2nd RFD: sci.physics.foundations moderated
Charles Francis
moderated group sci.physics.foundations
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.foundations.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.foundations
sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: sci.physics.foundations
A number of independent researchers are seeking a new moderated physics
newsgroup to allow free discussion of fundamental issues in physics,
including discussion of the basic premises which define scientific
theory and philosophical discussion of physics. Moderation is required
only to keep out the flames and the noise of patently non-physical
theories. Posts will not be rejected as "speculative" on the basis of a
subjective understanding of current paradigm, but on the objective
criterion of inconsistency with empirical evidence. Such a group will
enable, but will not be limited to, discussion of scientific theories
which are not necessarily a part of established paradigm, it will act as
a sounding board for scientific ideas, and it will assist in trapping
errors prior to submission for publication. It will not host
unscientific theory.
When non-physicists become interested in physics it is often the most
fundamental questions which concern them. Intelligent laymen often
strike right to the heart of the philosophical questions concerning the
definition of elementary physical quantities like the second and the
metre. They ask questions like "Why is the speed of light constant?",
"How can the universe be finite and yet have no boundary?", "What
happened before the big bang?", "How can I understand Schrodinger's
cat?" The most important advances of the 20th century, quantum theory
and general relativity, are concerned with deep philosophical issues to
do with the measurement of elementary quantities. Physics text books and
college course are often more concerned with results than fundamentals
and usually do not dwell on such issues. It is also easy for a physicist
to lose sight of the elementary starting points for difficult
mathematical theory. A great deal of insight can be gained on both sides
of discussions between physicists and non-physicists. Such discussions
would be encouraged by the group.
The proponents hope that directing posts about philosophical and
foundational issues to sci.physics.foundations will relieve the burden
on the moderators of sci.physics.research, who have to make a decision
on whether such posts are "overly speculative" according to the charter
of that group. Such a decision necessarily involves a subjective view
which can be frustrating for a researcher wishing to discuss ideas.
Although sci.physics.research was originally set up intending a light
moderation policy which would have allowed much of the discussion
proposed for sci.physics.-foundations, perhaps with good reason it has
been felt necessary by the moderator to restrict the bulk of discussion
to physics as taught in college. It is often not possible either to air
theoretical research or hold discussion on the fundamental assumptions
underlying accepted physical theory, nor is philosophy of science
generally considered on topic for that group. The proponents believe
there is a strong case for two groups; the existing forum for research
under current paradigms, and a new group permitting free discussion
while remaining within empirical and logical bounds required of
scientific theory.
There are a considerable number of groups in the sci.physics hierarchy.
Formerly the unmoderated groups, as well as alt.sci.physics contained a
high volume of lively physics discussion and debate. These groups have
almost entirely been taken over by trolls, flames, "Einstein was wrong"
posts often submitted by robots, and "god did it" posts. As a result it
is very difficult to hold any form of discussion of physics in an
unmoderated group.
Of the moderated groups, sci.physics.discrete was set up specifically to
discuss a particular class of discrete theories. Sci.physics.strings was
set up to discuss a particular class of unification theories. A number
of other specific active fields of research, like sci.physics.plasma are
also covered. This leaves only sci.physics.research as a forum for
general discussion on physics. It is possible to discuss cosmology and
astrophysics on sci.astro.research but this is not the main purpose of
that group and does not include the generality of discussion which is
intended for sci.physics.foundations.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
The proponents hope to restore to the sci.physics hierarchy some of the
original level of traffic of the unmoderated groups. Much of this has
moved to blogs, of which there are many, but the proponents believe that
the newsgroup format has inherent advantages for serious discussion. One
of the moderators of sci.physics.research rejects about 10% of posts, of
which he estimates that 1/3 may be suitable for the new group. To the
base figure of 3% one can apply a multiplier, to allow for responses not
written and new threads not started because a poster thinks they will
not be accepted, and to allow for follow-ups to unwritten and rejected
posts. A multiplier of 10 seems conservative. This suggests that an
initial target of 1/3 traffic on sci.physics.research can easily be
achieved.
CHARTER:
Light moderation is intended, aimed not at restricting subject matter
but at reducing noise. Under this guidance, the following sorts of
material are deemed appropriate for sci.physics.foundations:
Posts on any issue of the foundations of physics or philosophy of
physics, in particular posts on unresolved or controversial issues.
We are human beings before we are scientists; posts of a purely humorous
or social nature, e.g. "thanks for the explanation" will be allowed.
The following sorts of material are deemed inappropriate for
sci.physics.foundations:
Personal attacks (e.g. flames) and overly-scathing corrections;
Discussion that isn't about or related to physics; Multiple responses
which all say the same things; Advertisements unless deemed in the
interest of the group; Posts about theories which are, in the opinions
of the moderators, clearly inconsistent with empirical evidence; Posts
about theories of nature with neither mathematical nor predictive
content; Crossposts.
Posters will be expected to maintain high standards of manners. We
should recognize that we all make mistakes, and that making and then
correcting mistakes is fundamental to scientific methodology. Crackpot
physics starts not with making mistakes, but with a failure to recognize
mistakes. Part of the function of the group should be to assist
independent researchers in trapping and correcting mistakes in serious
scientific research. Corrections should be phrased with due diplomacy.
MODERATION POLICY: sci.physics.foundations
Moderation will be aimed primarily at maintaining the level of debate.
It is not intended for the moderators to trap errors in posts about
research, since that is part of the rationale for the group.
