Science > Physics > Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jaga" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2007 09:26:25 PM |
| Object: |
Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 09:32:09 PM |
|
|
Jaga wrote:
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
What nuclear physics questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 11:16:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 5:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
What nuclear physics questions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
Wormley
there is no need for you there
only if there is a need in parrotingand suplying current knoeledge
yet if there is need in some advance
you are a pain in *****. (a disturbing element )
the fusion question
should be the first class question
on the words currect agenda
i a m certinly for such group
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
23 Jun 2007 08:22:36 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 2:16 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 5:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
What nuclear physics questions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
Wormley
there is no need for you there
only if there is a need in parrotingand suplying current knoeledge
yet if there is need in some advance
you are a pain in *****. (a disturbing element )
the fusion question
should be the first class question
on the words currect agenda
i a m certinly for such group
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
YES!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
23 Jun 2007 09:41:43 PM |
|
|
On Jun 24, 4:22 am, tony fleming <tflemi...@hotkey.net.au> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:16 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 5:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
What nuclear physics questions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
Wormley
there is no need for you there
only if there is a need in parrotingand suplying current knoeledge
yet if there is need in some advance
you are a pain in *****. (a disturbing element )
the fusion question
should be the first class question
on the words currect agenda
i a m certinly for such group
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
YES!!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
so ???
waht does it mean fro needed actions
talking will do very little .
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 09:34:49 PM |
|
|
No Jaga, I really don't believe that such an addition would be
beneficial, and I'm actually a physicist.
We have alrady too many uneducated crackpots current posting to the
open newsgroup, and we have a moderated newsgroup to deal with more
serious or professional questions. I believe that is sufficient.
Harry C.
On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are 13 subgroups in sci.physics but no one is devoted to the
nuclear physics. I think, it is a time to try to get the permission to
create a nuclear subgroup. I was searching the internet for other
nuclear physics groups but there are nowhere to find.
What do you think ? We have lots of nuclear physics questiona in this
group and in the sci.physics.research, so I believe there is a time to
have a sci.physics.nuclear
who will support me in the request?
We need to have some discussion and a formal request for a creation of
the new usenet group.
Or maybe there are some active nuclear physics groups I am not aware
of?
Jaga
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jaga" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 09:58:15 PM |
|
|
Harry,
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
Jaga
On Jun 14, 8:34 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No Jaga, I really don't believe that such an addition would be
beneficial, and I'm actually a physicist.
We have alrady too many uneducated crackpots current posting to the
open newsgroup, and we have a moderated newsgroup to deal with more
serious or professional questions. I believe that is sufficient.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 10:15:00 PM |
|
|
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 11:31:31 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 11:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
s.p.research is also largely the differential geometry show.
Nobody asks nuclear physics questions because nobody
*has* asked nuclear physics questions. It's simply not
what they talk about. It's not what nukes read.
I have asked nuclear questions here. The result has been
a deafening silence. Except for the usual chimps who
jump up and down and fling ***** at anybody who does
ask an actual physics question.
s.p.nuclear is not a bad idea. It ought to be moderated and
limited to nuclear physics questions. Though it might be
better to call it s.engr.nuclear, so as to distance it from
*this* river of *****.
Considering that there are quite likely to be new builds in
several countries in the next couple years, possibly a lot
of new builds, it might be a good idea to prepare for it.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 05:04:01 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:31 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Considering that there are quite likely to be new builds in
several countries in the next couple years, possibly a lot
of new builds, it might be a good idea to prepare for it.
Socks
That idea scares the ***** out of me.
Not the new nuke builds - but that people participating in the design
would have a question and would come to USENET to ask it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
23 Jun 2007 09:47:52 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 1:04 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:31 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Considering that there are quite likely to be new builds in
several countries in the next couple years, possibly a lot
of new builds, it might be a good idea to prepare for it.
Socks
That idea scares the ***** out of me.
Not the new nuke builds - but that people participating in the design
would have a question and would come to USENET to ask it.
