NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/physics/22657

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.physics:22657 news.groups:25450
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:14:22 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>
>I seem to be almost alone, but I'm very dissatisfied with the current
>proposal - enough so that I'll vote against it.
>
>From the start I understood the overt charter of sci.physics.research to
>be the elimination of undeniably trashy topics.  Things like guessing how
>much energy the space potato in the center of the universe looses as it
>pushes a reluctant mass of time forward into the future.  Or things like
>arguing about whether God's existence is proved or disproved by physics.
>
>But based on examples of unacceptable topics given by moderators, I see
>a very different agenda.  First interpretations of quantum mechanics
>was deemed a "trash topic", although John later said he may have gone
>overboard on this.  Then yesterday I learned that Mach's principle is
>now "a hoary old chestnut".  How so?  Since when are the ideas of Hugh
>Everett and Mach on a par with those of Aban?  What is next?  How about
>eliminating discussion of Bell's inequality?  Or debate over whether GR
>actually forces you to accept the existence of gravitational radiation?
>
>I'll vote against this group because there is nothing in the proposed
>charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
>Mach's principle.

     I have to admit that I cannot see, in all of the voluminous discussion,
     where any of us have said that QM interpretations or Mach's principle
     are not suitable subjects a priori.  John seemed to focus on the
     rehashing process, and I certainly focused on the rehashing process.
     Indeed, a grep of my archive file of this discussion for 'trash' comes up
     empty.

     Feel free to vote against it, but I have a hard time seeing where
     anyone claimed Everett or Mach are/were less-than-adequate physicists,
     and that discussions of their musings should be banned.
     Nor do I see where discussions of QM interpretation are
     to be eliminated.  I *do* recall suggesting that discussions of
     any type take place on a well-formulated, well-considered level.

>Creating a new group with a completely different character than sci.physics
>would be fine.  Creating a new group with the same character as sci.physics
>but a reduction in noise would be fine too.  What isn't fine and calls for
>a "no" vote is having a charter that calls for simple noise reduction minus
>any major character change, coupled with an undocumented agenda to go ahead
>and craft a new character for sci.physics.research without having to answer
>to an objective guideline.

     It is difficult to put more than a general guideline of principle in
     the charter.  I'd hope that the discussion that we've all had here
     clarified some details of that 'agenda', and to a certain extent
     documented it.

>Oh well, a voice in the wilderness ...

     Don't go to the wilderness.  I suspect that your objections can
     be alleviated since they don't exactly seem to correspond
     to our stated positions.

                           dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              [phone]