If a moderator has doubts about whether a post meets the policy
described above, the post should either be allowed or referred to the
other moderators for a consensus view. If a poster disagrees with the
rejection of his post he may appeal to the team of moderators. If any
moderator thinks the post should be allowed, it will be allowed.
Posts enquiring about college physics will not be prohibited, but
posters will be encouraged to send such posts to sci.physics.research
when appropriate for that group. Posts on particular theories covered by
other groups would generally be considered more appropriate in those
groups.
MODERATOR INFO: sci.physics.foundations
Moderator: Charles Francis <cha...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
Moderator: Jay R. Yablon <jya...@nycap.rr.com>
Moderator: Fred Diether <fdie...@mailaps.org>
Moderator: Peter Enders <end...@dekasges.de>
The moderators have extensive experience as posters on Usenet, and have
an active interest in physics research supported by submissions to
arXiv, which generally requires the endorsement of an established
physicist.
Further information on the moderators and on this proposal may be found
at:
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/spf
Article Submissions:
Administrative Contact:
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups in
which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best
method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID
(e.g., Barney Fife, <4JGdnb60fsMzHA7Z...@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
sci.physics.research
sci.physics.strings
sci.astro.research
PROPONENT:
Charles Francis <cha...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
Co-Proponent: Jay R. Yablon <jya...@nycap.rr.com>
Co-Proponent: Fred Diether <fdie...@mailaps.org>
Co-Proponent: Peter Enders <end...@dekasges.de>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2007-01-15 1st RFD
2007-01-24 2nd RFD
us...@domain.invalid
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
The process is a bit unclear. Is this a just a discussion or is it also
a voting for/against the creation of the group? If it is voting, will
the votes for the group cast with the first version of the RFD, have to
be cast again now? If it isn't voting, will there be an additional
voting round?
Anyway, even though I stated that with the first RFD version, let's
create this group.
That's 1 vote, for.
Cheers,
- Alf
PS: Please let this be the final RFD. Discussions tend to peter out
when everything's already been said. You might end up with no-one
participating in the discussion about whether to create the group,
because it's already been discussed except perhaps hard-to-find subtle
changes to the RFD (I saw one change, about "one" spr moderator's
rejection frequency rather than the original's "moderators", hardly
worth new discussion IMHO, because it's already been discussed).
FrediFizzx
news:12rffu0...@corp.supernews.com...
>* Charles Francis:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> The process is a bit unclear. Is this a just a discussion or is it
> also a voting for/against the creation of the group? If it is voting,
> will the votes for the group cast with the first version of the RFD,
> have to be cast again now? If it isn't voting, will there be an
> additional voting round?
>
> Anyway, even though I stated that with the first RFD version, let's
> create this group.
>
> That's 1 vote, for.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Alf
Hi Alf,
Thanks for your continued support. I suspect that we still need a few
more *new* supporters. Hopefully, they will check in with the release
of this 2nd RFD. If you know anyone else that will read and support
this group, please get them to voice their support by posting in this
newsgroup that they will either read and post in the new group or even
just read the group.
Best Regards,
Fred Diether, co-proponent
Oh No
>* Charles Francis:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
>The process is a bit unclear. Is this a just a discussion or is it
>also a voting for/against the creation of the group? If it is voting,
>will the votes for the group cast with the first version of the RFD,
>have to be cast again now? If it isn't voting, will there be an
>additional voting round?
>
>Anyway, even though I stated that with the first RFD version, let's
>create this group.
>
>That's 1 vote, for.
>
Thanks. As I understand the process each poster sending a message of
support counts as a vote for. There is no longer a vote taken as such,
and no need to vote again. I dare say the enthusiasm of supporters to
get the group started may be taken into consideration too, though.
>PS: Please let this be the final RFD. Discussions tend to peter out
>when everything's already been said. You might end up with no-one
>participating in the discussion about whether to create the group,
>because it's already been discussed except perhaps hard-to-find subtle
>changes to the RFD (I saw one change, about "one" spr moderator's
>rejection frequency rather than the original's "moderators", hardly
>worth new discussion IMHO, because it's already been discussed).
I am hoping so. I felt the discussion was useful and clarified certain
things and also added to the RFD. Also significantly it prompted us to
get another moderator now rather than leave it till later. The
discussion continued beyond the point when I thought it was going to add
more to the RFD, but we needed a bit of time to finalise the wording. If
we've done a good job, I am hoping that we will be in a position to post
the Final Call for Comments, sooner rather than later.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Dave Sill
> * Charles Francis:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> The process is a bit unclear. Is this a just a discussion or is it also
> a voting for/against the creation of the group?
It's a discussion, during which expressions of interest may be noted
and/or recorded and used as support for the proposal.
> If it is voting, will
> the votes for the group cast with the first version of the RFD, have to
> be cast again now?
If you've already weighed-in on the proposal, you don't need to
re-weigh-in on each revision of the RFD unless you have something to say
about the changes made in the current RFD.
> If it isn't voting, will there be an additional
> voting round?
No, when the discussion has run its course, the Board will vote whether
or not to create the group.
> PS: Please let this be the final RFD. Discussions tend to peter out
> when everything's already been said.
That's fine, normal, and expected. If the discussion *doesn't* peter
out, then the proposal probably isn't finished.
