Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!hkr4627
From: hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Suitable subjects for net.physics
Message-ID: <2980003@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 19:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.2980003
Posted: Sat Jul 27 19:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 01:02:17 EDT
References: <991@teddy.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 17


     I agree with what you say in principle, but I do not wish to be so
straight-laced (strait-jacketed) about it.  Reputable High School and 
college physics texts have a reputation for containing only that material
which has been considered 'proven' and 'workable' and which will serve to
illustrate the absolute fundamentals of the subject.  The fresh, new, and
often exciting ideas will not be found in such texts; yet, these are the
very areas of inquiry which lured many of us (at least one, me) to this
field.  Let the Old-Guard physicists define the fields in terms of the
contents of Sears, or Halliday and Resnick, or other 'reputable' texts.  Let
the New-Guard learn these hallowed truths but never learn to not tread 'Where
No Man (physicist/philosopher) Has Gone Before'.

                              TRVTH
                   does not have to be mundane

       R