rdp@teddy.UUCP (07/24/85)
There seems to be a lot of dicussion lately about what is and is not
appropriate subject material for this news group. When I first subscribed
a month ago, the initial deluge of articles seemd to concern itself with
discussions of whether or not Uri Geller was a fraud or. Frankly, those of
us who viewed Geller et al as a source of entertainment only could have
cared less.
This and similar material may or may not be appropriate. But how do we
decide what is? Several people have made suggestions, and I, of course,
have mine.
If your are going to submit an article, first see if the subject matter
is covered in any reputable high-school or college physics text. If any
reasonable reference is made to the subject, then this is an appropriate
place to submit it. If not (in the case of parapsychology, PK, etc.), then
find another news group more appropriate.
By first consulting such a text (mine is Ford's "Classical and Modern
Physics") two things can be accomplished:
1. We now have a reasonable limit to what is submitted.
2. In the process of consulting such a reference, you might find
the answer to the question you have, or modify your opinion of
something after reading a (alledgedly) definitive source.
Having made the mistake once of saying that was not correct, and confusing
the issue by saying it in a confusing manner, I know make sure that what
I am saying has some ground. hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (07/28/85)
I agree with what you say in principle, but I do not wish to be so
straight-laced (strait-jacketed) about it. Reputable High School and
college physics texts have a reputation for containing only that material
which has been considered 'proven' and 'workable' and which will serve to
illustrate the absolute fundamentals of the subject. The fresh, new, and
often exciting ideas will not be found in such texts; yet, these are the
very areas of inquiry which lured many of us (at least one, me) to this
field. Let the Old-Guard physicists define the fields in terms of the
contents of Sears, or Halliday and Resnick, or other 'reputable' texts. Let
the New-Guard learn these hallowed truths but never learn to not tread 'Where
No Man (physicist/philosopher) Has Gone Before'.
TRVTH
does not have to be mundane
Rmcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA (07/30/85)
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer) >To: physics@sri-unix.ARPA >From: cmcl2!acf4!hkr4627@Seismo.ARPA (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) >Subject: Re: Suitable subjects for net.physics >Article-I.D.: <2980003@acf4.UUCP> >In-Reply-To: Article(s) <991@teddy.UUCP> > > > I agree with what you say in principle, but I do not wish to be so >straight-laced (strait-jacketed) about it. Reputable High School and >college physics texts have a reputation for containing only that material >which has been considered 'proven' and 'workable' and which will serve to >illustrate the absolute fundamentals of the subject. The fresh, new, and >often exciting ideas will not be found in such texts; yet, these are the >very areas of inquiry which lured many of us (at least one, me) to this >field. Let the Old-Guard physicists define the fields in terms of the >contents of Sears, or Halliday and Resnick, or other 'reputable' texts. Let >the New-Guard learn these hallowed truths but never learn to not tread 'Where >No Man (physicist/philosopher) Has Gone Before'. > > TRVTH > does not have to be mundane > > R > Unfortunately most such speculation is rather obvious nonsense. The point, of course, is that submissions should have some foundation in physics: if it's not in Halliday & Resnick, or Tipler, or (more advanced) Wheeler or some such, then at there should be some reference in the journals, or in Science, or in Scientific American. Rick.