--
Dave Sill, not speaking for the board
Steve Bonine
> * Charles Francis:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> The process is a bit unclear. Is this a just a discussion or is it also
> a voting for/against the creation of the group? If it is voting, will
> the votes for the group cast with the first version of the RFD, have to
> be cast again now? If it isn't voting, will there be an additional
> voting round?
You can find a full explanation of the group-creation process at
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
We are currently in step 3 of the process as described there,
"Discussion of the RFD takes place primarily in news.groups.proposals."
This discussion provides proponents feedback that can be incorporated
into subsequent versions of the RFD.
There is not a "vote" in the sense that you're probably thinking. The
decision whether to create the group is made by the Board, based on the
discussion here.
> Anyway, even though I stated that with the first RFD version, let's
> create this group.
>
> That's 1 vote, for.
It is important that you show support for the proposed group by posting
here in news.groups.proposals. It is not necessary to indicate support
each time that a new draft of the RFD is posted. I hope that one of the
proponents is keeping track of supporters and will post a summary at
some point (hint, hint).
> PS: Please let this be the final RFD.
This isn't the final RFD. The final RFD is tagged with "LCC" -- last
call for comments. If it's obvious that the discussion is "done", the
proponents can submit this final draft, which requests that the Board
vote on whether to create the grou
jya...@nycap.rr.com
I hope that one of the
> proponents is keeping track of supporters and will post a summary at
> some point (hint, hint).
I guess I will pick up that hint as one of the moderators / proponents.
Do I just go through all the posts and compile and post a list of
names?
Jay R. Yablon
Steve Bonine
The idea is to summarize statements of support during the discussion.
It's certainly optional, and much easier done as a continuing activity
rather than going back through the thread.
One rather important suggestion is to include the message id where the
individual stated their opinion so that the list can easily be
independently verified, and to be sensitive to peoples' request to have
their listing changed or to be removed entirely from the list.
You can find a recent example at
<t69lq25m8ogkkh3t8...@4ax.com>
Given the volume of discussion here, maybe Board members already feel
that a sufficient level of support has been demonstrated.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> Do I just go through all the posts and compile and post a list of
>names?
My view is that it's best to give a message ID along with the name,
e.g.:
Favors creation of the group and will use it:
=============================================
jya...@nycap.rr.com in <1169699590....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
That way, if anyone wants to contest how a remark was categorized,
it is easy for them to use the Message ID to find the original post.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Oh No
>Given the volume of discussion here, maybe Board members already feel
>that a sufficient level of support has been demonstrated.
That's not counting the volume that got blocked in moderation! I don't
know about anyone else, but I found it all too easy to stray off topic
and talk about physics. (Sorry).
SupremeFunkyBroadcast
On Jan 24, 11:04 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole...@canisius.edu>
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:36:16 CST, jyab...@nycap.rr.com wrote in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Do I just go through all the posts and compile and post a list of
> >names?My view is that it's best to give a message ID along with the name,
> e.g.:
>
> Favors creation of the group and will use it:
> =============================================
> jyab...@nycap.rr.com in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> That way, if anyone wants to contest how a remark was categorized,
> it is easy for them to use the Message ID to find the original post.
>
> Marty
> --
> Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) --http://www.big-8.org
Oh No
As a sort of postscript to the traffic analysis, I want to report that
Peter Woit, Mathematics Professor of Columbia University NY and author
of "Not Even Wrong" gave us a mention on his blog today.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
"There's a proposed new newsgroup “sci.physics.foundations”, which some
readers here might find interesting, and which would be a better place
for a lot of the discussions which people try to start here, which I
then try and stop because I don’t want to moderate them. More about this
here..."
I suspect that Peter Woit is not the only one running a physics blog who
doesn't want to moderate all the discussions. We may be able to get
others to give similar pointers to the group and start attracting back a
lot of traffic to usenet if we get the moderation policy right.
Speaking of which, I think the discussion of the RFD has constructively
petered out now. I'll be posting the Last Call for Comments shortly, and
Jay will also be posting the supporters list.
jya...@nycap.rr.com
support. This is in addition to the four moderators: Charles Francis,
Fred Diether, Peter Enders, and me. I am not aware of anyone who has
opposed formation of this group. Jay R. Yablon.
Norm Dresner -
8esqh.387773$Fi1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
Martin X. Moleski - 12ql2ur...@news.supernews.com
Ruadhan O'Flanagan - eoe84b$o2b$1...@lanczos.maths.tcd.ie
Doug Freyburger -
1168882475.8...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Oz - 6aJh+xDG...@farmeroz.port995.com
Thomas Cuny - 1169596408.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Alf P. Steinbach - 510u97F...@mid.individual.net
Wolfgang Koehler -
1168867546.0...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Andy Inopin - 1168870303.0...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
R.L. Oldershaw - 1168880685....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
Ken S. Tucker - 1168893164.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Marcel Beaudoin - Xns98BAF0166EB72...@130.133.1.4
Eugene Stefanovich -
1168899441.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Robin W. - 1169193425....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Chris Oakley - 1169240099.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Carl Brannen - 1169279088.9...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
D.R. Lunsford - 1167507904....@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Harald Van Lintel - 1168851...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch
Cl.Massé - 1169136114.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Timothy Golden - 1169136114.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Paul (SupremeFunkyBroadcast) -
1169787030....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Peter - zMadna7r4vATRSTY...@comcast.com
jya...@nycap.rr.com
is below:
Cl.Massé - 45afa90a$0$4271$426a...@news.free.fr
aadu...@gmail.com
discussion of important foundational topics such as the interpretation
of QM and QFT and Lee Smolin's ideas about background-independence,
etc.
