Negative mass article in New Scientist

Nov19-04, 12:07 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nAny one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new\nscientist?\n\nI\'m asking because of recent comments about NS\'s over journalistic approach\nto physics.\nSo how much of this is hype?\nmikej\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new
scientist?

I'm asking because of recent comments about NS's over journalistic approach
to physics.
So how much of this is hype?
mikej

Nov21-04, 02:50 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:cnl4h4\\$iar\\$1\\$8300dec7@news.dem on.co.uk...\n> I\'m asking because of recent comments about NS\'s over journalistic\napproach\n> to physics.\n\nI haven\'t seen the article but in the past I\'ve found NS articles strike\nquite a good balance. Any more technical and they wouldn\'t be suitable for a\ngeneral science magazine. If you want "over journalistic" see Popular\nScience.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnl4h4$iar$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> I'm asking because of recent comments about NS's over journalistic
approach
> to physics.

I haven't seen the article but in the past I've found NS articles strike
quite a good balance. Any more technical and they wouldn't be suitable for a
general science magazine. If you want "over journalistic" see Popular
Science.

Nov24-04, 09:26 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:cnl4h4\\$iar\\$1\\$8300dec7@news.dem on.co.uk...\n>\n> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new\n> scientist?\n>\n> I\'m asking because of recent comments about NS\'s over journalistic\napproach\n> to physics.\n> So how much of this is hype?\n> mikej\n>\n>\n\nI beg to differ with your previous respondent\n\nEvery week New Scientist has a \'that will revolutionise\' article. Or, \'we\nmay have to re-write the Laws...\', \'Octonions are the answer\', \'5th force\' -\nthe list is endless. It is a comic, perhaps OK if you read between the\nlines. Generally aimed at UK sixth form level, age 16-19, to whip up\ninterest. Otherwise, hopelessly sensationalist.\n\nRichard Miller\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnl4h4$iar$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new
> scientist?
>
> I'm asking because of recent comments about NS's over journalistic
approach
> to physics.
> So how much of this is hype?
> mikej
>
>

I beg to differ with your previous respondent

Every week New Scientist has a 'that will revolutionise' article. Or, 'we
may have to re-write the Laws...', 'Octonions are the answer', '5th force' -
the list is endless. It is a comic, perhaps OK if you read between the
lines. Generally aimed at UK sixth form level, age

to whip up
interest. Otherwise, hopelessly sensationalist.

Richard Miller

Nov25-04, 03:42 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:26:13 +0000 (UTC), "richard miller"\n<richard@microscitech.freeserve.co.uk& gt; wrote:\n\n>\n>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message\n>news:cnl4h4\\$iar\\$1\\$8300dec7@news .demon.co.uk...\n>>\n>> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new\n>> scientist?\n>>\n>> I\'m asking because of recent comments about NS\'s over journalistic\n>approach\n>> to physics.\n>> So how much of this is hype?\n>> mikej\n>>\n>>\n>\n>I beg to differ with your previous respondent\n>\n>Every week New Scientist has a \'that will revolutionise\' article. Or, \'we\n>may have to re-write the Laws...\', \'Octonions are the answer\', \'5th force\' -\n>the list is endless. It is a comic, perhaps OK if you read between the\n>lines. Generally aimed at UK sixth form level, age 16-19, to whip up\n>interest. Otherwise, hopelessly sensationalist.\n>\n>Richard Miller\n>\n>\n\nTo me it seems that New Scientist has more of a bias towards the life\nsciences than the physical sciences. I don\'t know if the background of\nthe editorial staff is similar, but if so then maybe they are not able\nto exercise as much judgement when it comes to publishing physical\nscience articles (I can\'t vouch for the accuracy/relevance of the life\nsciences articles though since I am shamefully ignorant in that area).\nOn the other hand, as I\'m sure we all know - sensationalism sells\nnewsprint.\n\nScientific American seems to have more physical science type articles\nalthough that is also pitched at an elementary level (i.e. 6th form -\nas you said above).\n\nOn the physical science side there seems to be little generally\navailable between the elementary level of the popular publications\nlike New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server\npreprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper\nversion of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to\npost-graduate level) physical science publication.\n\nA collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it\nrequires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in\nfact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a\nlittle). Any volunteers ?\n\nGary\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:26:13

(UTC), "richard miller"
<richard@microscitech.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cnl4h4$iar$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new
>> scientist?
>>
>> I'm asking because of recent comments about NS's over journalistic
>approach
>> to physics.
>> So how much of this is hype?
>> mikej
>>
>>
>
>I beg to differ with your previous respondent
>
>Every week New Scientist has a 'that will revolutionise' article. Or, 'we
>may have to re-write the Laws...', 'Octonions are the answer', '5th force' -
>the list is endless. It is a comic, perhaps OK if you read between the
>lines. Generally aimed at UK sixth form level, age

to whip up
>interest. Otherwise, hopelessly sensationalist.
>
>Richard Miller
>
>

To me it seems that New Scientist has more of a bias towards the life
sciences than the physical sciences. I don't know if the background of
the editorial staff is similar, but if so then maybe they are not able
to exercise as much judgement when it comes to publishing physical
science articles (I can't vouch for the accuracy/relevance of the life
sciences articles though since I am shamefully ignorant in that area).
On the other hand, as I'm sure we all know - sensationalism sells
newsprint.

Scientific American seems to have more physical science type articles
although that is also pitched at an elementary level (i.e. 6th form -
as you said above).

On the physical science side there seems to be little generally
available between the elementary level of the popular publications
like New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server
preprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper
version of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to
post-graduate level) physical science publication.

A collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it
requires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in
fact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a
little). Any volunteers ?

Gary

Nov26-04, 01:17 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:cnl4h4\\$iar\\$1\\$8300dec7@news.dem on.co.uk...\n>\n> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new\n> scientist?\n\nI agree that NS is a comic and attempts to make a big story out of\nanything it decides to print. What I\'m asking in this case is if there\nis anything in the claims made by the author. I was under the impression\nthat Wesson\'s work on 4D space time embeded in a 5D manifold was\nsomething of a backwater and far from the mainstream of even KK\ntheories? And negative mass in GR?\n\nmikej\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnl4h4$iar$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new
> scientist?

I agree that NS is a comic and attempts to make a big story out of
anything it decides to print. What I'm asking in this case is if there
is anything in the claims made by the author. I was under the impression
that Wesson's work on 4D space time embeded in a 5D manifold was
something of a backwater and far from the mainstream of even KK
theories? And negative mass in GR?

mikej

Nov26-04, 01:19 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cnl4h4\\$iar\\$1\\$8300dec7@news.demon.co .uk>...\n> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new\n> scientist?\n>\n> I\'m asking because of recent comments about NS\'s over journalistic approach\n> to physics.\n> So how much of this is hype?\n> mikej\n\nSo a negative mass object would fall upwards, a zero mass object would\nhang there, and a heavy mass would fall to earth more quickly than a\nlighter mass. Well that was what they would have thought before\nGalileo, but nowadays one would have thought we knew better. As\nanyone who\'s ever speculated about negative mass knows, plugging it\ninto the equations shows that it still falls downward (it just repels\nother objects).\n\nSo what was the New Scientist article about? Matter which doesn\'t\nobey the Equivalence Principle is different from matter with negative\nmass, and they seem to be speculating about the former rather than the\nlatter.\n\nStephen Lee\nwww.chronon.org\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cnl4h4$iar$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Any one care to comment on the article by Paul Wesson in this weeks new
> scientist?
>
> I'm asking because of recent comments about NS's over journalistic approach
> to physics.
> So how much of this is hype?
> mikej

So a negative mass object would fall upwards, a zero mass object would
hang there, and a heavy mass would fall to earth more quickly than a
lighter mass. Well that was what they would have thought before
Galileo, but nowadays one would have thought we knew better. As
anyone who's ever speculated about negative mass knows, plugging it
into the equations shows that it still falls downward (it just repels
other objects).

So what was the New Scientist article about? Matter which doesn't
obey the Equivalence Principle is different from matter with negative
mass, and they seem to be speculating about the former rather than the
latter.

Stephen Lee
www.chronon.org

Nov26-04, 01:23 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>gary watson <garyw@delphi-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6l9aq0d6u8ri2918ttfgbog23bt9t62er3@4ax.co m>...\n>\n> On the physical science side there seems to be little generally\n> available between the elementary level of the popular publications\n> like New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server\n> preprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper\n> version of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to\n> post-graduate level) physical science publication.\n>\n> A collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it\n> requires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in\n> fact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a\n> little). Any volunteers ?\n>\n> Gary\n\n\nWhat\'s wrong with sci.physics.research? Seems like a free online\nmagazine to me. Better, actually.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>gary watson <garyw@delphi-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6l9aq0d6u8ri2918ttfgbog23bt9t62er3@4ax.com>. ..
>
> On the physical science side there seems to be little generally
> available between the elementary level of the popular publications
> like New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server
> preprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper
> version of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to
> post-graduate level) physical science publication.
>
> A collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it
> requires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in
> fact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a
> little). Any volunteers ?
>
> Gary

What's wrong with sci.physics.research? Seems like a free online
magazine to me. Better, actually.

Nov29-04, 02:51 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:23:41 +0000 (UTC), frisbieinstein@yahoo.com\n(Patrick Powers) wrote:\n\n>gary watson <garyw@delphi-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6l9aq0d6u8ri2918ttfgbog23bt9t62er3@4ax.co m>...\n>>\n>> On the physical science side there seems to be little generally\n>> available between the elementary level of the popular publications\n>> like New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server\n>> preprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper\n>> version of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to\n>> post-graduate level) physical science publication.\n>>\n>> A collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it\n>> requires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in\n>> fact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a\n>> little). Any volunteers ?\n>>\n>> Gary\n>\n>\n>What\'s wrong with sci.physics.research? Seems like a free online\n>magazine to me. Better, actually.\n\nI wouldn\'t dream of denying that it makes interesting reading. But\nmost of the articles are on very specific points. If I\'m not familar\nwith a subject, but curious, I like to get some background information\n- I\'m a (long time ago) maths graduate with a graduate qualification\nin applied maths/theoretical physics so I\'m usually looking for\nsomething above the level of a popularised article but (probably well)\nbelow the level of a researcher in a specific field. For more general\nreviews and/or introductions to topics I have tried the arXiv server\nand occasionally have found stuff at an appropriate level but the\nterms \'introduction\' and \'review\' are (quite naturally I suppose)\ninterpreted very loosely on arXiv. Maybe the arXiv folks should\nintroduce a new classification since some of the stuff you can\noccasionally find there seems to be graduate level course notes type\nmaterial but it\'s generally pot luck to find \'introductory\' material\nat that level.\n\nRegards,\n\nGary.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:23:41

(UTC), frisbieinstein@yahoo.com
(Patrick Powers) wrote:

>gary watson <garyw@delphi-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6l9aq0d6u8ri2918ttfgbog23bt9t62er3@4ax.com>. ..
>>
>> On the physical science side there seems to be little generally
>> available between the elementary level of the popular publications
>> like New Scientist et al and the advanced level of arXiv server
>> preprints and similar. I doubt there is much of a market for a paper
>> version of an "intermediate" (i.e. something like under- to
>> post-graduate level) physical science publication.
>>
>> A collaborative free online magazine would be a fine idea although it
>> requires folks willing to spend time/effort in its production - in
>> fact I might even be willing to pay for such a thing (well just a
>> little). Any volunteers ?
>>
>> Gary
>
>
>What's wrong with sci.physics.research? Seems like a free online
>magazine to me. Better, actually.

I wouldn't dream of denying that it makes interesting reading. But
most of the articles are on very specific points. If I'm not familar
with a subject, but curious, I like to get some background information
- I'm a (long time ago) maths graduate with a graduate qualification
in applied maths/theoretical physics so I'm usually looking for
something above the level of a popularised article but (probably well)
below the level of a researcher in a specific field. For more general
reviews

introductions to topics I have tried the arXiv server
and occasionally have found stuff at an appropriate level but the
terms 'introduction' and 'review' are (quite naturally I suppose)
interpreted very loosely on arXiv. Maybe the arXiv folks should
introduce a new classification since some of the stuff you can
occasionally find there seems to be graduate level course notes type
material but it's generally pot luck to find 'introductory' material
at that level.

Regards,

Gary.

Dec2-04, 06:14 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>gary watson wrote:\n\n>\n> To me it seems that New Scientist has more of a bias towards the life\n> sciences than the physical sciences. I don\'t know if the background of\n\nMost of the major progess in science as a whole is in life sciences.\nThis is their golden age.\nBy contrast physics, esp theoretical physics, seems to be running around like a\nheadless chicken.\n\n--\nDirk\n\nThe Consensus:-\nThe political party for the new millenium\nhttp://www.theconsensus.org\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>gary watson wrote:

>
> To me it seems that New Scientist has more of a bias towards the life
> sciences than the physical sciences. I don't know if the background of

