If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the downvotes are largely driven by deviating from our customary style in the direction of crackpot websites. I see that you have breaks denoted by “----------------” which means you may have run afoul of our default Table of Contents feature, which converts lines all in bold into section headings. In order to make the headings match your intended organization, it would be a good idea to replace the dashes with a bold sentence, and to make sure there aren’t any other all-bold lines in the piece.
Two other things that would be helpful are including more of the actual research you describe—what the measurements were, how you did the calculations, more detailed sources—and to make explicit that you are an amateur upfront.
I like amateurs taking direct shots at interesting questions, because I do it myself. This community is organized largely around not accidentally fooling ourselves or each other though, so there is a higher-than-usual effort spent on making the limits of our knowledge clear.
Thank you for your kind hints, ryan_b. I’ll tray to implement them on the next post.
The breaks I put in had a technical reason as well, BTW. My system kept running out of memory, and so I had to cobble the post together bit by bit and these served me as markers. I don’t know the reason for this or if I am the only one experiencing it, but never mind. And Oh yes, I am indeed an amateur; I have now made that clear in my profile, so I hope that helps.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the downvotes are largely driven by deviating from our customary style in the direction of crackpot websites. I see that you have breaks denoted by “----------------” which means you may have run afoul of our default Table of Contents feature, which converts lines all in bold into section headings. In order to make the headings match your intended organization, it would be a good idea to replace the dashes with a bold sentence, and to make sure there aren’t any other all-bold lines in the piece.
Two other things that would be helpful are including more of the actual research you describe—what the measurements were, how you did the calculations, more detailed sources—and to make explicit that you are an amateur upfront.
I like amateurs taking direct shots at interesting questions, because I do it myself. This community is organized largely around not accidentally fooling ourselves or each other though, so there is a higher-than-usual effort spent on making the limits of our knowledge clear.
Thank you for your kind hints, ryan_b. I’ll tray to implement them on the next post.
The breaks I put in had a technical reason as well, BTW. My system kept running out of memory, and so I had to cobble the post together bit by bit and these served me as markers. I don’t know the reason for this or if I am the only one experiencing it, but never mind. And Oh yes, I am indeed an amateur; I have now made that clear in my profile, so I hope that helps.
Fixed them for you. Sorry for the technical difficulties, feel free to ping us on Intercom if you ever run into problems like this again.
Thanks