I am no expert on foundations (my PhD in exp/th nuclear physics was
strictly "shut up and calculate") but now older (but probably not all
that much wiser) I find these issues to be epistemologically
troublesome.
Yes, let's have this NG. I'll probably lurk more than post but look
forward to the discussion.
(Dr) A Pilt
sometime Professor at a Canadian University (ret)
On Jan 25, 2:04 am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole...@canisius.edu>
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:36:16 CST, jyab...@nycap.rr.com wrote in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Do I just go through all the posts and compile and post a list of
> >names?My view is that it's best to give a message ID along with the name,
> e.g.:
>
> Favors creation of the group and will use it:
> =============================================
> jyab...@nycap.rr.com in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> That way, if anyone wants to contest how a remark was categorized,
> it is easy for them to use the Message ID to find the original post.
>
> Marty
> --
> Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) --http://www.big-8.org
enders
On 27 Jan., 04:08, aadu.p...@gmail.com wrote:
> I support this Foundations newsgroup. I hope that it will also include
> discussion of important foundational topics such as the interpretation
> of QM and QFT and Lee Smolin's ideas about background-independence,
> etc.
>
> I am no expert on foundations (my PhD in exp/th nuclear physics was
> strictly "shut up and calculate") but now older (but probably not all
> that much wiser) I find these issues to be epistemologically
> troublesome.
>
> Yes, let's have this NG. I'll probably lurk more than post but look
> forward to the discussion.
>
> (Dr) A Pilt
> sometime Professor at a Canadian University (ret)
>
Dear Professor Pilt,
Thank you very much for your support! You can be sure that we will
discuss such issues, because among the proposed moderators are people
(including myself) being keen to have them in the group.
Looking forward,
Peter Enders
Dr. Peter Enders
Berlin, Germany
Oh No
>I support this Foundations newsgroup. I hope that it will also include
>discussion of important foundational topics such as the interpretation
>of QM and QFT and Lee Smolin's ideas about background-independence,
>etc.
Indeed. I regard this as one of the core areas in which I hope to see a
great deal of discussion on the group.
>
>I am no expert on foundations (my PhD in exp/th nuclear physics was
>strictly "shut up and calculate") but now older (but probably not all
>that much wiser) I find these issues to be epistemologically
>troublesome.
Absolutely right. I gagged on "shut up and calculate" as an undergrad,
one of a variety of reasons I ended up as an independent researcher.
Others were economic.
>Yes, let's have this NG. I'll probably lurk more than post but look
>forward to the discussion.
I hope you do join in, if only to seek clarification of what is said.
Even doing that can help people actively working on these ideas.
>
>(Dr) A Pilt
>sometime Professor at a Canadian University (ret)
Regards
Pmb
"enders" <end...@dekasges.de> wrote in message
news:1169900616.4...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The more I think about this idea that better I like it. I propose the
following rules.
(1) Posters shall not insult another poster either directly or indirectly.
(2) Posters shall not be allowed to post under more than one name and in so
doing make it seem that someone else is supporting their idea. Too easy to
do and done far too often.
(3) No moderator shall let his or hers personal problems with a poster get
in the way of judging the fitness of a post.
(4) [Please add on]
Please
Oh No
>
>
>The more I think about this idea that better I like it. I propose the
>following rules.
>
>(1) Posters shall not insult another poster either directly or indirectly.
Yes. I think that is the import of the charter.
>(2) Posters shall not be allowed to post under more than one name and in so
>doing make it seem that someone else is supporting their idea. Too easy to
>do and done far too often.
I also dislike this habit. My feeling is that this is a problem mainly
in the unmoderated groups, where people are free to put completely crazy
ideas and then feel they need some sign of support from somewhere, but I
have known it in moderated groups too. I don't know that it will be very
easy for moderators to detect, but I think it usually happens with
posters who break other rules. I think we will in the course of time
identify who breaks rules and who uses sock puppets to try to make their
point. My belief is that such posters are likely to be inhibited. If
what they are saying is sensible, why use a sock puppet? If it is not,
we would hope to restrict their posts to those with reasonable physics
content.
>(3) No moderator shall let his or hers personal problems with a poster get
>in the way of judging the fitness of a post.
That is a principle which we have discussed a fair bit in n.g.p, and one
which we are all committed to. The wording of the charter has been very
heavily guided by it.
GSS
On Jan 24, 9:49 pm, Charles Francis
<char...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.foundations.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.foundations
>
> sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
>
> RATIONALE: sci.physics.foundations
>
> A number of independent researchers are seeking a new moderated physics
> newsgroup to allow free discussion of fundamental issues in physics,
> including discussion of the basic premises which define scientific
> theory and philosophical discussion of physics. ....
> .....
> We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
> to make a comment to that effect in this thread; ....
I support the formation of this new group.
I do intend to participate in the discussions of the new group.
GSS
Oz
enders:
>>(2) Posters shall not be allowed to post under more than one name and in so
>>doing make it seem that someone else is supporting their idea. Too easy to
>>do and done far too often.
>
>I also dislike this habit. My feeling is that this is a problem mainly
>in the unmoderated groups, where people are free to put completely crazy
>ideas and then feel they need some sign of support from somewhere, but I
>have known it in moderated groups too. I don't know that it will be very
>easy for moderators to detect, but I think it usually happens with
>posters who break other rules. I think we will in the course of time
>identify who breaks rules and who uses sock puppets to try to make their
>point. My belief is that such posters are likely to be inhibited. If
>what they are saying is sensible, why use a sock puppet? If it is not,
>we would hope to restrict their posts to those with reasonable physics
>content.
