🚀 go-pugleaf

********************************************************************************
		  PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SCI.PHYSICS FAQ LIST
********************************************************************************

There has been some discussion (mostly behind the scenes E-mail stuff) about
starting (restarting?) a FAQ list for SCI.PHYSICS.  I assume that there can 
be no objections to such a project.  I think that it is time to dive in and 
try to get the job done.  I am aware that there have been previous attempts,
as recently as a year ago, and that many people will be somewhat jaded by 
their previous experiences.  However, I think that the task is sufficiently 
interesting and important that we should not shy away from it.

Kurt Sonnenmoser has been considering doing this, but he is leaving the 
newsgroup soon and so he asked me if I would carry the torch.  I am willing to
do so, and (hopefully) there are others as well.  However, in the absence of
any kind of political structure among sci.physics participants, there is little
that I can do other than declare that in the absense of opposition by concerned
participants, I will volunteer to get the ball rolling.  

PLEASE - If you too are interested in this project, let's get together and 
organize.  It is clear that the FAQ list will have to be built incrementally,
probably slowly over time.  

Here is my proposal:

(1) I will maintain and compile a FAQ list on my local machine.
(2) It will be periodically posted to sci.physics, until such time as it
    grows out of control, in which case a summary will be posted along
    with instructions for accessing the complete list by anonymous FTP.
(3) I invite, encourage, and plead with all of you out there to submit 
    materials you may already have to begin the list.
(4) When the FAQ is posted, criticism and editorial comments will be welcome,
    nay, encouraged.  I hope that it will evolve based upon the input of the
    many knowledgable people who participate in this group.
(5) FAQ entries should contain easily accessible references, such as 
    standard texts and review articles, so that interested parties can 
    pursue the subject of their interest.
(6) Inclusion of FAQ entries will be according to the following rules,
    arbitrated by the FAQ organizer(s):

     (I) Subject matter must fall clearly within the boundaries of sci.physics
         discussion subjects.  

    (II) Subject matter must be objective.  I think there will be agreement on
	 this point.  Recurring themes such as "is the SSC worth the $$$" are
	 interesting but inappropriate subjects for the FAQ.

   (III) The subject should have been discussed previously to the extent that
         concensus has been reached at least once in previous threads regarding
	 the subject in question.

    (IV) The subject, should in fact be "Frequently Asked."  We do not want 
	 to attempt an Encyclopedia of All Known Physics.  Inclusion must
	 be restricted to questions which are asked frequently enough that
         inclusion in the FAQ will in fact decrease the level of repeat 
	 discussion on sci.physics.   

To begin the game I propose the following:

	(1) Please comment upon this post.  I want to make sure that a broad
	    range of opinion is sampled, and that the FAQ represents all 
	    of the regular participants, and not just the organizers.

	(2) I request that previous summary-style posts which anyone may have
	    on the following topics be E-mailed to me, so that I can get the
	    ball rolling as quickly as possible:

		(a) FTL communication
		(b) SR paradoxes, specifically the twin paradox and the
		    barn-pole paradox.
		(c) EPR and Bell's inequality
		(d) Schrodinger's Cat
		(e) antigravity
		(f) perpetual motion and the Second Law of Thermo.

--------------------
Scott I. Chase
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV