Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
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)
|
Questions raised by A which N should be accountable for answering is In My Higly-biased Opinion:
1) A: Could you give me a reference to those results?
2) A: I can't see how my idea will influence muon half-life under SR, please clarify.
3) This one depends entirely on {words}
4) A: Please show me how my theory is connected to SR.
5) A: I can't see how my idea will influence muon half-life under SR, why do you think that observation is relevant?
Or the short one:
1) Why?
2) How?
3) Why?
4) How?
5) So?
__________________
And the "driving on the freeway on a scooter" analogy still holds true because the pilots are sitting in 7 to 30 ton aircraft o' doom and you are running around them in your very own Meatbody, Mark I. Beep, beep.
Big Don
Trying to make sense of computers,
The Error Log.