----------
we are takling about
**controlles slow fusion**
thqat is the main difficulty
it is not for war
iti is for peaceful uses
to warm your ***** in Alaska
when not too long time will come
and al your poluting fosiles will be exhausted
and your possible contribution fo rit
is ....... mumblings QM as usual
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
24 Jun 2007 05:16:48 AM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 6:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 1:04 am, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:31 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Considering that there are quite likely to be new builds in
several countries in the next couple years, possibly a lot
of new builds, it might be a good idea to prepare for it.
Socks
That idea scares the ***** out of me.
Not the new nuke builds - but that people participating in the design
would have a question and would come to USENET to ask it.
----------
we are takling about
**controlles slow fusion**
You fucking ninny, nobody is talking about fusion. \
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jaga" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 10:29:09 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
Thanks. But still these both groups" sci.physics and
sci.physics.research offer all sorts of questions. I would really like
to see something just for nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is a huge
discipline and it deserves to have its own forum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 10:37:57 PM |
|
|
Jaga wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
Thanks. But still these both groups" sci.physics and
sci.physics.research offer all sorts of questions. I would really like
to see something just for nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is a huge
discipline and it deserves to have its own forum.
How come we see so few "nuclear physics" discussions in the existing
newsgroups? Perhaps you, Jaga, will post more about "nuclear physics"
ideas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
23 Jun 2007 11:36:36 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 11:29 pm, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
Thanks. But still these both groups" sci.physics and
sci.physics.research offer all sorts of questions. I would really like
to see something just for nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is a huge
discipline and it deserves to have its own forum.
Nuclear physics is a largely a database of technical minituea
about scattering strengths.
So it doesn't have a forum for the same reason asteroids
don't have a forum. All they are have is morons and names.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 12:43:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 7:29 pm, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jaga wrote:
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
news:sci.physics.research
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an
environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of
serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is
an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular
administrivia posting.
Thanks. But still these both groups" sci.physics and
sci.physics.research offer all sorts of questions. I would really like
to see something just for nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is a huge
discipline and it deserves to have its own forum.
Yes, because the flow of nuclear physics questions has become so
strong that it drowns out all other traffic in sci.physics...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jaga" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 10:29:59 AM |
|
|
I am glad guys for your support. I believe that nuclear physics is too
important to be overlooked. If there are boards devoted to much
narrower physics disciplines like string, plasma etc. There is even
fusion board but not fission or nuclear.
How much fusion centers are there around the world. Fusion is not even
developed enough to have any practical use. But there is a fusion
board but not nuclear,
I believe that the nuclear physics board should encompass everything
which deals in nuclear, which is a huge subject for many years and it
will become bigger when we will have more and more energy problems.
Is there any way to post a poll?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 03:00:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 11:29 am, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Is there any way to post a poll?
There is a procedure, and it's published someplace. It involves
steps like formal announcements, calls for discussion, calls for
vote, and such. If you are keen, you could search newsgroups
like the news.* set of newsgroups.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
15 Jun 2007 05:01:46 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 7:29 am, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am glad guys for your support. I believe that nuclear physics is too
important to be overlooked. If there are boards devoted to much
narrower physics disciplines like string, plasma etc. There is even
fusion board but not fission or nuclear.
Ooops, my bad. I was being sarcastic and that didn't translate.
There is not enough traffic to warrant the creation of another group.
How much fusion centers are there around the world. Fusion is not even
developed enough to have any practical use. But there is a fusion
board but not nuclear,
I believe that the nuclear physics board should encompass everything
which deals in nuclear, which is a huge subject for many years and it
will become bigger when we will have more and more energy problems.
Is there any way to post a poll?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't you think that we need a sci.physics.nuclear group? |
14 Jun 2007 10:11:28 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 6:58 pm, Jaga <jagodakla...@gmail.com> wrote:
Harry,
what is the link to this more serious and more professional group?
Jaga
On Jun 14, 8:34 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No Jaga, I really don't believe that such an addition would be
beneficial, and I'm actually a physicist.
We have alrady too many uneducated crackpots current posting to the
open newsgroup, and we have a moderated newsgroup to deal with more
serious or professional questions. I believe that is sufficient.
Harry C.
sci.physics.research
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
