Talk:General tau theory
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Hoax
[edit]It may just be me but I think this article is a hoax or possibly a personal theory. 78.25.219.244 (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No I don't think it's just you, I think it is questionable at best and b****** at worst. If it is fact it needs rewriting so that at least half the population can understand it. Richard Avery (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with that: "According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of adults in the United States have literacy below the 6th-grade level." [1]Lewis Goudy (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is emphatically not a hoax. I agree that the article as it stands is incomprehensible, but the "tau" theory of motor control has been examined in at least a couple of dozen reputable scientific studies, including this Nature communication; and Dave Lee has published together with some of the most reputable people in the field of motor control, such as Apostolos Georgopoulos. Looie496 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It would help if the article were anchored to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_effect since that is plainly what is being generalized.
The progenitor of the Tau effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_rabbit_illusion would likewise add context.
Finally, what motivates the generalization is the reconciliation of the *apparently* different notions of time addressed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elapsed_real_time
I will leave those edits to someone who concurs--after all, I might be bullshitting y'all.Lewis Goudy (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Significance
[edit]It would have been nice if the article described what does this theory explain or predict. Otherwise, the article is virtually useless. GregorB (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)