| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2006 08:50:23 AM |
| Object: |
Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
This is an informal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.fundamentals. After an initial
informal discussion a formal RFD will be posted to
news.announce.newgroups.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.fundamentals
discussions of fundamental and philosophical issues and of research in
physics
MODERATORS: Charles Francis, Jay Yablon, Fred Diether.
RATIONALE:
A body of serious researchers have felt there is a case for a new
moderated physics newsgroup to allow free discussion of more
speculative
research than is permitted by the moderation policy of
sci.physics.research, to act as a sounding board for ideas, to assist
in
trapping errors prior to submission for publication, and also to allow
more scope for discussion of philosophical and foundational matters. At
the same time, moderation is required to keep out both the flames and
the noise of patently non-physical theories which characterize the
unmoderated groups, sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
Posts about philosophical and foundational issues and posts speculating
on unresolved issues would be considered particularly appropriate. It
is
hoped that directing such posts to sci.physics.fundamentals will
relieve
the burden on the moderators of sci.physics.research, who have to make
a
decision on whether such posts are "overly speculative" according to
the
charter of that group.
CHARTER:
Light moderation is intended, aimed not at restricting subject matter
but at reducing noise. Under this guidance, the following sorts of
material are deemed inappropriate for sci.physics.fundamentals:
Personal attacks (i.e. flames) and overly-scathing corrections;
Discussion that isn't about or related to physics (excepting that
purely
humorous posts may be permitted);
Multiple responses which all say the same things;
Advertisements;
Posts about theories which are, in the opinion of the moderator,
patently inconsistent with established scientific knowledge;
Posts rejecting special relativity, for which there is already a
newsgroup;
Posts enquiring about standard theory may not be prohibited, but would
be encouraged to sci.physics.research. Similarly posts on string theory
would be generally be considered more appropriate to
sci.physics.strings.
It is not intended for the moderators to trap errors in posts about
research, since that is part of the rationale for the group.
If a moderator has doubts about whether a post is "patently
inconsistent
with established scientific knowledge", the post should either be
allowed or referred to the other moderators for a consensus view.
Posters will be expected to maintain high standards of manners. We
should recognize that we all make mistakes, and that making and then
correcting mistakes is fundamental to scientific methodology. This
group
is a resource for those pursuing serious scientific research. Crackpot
physics starts not with making mistakes, but with a failure to
recognize
mistakes. Part of the function of the group should be to assist
independent researchers in trapping and correcting mistakes.
Corrections
should therefore be phrased with due diplomacy.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
sci.physics.research
sci.physics
alt.sci.physics
sci.physics.particle
sci.physics.strings
news.groups
PROPONENT:
Charles Francis <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
(Sub Charles for Notl to email)
Co-Proponents:
Jay R. Yablon <jyablon@nycap.rr.com>
Fred Diether
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 08:57:08 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Would a crackpot without any physics education
like you be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 09:32:21 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Would a crackpot without any physics education
like you be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceshit would have fun moderating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 10:11:42 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:9Oxih.278258$FQ1.65718@attbi_s71...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Would a crackpot without any physics education
like you be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceshit would have fun moderating.
Ah yes... Moderators: Tucker, Spaceshit, Androcles, Wilson and Mike.
And let's take Schoenfeld for backup.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 10:15:09 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Dirk asks,
Could a crackpot without any physics education
like me be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk, I'd say no, you wouldn't qualify, here's why:
A good moderator needs to know what they don't
know, and you are entirely unaware of the depth
of your ignorance, which is one major motivation
for curiousity that all good scientists have, and
has been an ongoing basis for nearly all discovery,
with the exception of some fellow who was lucky
enough to sit under an apple tree at the right time.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 10:34:57 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166717709.233877.283280@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Dirk asks,
Could a crackpot without any physics education
like me be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk, I'd say no, you wouldn't qualify, here's why:
A good moderator needs to know what they don't
know, and you are entirely unaware of the depth
of your ignorance, which is one major motivation
for curiousity that all good scientists have, and
has been an ongoing basis for nearly all discovery,
with the exception of some fellow who was lucky
enough to sit under an apple tree at the right time.
I'm sure I am aware of a lot more things you don't
know than I don't know, so I think I'll qualify after
all - or do I?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "unsettled" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 11:22:11 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166717709.233877.283280@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Dirk asks,
Could a crackpot without any physics education
like me be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk, I'd say no, you wouldn't qualify, here's why:
A good moderator needs to know what they don't
know, and you are entirely unaware of the depth
of your ignorance, which is one major motivation
for curiousity that all good scientists have, and
has been an ongoing basis for nearly all discovery,
with the exception of some fellow who was lucky
enough to sit under an apple tree at the right time.
I'm sure I am aware of a lot more things you don't
know than I don't know, so I think I'll qualify after
all - or do I?
You'd like riding herd on "speculative" science discussions?
That's rubber room stuff. Plenty of it here already. Why
would the rubber room bunch in sci.physics want to move
to a moderated ng? They seem to love this place. They sure
seem to love the giving as well as receiving that goes on
here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 11:32:51 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166717709.233877.283280@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Dirk asks,
Could a crackpot without any physics education
like me be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk, I'd say no, you wouldn't qualify, here's why:
A good moderator needs to know what they don't
know, and you are entirely unaware of the depth
of your ignorance, which is one major motivation
for curiousity that all good scientists have, and
has been an ongoing basis for nearly all discovery,
with the exception of some fellow who was lucky
enough to sit under an apple tree at the right time.
I'm sure I am aware of a lot more things you don't
know than I don't know, so I think I'll qualify after
all - or do I?
Dirk Vdm
A 4 billion year old rock has an intrinsic embedment
of the past more than I'll ever have, but has no imagination.
Knowledge is the Past, Imagination is the Future.
Do you have a Future?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
24 Dec 2006 02:37:21 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1166722371.436558.63230@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1166717709.233877.283280@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1166712623.736211.276330@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
Dirk asks,
Could a crackpot without any physics education
like me be a moderator of that group?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk, I'd say no, you wouldn't qualify, here's why:
A good moderator needs to know what they don't
know, and you are entirely unaware of the depth
of your ignorance, which is one major motivation
for curiousity that all good scientists have, and
has been an ongoing basis for nearly all discovery,
with the exception of some fellow who was lucky
enough to sit under an apple tree at the right time.
I'm sure I am aware of a lot more things you don't
know than I don't know, so I think I'll qualify after
all - or do I?
Dirk Vdm
A 4 billion year old rock has an intrinsic embedment
of the past more than I'll ever have, but has no imagination.
Knowledge is the Past, Imagination is the Future.
Do you have a Future?
Ken
Correct, the past no longer exists and the future does not
exist yet, thus there is only Continuity and no "Time" dimension
as such, THUS lack of simultaneity is INCORRECT as it
leads inevitably to an always existing past and an always
preexisting future.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "unsettled" |
|
| Title: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.physics.fundamentals |
21 Dec 2006 11:14:56 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
sci.physics.fundamentals
snip
Misnomer.
Just call it sci.physics.nice
Save time and energy. Organize alt.physics.nice
instead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
