Hi again David, Charles etc
Attached is my version. I would add the following points to what I sent previously:
1) The first thing you see is that I have added another layer of structure on top of yours, David. In terms of grouping, I just really built on what you set out. However, I have tried to break away from setting them out linearly, hence the pattern. This can easily be reversed if needs be but I have imposed the higher level headings in part to aid navigation over the whole document. It will be interesting to see the next part of the process in terms of linking statements (notwithstanding my previous comments above).
2) As previously stated, many of our collective keepers have been amalgamated or altered, often in relatively minor ways. The colour coding should be that ones I left untouched are green and ones I have altered, even slightly, are in orange. However, merging the two documents led to some automatic changes in the colour coding that I wasn’t able to fully keep track of. So it may be that some are the wrong way around – apologies for this, in case you don’t like a statement that I have credited you with or vice versa. Headings are in grey still and statements that I think need particular attention are in pink.
3) I spent time converting non-statements into statements and generally tidying up some of the statements so that they can be more easily engaged with. This was to avoid the tendency to either just delete or to leave statements/non-statements because they appeared cumbersome to engage with. The statements now under ‘structure’, for example, could be refined or just deleted, although I personally would like there to be space for this sort of applied physics to be allowed.
4) I still think there is work to be done in grappling with the framing notions of: statements being self-contained; trying to be concise; and making explicit what is implicit. I found myself preferring that the statements should be ‘full’ rather than ‘self-contained’, along with ‘useful’ and ‘physics is correct’. However, even here, ‘forces are always in pairs’ would seem to be both useful and correct. If I had a pound for every time I’ve seen a teacher use something like this phrase to then get into all sorts of trouble conflating Newton’s First and Third Laws, quite often concluding that one of them must be wrong. My point here is that even useful and correct doesn’t always guarantee not misleading.
Look forward to any feedback