Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!kontron!steve
From: steve@kontron.UUCP (Steve McIntosh)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: real physics vs junk
Message-ID: <418@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 19:05:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.418
Posted: Thu Jul 25 19:05:59 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 07:24:16 EDT
References: <397@lasspvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 47

> Instead of physically literate net users, the contributors to net.physics
> seem to be (for the most part) confused pseudo-scientists whose knowledge of
> the subject appears to be derived from the back of cereal boxes and who are
> compelled to post their latest fantasies concerning the physical world.
> ...
> lasspvax!rokhsar			Dan Rokhsar

Dan - I get the impression that most of the people on the net are COMPUTER
PEOPLE (Engineers, Programmers, Managers etc.) and NOT scientists. (Me
included.) The number of Physicists on the net is probably very small
compared to the number of non-physicists.

Those who are involved in REAL physics have their own esoteric channels
of communication - journals, conferences and such. That the typical 
net user doesnt have the time or ability to access.

Many of these users at one time or the other have been interested in
physics, and have a craving to understand where physics is going, and
are not afraid to speculate about it.

I would suggest that net.physics be split into three groups:

1) net.physics would remain for general use. I would suggest that REAL
   physics people avoid it, unless they are kind enough to participate
   in speculation or whatever with non-physics people. It would be a
   real trial for some physics people to be patient and polite to the
   rest of us. Nobody likes to be insulted.

2) net.physics.expert so that us peons could ask (hopefully) articulate
   questions of those who may have the answers. And perhaps get replies
   other than "thats a stupid question".

3) mod.physics for the REAL physics people - complete with referees and
   all those things that make journals respectible. Here is the place 
   for the discussions that are the meat of REAL physics. Non physics
   people really do enjoy reading such things.

The popularity of net.physics (as based on the amount of net traffic
it generates) is, it seems, based on the interest in the subject of those
who want to know and learn more. Not because it is an electronic journal.

(Afterthought - how about a fourth category - net.physics.news for "hot"
news items. After all, most of us don't have a direct line to the field.)

- Steve McIntosh, Kontron Electronics, Irvine CA -

/Usual disclaimers/