If I can not access, it is zero to me.
Mostly scientist write to each other, but that is not practical.
When you read professor Nanetti's writings, they are practical and easy to understand.
I had once acces to one famous scientic pages, but there were not much to learn. I tired to read them.
Reports in Coloss papers are odd too. Not much practical value.
Ok before i go through this line by line i am reminded of something you said about being involved in research and scientifically trained.
"If I can not access, it is zero to me.
I am sorry but this is simply plain arrogance and complete nonsense. If you had truly been scientifically trained and involved in research, to discount a peer reviewed paper simply on the grounds of not having the credentials to access it is..........breath taking.
"I had once acces to one famous scientic pages, but there were not much to learn. I tired to read them.
Again this does not fit with the claim of being involved with research, the fact you have been unable to fully grasp or understand the material you are reading, does not in anyway affect the value of the paper, i would respectfully suggest the problem is more to do with your lack of understanding rather than the quality of information within the paper. I also fail to see how you can come to the conclusion there wasnt anything of value for you to learn, when you intimate to not fully understanding what you were reading. In other words...how do you know there was nothing to learn if you failed to understand what was written?
Mostly scientist write to each other, but that is not practical.
Scientist do write to each other, however all scientist try to reach the widest audience with the research they have done, sharing of information is a key principle in science, the most effective way to do this is to publish peer reviewed papers in as high a profile journal as you can. As you will see from the papers i posted there is a bibliography in each, one purpose of citing work like this is so others can read the paper that has been refereed too, it also helps add weight to the paper you have written if you have used excepted methods previously published by others.
At this point i am inclined to think you have little to none scientific training and perhaps i misinterpreted your earlier statement in regards to being involved in research, i apologize if i have misunderstood what you meant by having been trained and "involved".
"Reports in Coloss papers are odd too. Not much practical value."
I find this disingenuous to say the least, i feel a more accurate statement would have been to declare the work of little practical value to yourself. The way you have written the statement reads as if you are the gold standard of what is and is not of value, again a somewhat arrogant statement considering your declared lack of scientific understanding.
No offense intended, however if you wish to challenge or debate in a scientific manner with me, i would greatly appreciate it if you could supply the normally excepted methods of doing so, such as peer reviewed data and papers, everything else would have to be considered conjecture and of little scientific value.
Regards
Dr J.Bell