This will (eventually) get trapped under repetition.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
nige...@quantumfieldtheory.org
On Jan 25, 7:04 am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole...@canisius.edu>
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:36:16 CST, jyab...@nycap.rr.com wrote in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Do I just go through all the posts and compile and post a list of
> >names?My view is that it's best to give a message ID along with the name,
> e.g.:
>
> Favors creation of the group and will use it:
> =============================================
> jyab...@nycap.rr.com in <1169699590.693346.53...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> That way, if anyone wants to contest how a remark was categorized,
> it is easy for them to use the Message ID to find the original post.
>
> Marty
> --
> Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) --http://www.big-8.org
Ken S. Tucker
On Jan 27, 8:09 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
> (2) Posters shall not be allowed to post under more than one name and in so
> doing make it seem that someone else is supporting their idea. Too easy to
> do and done far too often.
Agreed! (I post using Ken S. Tucker for clarity,
and responsibility, everyone can find my name
and address, though my email is fake because
it was spammed out of existance. My real email
is dynamics(at)uniserve.com), I'll go further, some
use handles like furry-burry or twinky-winky and
expect respect, well I personally detest replying
to a dorky handle.
Any self-respecting real physicist will use a clearly
identifying handle, as a matter of fact, I rarely reply
to the fakes and flakes, cuz I want a serious
theoretician on the other end.
I've heard the excuse, "I want to be a famous
physicist" anonomyously, and then reconceive
a bonehead theory posting as Mr. God 1,2,3...
Let me summarize, If the moderators to s.p.
foundations decide a respectable handle is
the way to go, I'm for it, like wearing a tie
into a formal group, it's classy, and in no
way I can tell inhibits serious involvement,
and it is not censorship.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Gilbert
>Let me summarize, If the moderators to s.p.
>foundations decide a respectable handle is
>the way to go, I'm for it, like wearing a tie
>into a formal group, it's classy, and in no
>way I can tell inhibits serious involvement,
>and it is not censorship.
Its also pointless.
With a minute amount of effort I could completely look like "Gilbert S.
Jameson" which achieves precisely nothing.
--
Gilbert S. Jameson
Pmb
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1170058483.3...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
I agree with Ken. And names like "Archemedies Plutoniam" or "Androcles"
shall not be allowed nor will arrogant names like "Theorist" be used.
Intials are fine in my opinion as is the real name. Posting the real name
does not reveal their identitiy since there are too many people in the world
to make such confusions. I'd use my full name, Peter M. Brown if there was
reason to expect that it won't find insulting use by others to insult me.
Pete
There will
Pmb
"Gilbert" <Gil...@gilbertsj.port995.com> wrote in message
news:16$iWYILx...@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes
>>Let me summarize, If the moderators to s.p.
>>foundations decide a respectable handle is
>>the way to go, I'm for it, like wearing a tie
>>into a formal group, it's classy, and in no
>>way I can tell inhibits serious involvement,
>>and it is not censorship.
>
> Its also pointless.
>
> With a minute amount of effort I could completely look like "Gilbert S.
> Jameson" which achieves precisely nothing.
The point is not to have respectable names. The point is to not look
pathetic by using silly names. It is hopeful that in the future that more
working scientists might to join in but having posters whose names are
Captain Proton might seem to them that the place is over run with imature
people.
Pete
Jayne Kulikauskas
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.foundations.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.foundations
>
> sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
What is the reasoning behind calling it this rather than
sci.physics.foundations.moderated? I like the clarity that comes from
having moderated groups include "moderated" in their names, since it isn't
always obvious, depending on the newsreader.
--
Jayne
FrediFizzx
news:geOdnabAIvnIECPY...@comcast.com...
Hi Pete,
We will not be rejecting any posts with respect to anyone's iNet/Usenet
handle or name unless it goes against the charter and policy in some
fashion. And we are pretty much finished with the charter and policy.
If someone wants to use the handle "Captain Proton" and has good
well-mannered discussions about physics, we are not going to reject
them. Sorry.
We would certainly hope that most submitters would want to use their
real names but it is not at all enforceable on Usenet as "Gilbert"
points out. I could have posted this using Ken's name instead of mine.
And maybe I really am Ken using Fred's name. ;-) You would have to
check the full headers to make sure.
Thanks for your support and comments.
Fred Diether, co-proponent
Pmb
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:527p1cF...@mid.individual.net...
Nothing to be sorry about. That was my own personal opinion and subject to
voting. I was unaware that the charter was finished though. I'd like to read
it. Who has a copy?
> We would certainly hope that most submitters would want to use their real
> names but it is not at all enforceable on Usenet as "Gilbert" points out.
> I could have posted this using Ken's name instead of mine. And maybe I
> really am Ken using Fred's name. ;-) You would have to check the full
> headers to make sure.
>
> Thanks for your support and comments.
>
> Fred Diether, co-proponent
I'm definitely insupport of this newsgroup and my comments are offered in
hopes of having a smoothly running newsgroup, one in which physics teachers
would be glad to join!
Pete
Pmb
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15dongkcq5tfv.k...@40tude.net...
