Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!hplabs!sri-unix!mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley
From: mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Suitable subjects for net.physics
Message-ID: <452@sri-arpa.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 21:26:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.452
Posted: Mon Jul 29 21:26:32 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:15:51 EDT
Lines: 34

From:  mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer)

>To: physics@sri-unix.ARPA
>From: cmcl2!acf4!hkr4627@Seismo.ARPA (Hedley K. J. Rainnie)
>Subject: Re: Suitable subjects for net.physics
>Article-I.D.: <2980003@acf4.UUCP>
>In-Reply-To: Article(s) <991@teddy.UUCP>
>
>
>     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
>

	Unfortunately most such speculation is rather obvious nonsense.  The
point, of course, is that submissions should have some foundation in physics:
if it's not in Halliday & Resnick, or Tipler, or (more advanced) Wheeler or
some such, then at there should be some reference in the journals, or in
Science, or in Scientific American.

					Rick.