt many people will ever read your entire manuscript. It is very hard to read due to the endless language errors, the cumbersome construction and the unforgiveable factual errors.

You will be well advised not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text. Also, you can't have entire paragraphs of questions and then jump to some wild conclusion - science does not work this way. For each premise you must have a test or at least a decent argument, then scientific observations, and only then a carefully considered conclusion.

Thank you for your recommendations. My manuscript is in its infancy, and is in great need of reconstruction. I have chosen to build the manuscript on the Internet as I write, and have requested forums readers (members of the Hypography Science Forums) to coment on the concept of UIDE.

We members of the scientific community on Earth, find it hard to accept the premis that the Universe is eternal, not created from a big bang.

Your advise:"not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text". I would say that I reserve the right to not write in the standard scientific text method.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

I would say that I reserve the right to not write in the standard scientific text method.

Spicing up a bland text by ignoring the set standards might be a good idea under certain circumstances - but I should also remind you that the scientifically-minded people that you might imagine as your target audience also reserve the right not to read your text and/or take it seriously.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Spicing up a bland text by ignoring the set standards might be a good idea under certain circumstances - but I should also remind you that the scientifically-minded people that you might imagine as your target audience also reserve the right not to read your text and/or take it seriously.

Boerseun:

Pioneers always find it difficult to swim upstream. I am moved by your encourgement ("Spicing up"). What you say about the target audience is true.

T. J. Blasing (blasingtj@tds.net) Knoxville, Tennessee, who Wrote: To 'The Opinion piece by Lee Smolin'. "I would add a note on a related problem with the present system: Editors of the principal journals reject manuscripts that challenge prevailing theories or fall outside mainstream research. This practice eliminates new ideas in fundamental physics and encourages routine articles in established fields.

The editors protect themselves from many crackpot submissions, but also from the few potentially great concepts. An organization or journal that screens original articles specifically to identify great ideas would be a valuable asset.

T.J. continues: "Another part of the equation is that original ideas can come from physicists ( or common folks) who, like me, are retired. We no longer have a career to worry about, and may have received graduate training in broader, more fundamental physics.

We do not have the pressure of publishing papers. The search for new Einstein's should not be limited, as Smolin suggests, to a few young scientists who are set aside to develop creativity. There are greater numbers of retired scientists, many having proven their creativity in diverse fields"

[Chacmool]

I don't see how your reply relates to Boerseun's remarks.

I can, however, assure you that nobody is going to take a badly written text seriously. In fact, it's often very hard to understand just what you mean. If that's the way you choose to write, so be it. But I think my advice is valid and for your own benefit.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

I don't see how your reply relates to Boerseun's remarks.

I can, however, assure you that nobody is going to take a badly written text seriously. In fact, it's often very hard to understand just what you mean. If that's the way you choose to write, so be it. But I think my advice is valid and for your own benefit.

Any manuscript written in its infancy will have countless errors (for example [Chacmool]the too many "!!!!" (I agree it is being corrected).

Most authors would not dare to write live on the internet, and ask your recommendations. They clean up their manuscript (spelling included) and then out it goes, published in finished format. Please look at the concept and make recommendations, and I will change the grammer and spelling as we go.

[TheBigDog]

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

Bill

[Tormod]

The original post is a forum post, and not an article, as far as I can tell. It does not set forth a theory, it holds no discussion that progresses anywhere, and it is not obvious to me who this article targets. It puts forth undocumented questions and does not attempt to answer them in any way. It provides absolutely no new insight into anything.

I don't understand why this was published in the first place.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

Bill

BILL

Please do move this to another area, that you might think the discussion and work can continue. We are pioneering a new approach to publishing, live on the internet, as the author struggles to put his ideas on paper.

It is a rare oportunity to find out the opinions of others, and change the basic manuscript daily etc.

Thanks for your consideration. FRIPRO

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

Bill

Bill Big Dog made the following statement and gave me permission to publish it on the UIDE manuscript, he said Quote:

"There is an overriding imperative in the Universe to bring order over chaos. And that universal imperative drives all things into a perpetual state of continuous improvement. Always seeking greater order, greater efficiency, greater wisdom, greater intelligence. And mankind is driven by this imperative, regardless of how individual men may otherwise believe." (PERMISSION GRANTED BY: "TheBigDog - in the Theology forum of Science theology-forum/5946-universe

FRIPRO