🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1deevpINNl33@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, phillies@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies) writes:
> Is it just me, or is the crackpot and fringe material
> drowning out the real physics?  Perhaps it is time for
>  
> sci.physics.orthodox (moderated?)
> 
> sci.physics.orthodox is open to discussions of orthodox 
> physics of all branches.  Contributions that question the 
> fundamental bases of Schroedinger-Dirac quantum 
> mechanics, special relativity, or electromagnetism will 
> not be accepted.  Descriptions of gedanken-experiments 
> that purport to show inconsistencies in orthodox physics 
> will not be accepted.  ...

It is a bad idea to have a group whose name includes both the words
`orthodox' and `science'. There is no orthodox science, only experimentally
verified science, speculative ideas on science and erroneous science.
We would all like to get rid of the erroneous science (especially in
our own postings), but that is not practical in a news group. It is hard
enough (and never completely successful) in refereed journals.

> My motivation for this is the suspicion that this group 
> is not in contact with the physics community at all.  
> Note that approximately two months ago I posted an 
> announcement of a tenure-track physics opening at my
> institution.  Before the ad appeared in Physics Today,
> a month later, we received perhaps two applications.  
> We'renow up to around 60, with an end-of-the-year 
> deadline.  Since people usually tell their friends and 
> students about job openings, I infer that well under 1%
> of the real physics community actually reads this group.

What might help and be practical is a group called `sci.physics.announce'.
This group would contain no discussions of any sort. It would be limited
to announcements or news items of general interest to the physics community.
All discussion and follow up would be redirected to `sci.physics' or
another appropriate group.

It might also be useful to have a group called `sci.physics.issues'. This
would be devoted to discussing physics related issues that do not concern
the laws of physics or their application. Issues like funding of the SSC,
religion and science, the crackpot index etc. would be kept out of 
`sci.physics'. 

One should not expect a group like `sci.physics' to be a forum for professional
physicists to discuss physics issues among themselves. It is a way for
a few professional physicists who are so inclined to communicate with a
more general audience and for anyone to use in any way they want that
does not violate the charter of the group. The way for professionals to
discuss issues among themselves is to form a self selected mailing list
of people with similar levels of expertise on a topic. 

Paul Budnik