Hi,
I did not think that was an insult, and since you do, please forgive me for hurting or insulting you, if you can.
I am sorry that I see no indications, that when I do and have explained things, or given you steps to perform, that you understood those as steps or procedures.,
Really, I did not mean to be terse or insulting. Yet, apparently I have been.
What I have been saying and trying to say all along, is to find out if you know anything, you must be able to teach it. At least that test works for me and most people.
And if you are doing math, you must have proofs, as that is how they expect things to be done.,
If you are doing what is called science, proofs there are mandatory.
I keep saying this. All of my work, which is merely typical science stuff, and all of them do it the same way.
On God, supposedly it cannot be proved that He exists, and supposedly it cannot be proved that He does not exist.
How accurate is that statement?
I as an electrical engineer, when confronted with the Bible, studied to see what it said, in my field. My field includes Physics.
There are many study techniques. I tried to see if I could find something wrong from a science point of view. To make sure I was right, I had to pick items in that 'book' that I completely understood. I also had to make sure that I understood what was meant in that 'book'
Now, is that last paragraph confusing? If it is, what it means is that you must go through the same steps that I did, but with your education, not mine.
If that makes sense, that is your procedure. That is what I did, and in research to see if "Nut Job (me possibly)" is wrong rather than right, you have to do what the researcher did.
Central in research, is duplicating the work of the original researcher.,
I suppose if that is not understood, then lots of what I say here will not be understood.
So, after failing, but in peer review only, I then ran controlled experiments from my background and education.
For you to repeat that, after doing step one, which was to prove the 'book' is wrong, with a proof that stands up, you would then set up some controlled experiments on that 'book' and again from your background, not mine.
The results of those control experiments are the basis then, for proving that my work is wrong or not.
You must do everything the way I did, and said, otherwise your work is invalid, in checking out my work.,
Alternately, if what I did is too confusing, you can try to disprove my work by running your own tests.
If you get different answers, one of us is wrong.
Does that make any sense? It is entirely clear to me. It is entirely simple to follow to me. I have even watched as another researcher, assigned his technician, to verify someone else's work that he was unsure of.
She, his technician was either going to get the same results as that paper said, or she was not. If her results were the same, then the researcher would only then accept that paper, that information as true.
We, in that profession do that for everything we use in research.
The procedure for you, is to find out what I did and duplicate it.
That's the steps.
LOVE,
