All I read is ok sorry for the misunderstanding here are my elaborate reasons to justify why I spun some parts cause I may have forgot. If you've been doing this for a long time, there's a good chance some old posts had it too. Scholaris highlighted the specific parts where you just changed some words which is just spinning content.
However, I do not write articles with intent of spinning.
You don't intend to spin but it came out spun. And it is spun.
If no allowance is given, then it expected the individual must discover a novel explanation without having to borrow from a preexisting facts and laws (obviously impossible). It's just like asking someone to explain the Newton laws of motion without inputting key words that make the law valid.
Newton invented calculus because current math during his time couldn't explain his theories.
Quick condemnation as speedy downvote makes it look personal without getting my view on the matter first. It's fine regardless.
I don't care if the downvotes look personal, I don't wait for the author's opinion when I am free to upvote their post. The safest method you could've gone was just quoting the lines instead of botching the word smithing. I don't see the value in trying so hard to repack the idea when you can just link people to something that explains it better.