I can't even spell competant ..
Posted by bobbapink on Jan 24, 2002 at 15:38
nen169-243.nosc.mil (198.253.169.243)Re: I ain't competent .. (Eudaemonic Pie)
And you know I ain't competent, Bobba, ain't competent to do no dad-gummed review of inconsistencies between general media reporting and findings in original research, and that's because I'm too dad-gummed dumb to understand even general media reports in the first place, no less re-analyze and re-interpret the original data.
The nature article was also written for the armchair scientist, just more betterestly so. I'm not in a position to re-analyze or re-interpret either, i just know a well-written article whens i's reads one.
But, here's my question Bobba, just for you, and I ain't being adversarial, but open, because I'm coldfused – now, I'm down with confirming quantum versus continuous behaviors, that's cool, and I agree that the actual observations are stunning, that's cool too – but I'm wondering aloud, and I'm asking you if you'd please care to guess at the prepublication larger context of uncertainties about relating this data to gravity, unpublished standard uncertainties stemming from the way the data was collected.
try as i might, i could not interpret that. perhaps you could rephrase for the simple-minded poster that is me.
Again, Bobba, I ain't competent to re-analyze no stinking original QM data and make my own specific quantitative projections from it (doh!), so my credibility is all shot to hell (and my wife made me sleep on the couch with the dog last night too, so go gentle on me), so let's have a beer, and have you please "jump" on this one and give it a crack! Be bold! Grab you thrusters, man, and take a leap! – from this observation to gravity? – with what prepublication uncertainties?
i understood the dog/couch thing but the rest is over my head.