The term "foundations" usually refers to the pure basics of a field. E.g.
the foundations of algebra might include Peano's Postulates in which the
numbers and their ordering are known but whose usage are basic
Pete
FrediFizzx
Hi Jayne,
One reason is that we are following the tradition of some of the other
moderated sci.* groups. They don't have moderated included in their
name such as sci.physics.research or sci.astro.research or
sci.physics.strings. Plus maybe we don't want to "scare" people away
with having moderated in the title. I suppose it can be tough sometimes
to get a lurker or newbie to post to a moderated group. I don't see
that it is a problem if a person makes a post to our group not knowing
if it is moderated. If they post something that is OK, and we intend to
try to have minimal moderation delay, they will see their post within
hours or the most a day. If they don't post something that is OK, then
they will find out the group is moderated by the rejection notice that
they receive. Provided, of course, we can figure out what their email
address is. If we can't send them a rejection notice perhaps they will
check the Physics Usenet FAQ after wondering where their post is and
discover on their own that the group is moderated.
Best,
Fred Diether, co-proponent
Jeremy Nixon
> What is the reasoning behind calling it this rather than
> sci.physics.foundations.moderated?
There's just no point at all in adding the unnecessary last component when
there's no other group it has to differentiate with.
> I like the clarity that comes from having moderated groups include
> "moderated" in their names, since it isn't always obvious, depending on
> the newsreader.
Well, as a lot of people say, it's not necessarily our job to cater to
newsreaders that are fundamentally broken. The name of the newsgroup is
not something that needs to be overloaded with other metadata.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Oh No
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:49:00 -0600, Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.foundations.
>>
>> NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.foundations
>>
>> sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
>
>What is the reasoning behind calling it this rather than
>sci.physics.foundations.moderated?
I don't know. You tell me. :-)
> I like the clarity that comes from
>having moderated groups include "moderated" in their names, since it isn't
>always obvious, depending on the newsreader.
>
As Fred says, the other moderated sci.physics groups don't have moderated
in the title, so we are just following the pattern. That's not reasoning,
more like lack of it. In all the discussions we had about name, none of
the board, nor the mentors, suggested that it should be called .moderated.
I don't really think it is down to us to make a policy.
I see your point, but I think that a policy to call moderated groups
.moderated should really be made at board level, not by individual groups
of proponents, if there is to be such a policy at all. If it comes to it,
news.groups.proposals isn't news.groups.proposals.moderated. What is the
reasoning for that?
If the board wanted to make such a policy, it wouldn't cause me any grief
to follow it. Otherwise, I feel there is not much reason to put .moderated
unless there already exists an unmoderated group of the same name. Adding
.moderated seems to make the name unnecessarily long and cumbersome. In
the absence of a definite big-8 policy, I would be inclined to leave
things as they are and follow the pattern.
As it happens, I don't think there is much problem in the sci.physics
hierarchy. A regular post is sent to all groups in the hierarchy "Welcome!
to the Physics Newsgroups" which explains immediately to any new user
subscribing to any physics newsgroup (including some alt. ones I think)
exactly what the purpose of each different group is, and stating which
ones are moderated. On the whole, therefore, I think .moderated would be
something of an unnecessary appendages.
Oh No
>I agree with Ken. And names like "Archemedies Plutoniam" or "Androcles"
>shall not be allowed
Perhaps they won't be allowed, but I suspect the reason for that is that
neither of the people posting under those names appears capable of
writing anything that fits the charter!
FrediFizzx
>
> Nothing to be sorry about. That was my own personal opinion and
> subject to voting. I was unaware that the charter was finished though.
> I'd like to read it. Who has a copy?
You can look at the first message in this thread via googlegroups or
here,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/spf/
I think we (the proponents) are pretty set on it and will not be
changing much of it at all. Once the group is going, provided the Big-8
board approves its creation, we might do some "fine tuning" of policy
via group and web page postings based on feedback from how the group is
doing.
Fred Diether, co-proponent
Kathy Morgan
> We will not be rejecting any posts with respect to anyone's iNet/Usenet
> handle or name unless it goes against the charter and policy in some
> fashion.
I'm glad to hear that. There is just no way to know by looking at a
name on a Usenet posting to know whether it is the person's real name.
There is also no accounting for some of the cruel and stupid names that
parents give their children. A couple of real names for people I have
known include Timber Wolf and Ima Hoar.
--
Kathy - If you're reading this in your web browser from Google or
similar forum, NNTP "newsreaders" are a better way to access the
content. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html>
Links to NNTP newsreaders at <http://www.newsreaders.com/>
FrediFizzx
news:12rtqsr...@corp.supernews.com...
> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the reasoning behind calling it this rather than
>> sci.physics.foundations.moderated?
>
> There's just no point at all in adding the unnecessary last component
> when
> there's no other group it has to differentiate with.
I totally agree with that. If we were going to do a moderated
sci.physics group, then for sure sci.physics.moderated would be the best
name for it. But our group has a narrower focus than the sci.physics
group. And if our group is successful, we might just do a
sci.physics.moderated group in the future providing we can find
appropriate moderators for it.
And... As Charles points out, this group is not
news.groups.proposals.moderated. ;-)
Fred Diether, co-proponent
Oh No
>Nothing to be sorry about. That was my own personal opinion and subject
>to
>voting. I was unaware that the charter was finished though. I'd like to
>read
>it. Who has a copy?
