Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
[snip]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
So, if you are proposing a similar kind of rule, wrt statements on current mainstream, textbook, or consensus positions in astrophysics (etc), then I feel such a rule would likely also be complex, in its use.
|
I'm proposing no such thing. I am simply proposing that everyone are held responsible of their arguments, not just ATM proponents, as long as the critique and questions are pertinent.
[snip] |
I am missing something Ari, so I've constructed some toy models. In the following, "N" is not presenting an ATM idea, nor defending such an idea; "{A}" is an ATM idea, previously presented in the ATM thread (and which has nothing to do with SR or muons).
1) N: "{A} is inconsistent with good observational results."
2) N: "{A} is inconsistent with good observational results concerning the relationship between the observed half-life of muons and their speed."
3) N: "{A} in internally inconsistent because {words}."
4) N: "{A} is inconsistent with the SR, the theory."
5) N: "in SR, muon half-lives are a function of the (perceived) speed of the muons."
Is your proposal, re a rule change, that N needs to be held accountable for answering questions about the following classes of (N) statement: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, none of the above}?
(to be continued)