OTA@S1-A@sri-unix (08/13/82)
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> I guess its time to put in my Editorial Two Cents. I think the Meta-Discussion on the relevance of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is probably complete. It seems (to me at least) that these topics are of sufficient relevance and of sufficiently general interest that they are appropriate topics for discussion on Space Enthusiasts. Its possible that they may be more appropriate on net.physics. But in any case, it is definitely not my intention to start censoring such articles from Space-Enthusiasts. It is a valid point that has already been made that disproving Relativity and Quantum in this sort of a forum is almost certainly misguided. For the most part these theories are so well grounded in experiment that they are not really open to question at the level that this List can reach. This is should not be construed as a closed minded attitude, but simply a realistic one. If you are going to question the validity of such firmly established theories it very much behooves you to know them inside and out. It should be clear that this List is not a reasonable forum for the detailed, rigorous and mathematical arguments that would be necessary to seriously question one of these theories. The observations of several people that the "statements" on these topics have been mutually contridictory are correct. I've never known a discussion between real (non-idealized) people to be free of such problems. I doubt that the Space List will break new ground in this area. Still it doesn't hurt to chastise the people who seem to be spreading incorrect information and to ask for clarification, confirmation, AND REFERENCES. I will join others in asking people to check on their information before sending it off to Space. The last few messages that point to good introductory texts in these areas are a very welcome item. I should clarify here that I do not mean to suggest that all messages about quantum mechanics etc. are unreasonable. General questions and answers, and interesting applications and results are all appropriate. As a practical matter allowing these also means allowing the whole raft of claims, conflicting counter claims, denouncements, and the general confusion that inevitably results. Unless we want to outlaw the discussion of all complicated subjects we have to put up with this. It seems to be the price we pay for interacting in such a public forum. On the issue of Usenet and net.space etc, I'm afraid I can't say much. It is appearently well known that usenet addresses to not work forwards and backwards. That is to say you can't always reply to usenet messages. I don't really have any suggestions in this regard. I ASSUME that the usenet people are working to correct this deficiency. The Moderator, Ted Anderson