It's not formally finished, but we are on the point of posting the last
call for comments. What Fred means is that we think we have finished
working on it. That is not to say, we won't consider last minute
suggestions, but you will have to make them very quickly as I mean to
submit a final version within hours now. Nor is it to say, that it can't
be modified again once the group is up and running and we see how it
works in practice. Unless there is anything really important, it would
probably be better to make changes once the group is running, because
making changes just now would only delay the start of the group.
A copy of the charter is contained in the first post in this thread. It
was modified after the discussions following the first RFD. In practice,
I think we will be able to deal with the issues you have raised under
the charter as it stands.
Marcel Beaudoin
On Jan 29, 8:19 pm, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> "Gilbert" <Gilb...@gilbertsj.port995.com> wrote in messagenews:16$iWYILx...@farmeroz.port995.com...
>
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> writes
> >>Let me summarize, If the moderators to s.p.
> >>foundations decide a respectable handle is
> >>the way to go, I'm for it, like wearing a tie
> >>into a formal group, it's classy, and in no
> >>way I can tell inhibits serious involvement,
> >>and it is not censorship.
>
> > Its also pointless.
>
> > With a minute amount of effort I could completely look like "Gilbert S.
> > Jameson" which achieves precisely nothing.The point is not to have respectable names. The point is to not look
> pathetic by using silly names. It is hopeful that in the future that more
> working scientists might to join in but having posters whose names are
> Captain Proton might seem to them that the place is over run with imature
> people.
And here I thought the point of spf was to have a place where people
could talk about physics...
Marcel
SupremeFunkyBroadcast
scientific collaboration" as a subtitle (or something) that shows up
for every post one makes.
fredi...@hotmail.com
> FrediFizzx<fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > We will not be rejecting any posts with respect to anyone's iNet/Usenet
> > handle or name unless it goes against the charter and policy in some
> > fashion.
>
> I'm glad to hear that. There is just no way to know by looking at a
> name on a Usenet posting to know whether it is the person's real name.
> There is also no accounting for some of the cruel and stupid names that
> parents give their children. A couple of real names for people I have
> known include Timber Wolf and Ima Hoar.
Hi Kathy,
;-)
Your reply post is not showing up via my news.individual.net account
for some reason so replying thru googlegroups. This happened with a
couple other board members' posts on this thread. I think Marty and
Steve Bonine.
Probably the only rejection for handle or name would be if they
included profanity or were demeaning someone else in some way. Like
if someone used the name, "Stupid Einstein". We are definitely not
going to put up with nonsense like that. ;-) I don't expect that we
will run across that problem too much though.
Best,
Fred Diether, co-proponent
hansd...@chip-architect.com
<char...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
This would be indeed the kind of group which is currently missing.
A place to discuss interpretations and underlaying mechanisms
of the phenomenology we observe, and doing so with a key
desire to match those with the successful effective theories
as the SM and GR.
Away from the hopeless noise on the unmoderated groups
but not in a too restrictive environment where posts, in order to
make through moderation must be either questions, or
alternatively must be immediately recognizable as a standard
textbook phrases.
The "Physics Teaching" aspect should rather come from
attempts from posters to reconcile theirs and other's ideas/
proposals with known phenomenology.
Probably one would, as a courtesy to bypassing students and
others, require that each poster or thread-starter clearly identifies
what is speculative and what not. The moderators could also add
short notes to posts in order to establish and uphold such a
behavior. It would surely add to the value of the group.
Regards, Hans.
Jim Riley
There are already 4 moderated groups in the sci.physics.* hierarchy
without moderated in their name. Changing the naming rules now would
make it less obvious whether the other newsgroups were moderated or
not.
Outlook Express displays the moderation status of a newsgroup. The
Google interface displays the short description which includes the
"(Moderated)" flag. Persons using other newsreaders are more likely
to read before posting, and will quickly discover that the group is
moderated.
--
Jim Riley
Kathy Morgan
> Probably the only rejection for handle or name would be if they
> included profanity or were demeaning someone else in some way. Like
> if someone used the name, "Stupid Einstein". We are definitely not
> going to put up with nonsense like that. ;-) I don't expect that we
> will run across that problem too much though.
That sounds completely reasonable to me.
--
Kathy - posted & mailed since you're having problems seeing my posts
enders
> ...
> Probably one would, as a courtesy to bypassing students and
> others, require that each poster or thread-starter clearly identifies
> what is speculative and what not. The moderators could also add
> short notes to posts in order to establish and uphold such a
> behavior. It would surely add to the value of the group.
>
> Regards, Hans.
Hans,
"identification of the speculative parts in a posting" is an
interesting point, indeed. Though it is by far not so clear to me,
what exactly is 'speculative'?
Any statement without proof is at most a hypothesis.
'Speculative' I would call conclusions like 'we can live without the
longitudinal component of the magnetic vector potential within
classical electromagnetism, but not within quantum mechanics, hence,
this component is a quantum potential', because without further
fostering it looks like a guess (ie, less than a hypothesis). However,
most cases are perhaps less obvious.
Anyway, as we intend to present and discuss many new ideas and
approaches, I expect most postings to be rather speculative. According
to the charter, however, the underlying reasons for the thoughts and
ideas should be provided together with them. In other words, 'wild
speculations' will be rejected; also postings stating 'I have unified
that and that', but nothing of that is described in any detail' [I
have obtained such emails]. On the other hand, complete proofs are
usually too long for postings and can be referred to publications or
homepages.
