Re: Basics series proposed
From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Polarisation of a gravitational wave"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Oct 2004 18:36:15 -0700
pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote in message news:<74768d2d.0410140548.63ef5890@posting.google.com>...
> Since these are the three most active s.p. newsgroups, and also the
> forum for the highest concentration of misguided souls, I propose that
> we start a series of threads on fundamentals. It should be aimed at
> the "tripping points", the places where it's easy to get confused or
> misdirected, or where modern ideas confront popular but incorrect
> preconceptions. As far as possible, the lead articles should be
> accessible to laypeople and non-mathematical. Mathematical development
> of the ideas can be expanded further in each thread. The aim of the
> lead article is to carefully define terms, elucidate core concepts,
> and specifically drill at misconceptions or things that apparently
> defy "common sense". The lead articles would be done Wikipedia-style,
> with volunteers titling a new thread from one of the topics listed
> below with a "(Basics)" prefix in the the title.
>
> The purpose of this series is to establish reference articles both to
> educate the interested and to explain where misguided proposals go
> wrong. In essence, it is a "positive force" in the n.g., some signal
> above the noise, a proactive rather than a reactive approach.
>
> In the "table of contents" below, I've marked ones with * that have
> posted recently. If good articles on some of the other topics have
> already been posted, then please amend the list appropriately. The
> list is not intended to more strategic than comprehensive, but if
> there is a topic that needs attention, feel free to propose it. Each
> article would be posted to all three newsgroups. The topics listed are
> those that would be of value to all three groups.
>
> - How to tell if a theory is a good one *
> - How to tell if an experiment is a good one
> - The role of math with physics (*?)
> - What things are said to be "conserved"?
> - The connection between conservation laws and symmetry
> - The four "fundamental" interactions and why they appear distinct
> from each other (at accessible energies)
> - Why length is not an inherent property *
> - Why time elapsed is not an inherent property between events
> - Why simultaneity is not an inherent relation between events
> - What is really changing in a Lorentz transformation?
> - How curvature can be detected by creatures living in that space
> - What is wave-particle duality, and is light a wave or a particle?
> - What is symmetry breaking?
> - What does the cosmological constant mean and where might it come
> from?
> - What is the anthropic principle?
> - How does a massless particle behave differently than a massive
> particle?
> - What is a virtual particle? *
> - What is a field?
> - What does it mean to quantize a theory?
>
> PD
xxein: What is the difference between a concept of subjective
observation described by a math and an objective reality described by
a physic?
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Polarisation of a gravitational wave"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
