🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0rL6K.3C8@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com (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                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926