By the way, strictly speaking, the attribute 'science group' includes
implicitly through the notion of science that the posters indicate
what they can proof and what not, if it is not obvious.
Altogether, this is another point, where the charter gives us a good
basis and where the fine tuning will come through the practice.
Looking forward,
Peter, co-proponent
jya...@nycap.rr.com
> This would be indeed the kind of group which is currently missing.
> A place to discuss interpretations and underlaying mechanisms
> of the phenomenology we observe, and doing so with a key
> desire to match those with the successful effective theories
> as the SM and GR.
Hans,
Good to hear from you again, it has been awhile. Thanks for the words
of support, and I hope you will join us once we get fired up.
Have not heard from Alejandro lately, what is he up to?
I contnue my quest, as I suppose you and Alejandro do yours, to make
sense of the pattern of fermion masses, which every day it remains
perhaps the most important unexplained experimental data in physics,
is a constant reminder of how much we humans who think we know so
much, really do not know.
Jay.
sr
> I'll go further, some use handles like furry-burry
> or twinky-winky and expect respect, well I
> personally detest replying to a dorky handle.
> Any self-respecting real physicist will use a
> clearly identifying handle, as a matter of fact,
> I rarely reply to the fakes and flakes, cuz I
> want a serious theoretician on the other end.
I'd never encountered that point of view,
so now I'm curious. Do you consider my
alternate name "strangerep" to be indicative
of a fake or flake? (I use it in a possibly-lame
attempt to minimize chances of identify-theft.)
Returning to the context of this thread...
what would be the objective criteria for determining
whether an alternative name is or isn't respectable?
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > I'll go further, some use handles like furry-burry
> > or twinky-winky and expect respect, well I
> > personally detest replying to a dorky handle.
> > Any self-respecting real physicist will use a
> > clearly identifying handle, as a matter of fact,
> > I rarely reply to the fakes and flakes, cuz I
> > want a serious theoretician on the other end.
>
> I'd never encountered that point of view,
> so now I'm curious. Do you consider my
> alternate name "strangerep" to be indicative
> of a fake or flake?
"Gilbert ;-)" pointed out the error of that suggestion,
and I replied via email to the fellows agreeing that
it was a poor suggestion. It was in response to
a moderation problem of "handle hoppers", anyway
I'm hoping the subject would die out and not be a
distraction.
> (I use it in a possibly-lame
> attempt to minimize chances of identify-theft.)
Understood. If I were to discuss personal issues
I'd consider using an anonymous handle. However
in scientific discussions I often quote and/or attribute
(sometimes I'm quoted too) to a fellow poster, out
of respect and provide a reference source.
Another minor worry of mine is plagarism and
copyright law. You see if some student or physicist
were to use a part of my post in a paper they can
safely do so, in that way I'm a functioning resource.
OTOH, suppose you write something brilliant,
anonymously, how am able to properly quote
and further appreciate your idea without risking
being called a plagarizer.
The proponents/moderators and many physicists
use their real names when they publish and sofar
as I know, identity theft does not occur from that.
> Returning to the context of this thread...
> what would be the objective criteria for determining
> whether an alternative name is or isn't respectable?
Fred (proponent/moderator) posted the policy on that,
to the effect that an offensive handle *might* be blocked.
I "OFFICIALLY" withdraw my ill begotten suggestion!
BTW I'm not an official anything.
Best Regards
Ken
dom...@hotmail.com
<char...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group sci.physics.foundations
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.foundations.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.physics.foundations
>
> sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
>
>
> A number of independent researchers are seeking a new moderated physics
> newsgroup to allow free discussion of fundamental issues in physics,
> including discussion of the basic premises which define scientific
> theory and philosophical discussion of physics.
>
> When non-physicists become interested in physics it is often the most
> fundamental questions which concern them. Intelligent laymen often
> strike right to the heart of the philosophical questions concerning the
> definition of elementary physical quantities like the second and the
> metre. They ask questions like "Why is the speed of light constant?",
> "How can the universe be finite and yet have no boundary?", "What
> happened before the big bang?", "How can I understand Schrodinger's
> cat?" The most important advances of the 20th century, quantum theory
> and general relativity, are concerned with deep philosophical issues to
> do with the measurement of elementary quantities. Physics text books and
> college course are often more concerned with results than fundamentals
> and usually do not dwell on such issues. It is also easy for a physicist
> to lose sight of the elementary starting points for difficult
> mathematical theory. A great deal of insight can be gained on both sides
> of discussions between physicists and non-physicists. Such discussions
> would be encouraged by the group.
>
>
> We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
> to make a comment to that effect in this thread;
As a philosophy and more specific a philosophy of science student with
interest in philosophy of space and time both 'purely' philosophically
and scientifically the subjects to be discussed mentioned here
interest me greatly.
So I will read this group and maybe after due time will be able to
make a humble contribution.
Regards,
KP
antima...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It sounds too exclusive. We want lots of people to participate and I
think the idea among the moderators (I am not one of them) is to err
on the side of letting things through rather than applying epithets
such as "too speculative" to any idea that isn't in a textbook or
course lecture notes, as happens in s.p.r. So the moderation will be
light and intended to weed out nonsense attacks on established ideas.
That's precisely why this group is needed - unmoderated results in a
free-for-all of nonsense, while strict moderation inhibits discussion
of interesting ideas that are perhaps off the beaten path. Physics in
general needs this type of discussion now more than ever. See the
review here of a recently published book:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/20/2/1/1
-drlunsford