Mohamed Fayad you have asked 4 questions and then added this: "The answer to all questions is NO."

I can add 6 points.

1- If the answer to those four questions is NO (as you have found out) how do you justify the rest of your writing after that Bold Upper Case "No". ?

2- if at least the answer to your third and fourth questions are also negative and in your voice No, how you, me and others are here? are not we here because of "proper development of science"?

3- You have asked the 4 above questions in a public forum, so how do you know that all people who read these questions by you can not add new innovative areas? or in your own words:

Can you add new innovative areas?

4- You certainly know that the history of academic journals started with just two very general journals in seventeenth century. Now countless journals in very specific topics. does not it mean properly development of science?

5- Science started under an umbrella name; philosophy, then natural philosophy, then to modern science in 19th century and its development to so many scientific disciplines and sub disciplines that we have in higher education system around the world, does not it mean properly development of science?

6- why you think your 4 questions are urgent and in your own words, "Would you happen to know the answers to the following urgent questions?"

...

Rahim Alijani. Excellent reply and great debatable questions:

(1)

you indicate on your page that "REAL Science" comes from "REAL Research." Meaningless is bias, fraud, gender, race, nation, place, rank, class in BOTH." You agree with me and added more significant problems to my list of major issues.

"REAL Research" is rare, and "REAL science" is plotted with major mistakes

(2)

I have been working on these questions for more than 35 years, and I have presented my work in over 52 countries and states and collected a lot of data from thousands of my students during my visits to many different places.

(3)

I indicated a few of the significant problems of causes in the list of nine bold statements.

(4)

Most existing journals and conferences are commercial, and you must pay to publish. I used to get paid to publish or present the research.

(5)

There are three ways to prove what I am saying:

(a) Public debate (b) has a recorded debate on zoom, and you can invite as many gurus to share in public (c) suggest a concept of a field of knowledge you know very well, and I will send you a few questions to answer, and I will reply with my answers.

رحيم عليجاني. إجابة ممتازة وأسئلة قابلة للنقاش:

(1)

تشير في صفحتك إلى أن "REAL Science" يأتي من "REAL Research". لا معنى له هو التحيز ، والاحتيال ، والجنس ، والعرق ، والأمة ، والمكان ، والرتبة ، والطبقة في كليهما. "أنت تتفق معي وتضيف المزيد من المشاكل المهمة إلى قائمة القضايا الرئيسية.

"البحث الحقيقي" نادر الحدوث ، و "العلم الحقيقي" مرسوم بأخطاء كبيرة

(2)

لقد عملت على هذه الأسئلة لأكثر من 35 عامًا ، وقد قدمت عملي في أكثر من 52 دولة وولاية وجمعت الكثير من البيانات من الآلاف من طلابي خلال زياراتي إلى العديد من الأماكن المختلفة.

(3)

أشرت إلى عدد قليل من المشاكل الهامة للقضايا في قائمة البيانات التسعة الجريئة.

(4)

معظم المجلات والمؤتمرات الموجودة تجارية ، ويجب أن تدفع مقابل النشر. اعتدت أن أحصل على أموال مقابل نشر البحث أو تقديمه.

(5)

هناك ثلاث طرق لإثبات ما أقوله:

(أ) المناظرة العامة (ب) لها نقاش مسجل حول التكبير / التصغير ، ويمكنك دعوة أكبر عدد ممكن من المعلمين للمشاركة علنًا (ج) اقتراح مفهوم مجال المعرفة الذي تعرفه جيدًا ، وسأرسل لك بعض الأسئلة للإجابة ، وسأرد بإجاباتي.

Mohamed Fayad

Scientific debate is excellent and why not have one here. You mentioned: "REAL Science" comes from "REAL Research." Meaningless is bias, fraud, gender, race, nation, place, rank, class in BOTH."

from my page, correct, but how do you say?

• You agree with me and added more significant problems to my list of major issues. "REAL Research" is rare, and "REAL science" is plotted with major mistakes

1- How do I agree with you?

2- The words rare, plotted and major mistakes, are strong negative words. in this case, where did I say them? if you guessed them from your own understanding, please share your reasons with me and others here,

3- Also if you think I added "more significant problems to your list of major issues" does it match with your 35 years of working on those questions, and your presentations "in over 52 countries and states" ?

4- I have issues, understandings and writings about misconducts and frauds in academic research, but neither in match with your answers to me here, nor those four your initial questions. It simply means if the answer to all those four questions by you are NO (as you wrote), how we are here? how I reach you, you reach me in this discussion, how others see them? From that "No" by you, it seems nothing has happened, all over the world, from the beginning of humanity (that we don't know when started) up to now.

5- Also I did not receive any answers to my those 6 initial points.

Dear Rahim Alijani,

Your Questions and comments are appropriate regardless of your sarcastic tone.

[1] Any Concept

There are more than 50 innovative keys per concept and more than 100 new pieces of information. We call the new field of knowledge -- Unified Concept Engineering (UCE), and each innovative key requires Abstraction, and this led to an innovation in the Art of Abstraction (FAA). So imagine having 50+ innovations we know, use, develop, and others per concept.

Some of the innovative keys per concept are;

1. Ultimate goal

2. Functional requirements

3. Non-functional requirements, which include more than ten innovative keys

4. Behavior

5. Role

6. Responsibility

7. Applicability

8. Rule of conduct and others

I will publicly cover and spread the innovative keys per each concept we finalized. Why?

1) The Concept is the cornerstone of everything we speak and utilize.

2) Understanding the concept we speak and utilize.

The UCE led to more unified and stable innovations in Domain, Natural Language, and others.

[2] Unified Domain Knowledge Engineering (UDKE),

[3] Unified and Stable Linguistic Engineering (ULE),

[4] Unified Domain Analysis (UDA), and others.

Dear Mohamed Fayad

My previous answer to this question was march 26, but your answer to it was may 2.

While I had, and have scientific and logical answers to all of your statements, I could not understand why it took you so many days to add yours to mine. Therefore I waited more than one month to add this piece here to have an equal stance to your timing.

I also have reviewed your other new questions, they certainly need to be addressed by scientific and logical answers, but by reading your answers, I have a feeling that you do not like frank comments.