Most of the major progess in science as a whole is in life sciences.
This is their golden age.
By contrast physics, esp theoretical physics, seems to be running around like a
headless chicken.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Dec9-04, 02:03 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I think some of the comments here are a little harsh on the New\nScientist, it isn\'t meant to be an academic journal. I think its\nexcellent at bridging the subject divide that exists in academic\ncircles. Sometimes its useful to see whats happening in the other\nsciences without getting to indepth.\n\nPersonally I hold a degree in economics, but I\'m studying for a degree\nnow in physics and it was through reading articles in publications like\nthe New Scientist that helped me understand how the subjects share key\nthemes even though they seem unrelated when your in an insulated\nacademic enviroment.\n\nThe variety of articles should offer something appealing for most\nscientists no matter that they might specialise in. I agree to an\nextent that certain topics might be over hyped in the NS, but this\noften they key to engaging with none specialists.\n\nDavid\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54034#post385337\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I think some of the comments here are a little harsh on the New
Scientist, it isn't meant to be an academic journal. I think its
excellent at bridging the subject divide that exists in academic
circles. Sometimes its useful to see whats happening in the other
sciences without getting to indepth.

Personally I hold a degree in economics, but I'm studying for a degree
now in physics and it was through reading articles in publications like
the New Scientist that helped me understand how the subjects share key
themes even though they seem unrelated when your in an insulated
academic enviroment.

The variety of articles should offer something appealing for most
scientists no matter that they might specialise in. I agree to an
extent that certain topics might be over hyped in the NS, but this
often they key to engaging with none specialists.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...034#post385337

Dec9-04, 11:33 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n(Please note our change of email address. All addresses of the form\nx@infomax.demon.co.uk should be changed to x@InfomaxGroup.co.uk)\n\n"davidmerritt" <davidoff@davidmerritt.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:davidmerritt.1gysy7@physicsforums.co m...\n>I think some of the comments here are a little harsh on the New\n> Scientist, it isn\'t meant to be an academic journal. I think its\n> excellent at bridging the subject divide that exists in academic\n> circles. Sometimes its useful to see whats happening in the other\n> sciences without getting to indepth.\n\nI agree that it isn\'t an academic journal but there is an assumption\nthat what it prints is reasonable science - physics in this case.\n\nThe problem is that recently NS has been publishing physics articles - such\nas the conversion of em to gravity, the eclipse effect on gravity\nand things that sound exciting, fun etc.\n\nSome times its easy to gauge just how "fringe" the ideas are from the\nway the article describes the researchers involved -\n"small group of mostly ignored researcher", "isolated"\n"unfunded", "cold shouldered", "outside of the\nacademic community", "rebel", and so on.\n\nIn the case of the negative mass 5D "flat" KK theory the author was one of\nthe\nmain people involved in the theory and so there is no way of getting\na third opinion from the article by reading between the lines.\n\nJudging by the lack of any comments on the article - despite the\ncomments on NS - it doesn\'t seem to be particularly "mainstream".\n\nmikej\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>(Please note our change of email address. All addresses of the form
x@infomax.demon.co.uk should be changed to x@InfomaxGroup.co.uk)

"davidmerritt" <davidoff@davidmerritt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:davidmerritt.1gysy7@physicsforums.com...
>I think some of the comments here are a little harsh on the New
> Scientist, it isn't meant to be an academic journal. I think its
> excellent at bridging the subject divide that exists in academic
> circles. Sometimes its useful to see whats happening in the other
> sciences without getting to indepth.

I agree that it isn't an academic journal but there is an assumption
that what it prints is reasonable science - physics in this case.

The problem is that recently NS has been publishing physics articles - such
as the conversion of em to gravity, the eclipse effect on gravity
and things that sound exciting, fun etc.

Some times its easy to gauge just how "fringe" the ideas are from the
way the article describes the researchers involved -
"small group of mostly ignored researcher", "isolated"
"unfunded", "cold shouldered", "outside of the
academic community", "rebel", and so on.

In the case of the negative mass 5D "flat" KK theory the author was one of
the
main people involved in the theory and so there is no way of getting
a third opinion from the article by reading between the lines.

Judging by the lack of any comments on the article - despite the
comments on

doesn't seem to be particularly "mainstream".

mikej

Dec13-04, 11:44 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any\nhardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the\nindustrial system itself and not from the policies of the\nrevolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have\nto be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from\nabove.\n\n195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be\ncarried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that\nthe United States, for example, should cut back on technological\nprogress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming\nthat if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of\nus. Holy robots The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever\nsell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of\ntechnology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively\ndemocratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty,\ndictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to\nprogress, eventually the di\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any
hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the
industrial system itself and not from the policies of the
revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have
to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from
above.

195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be
carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that
the United States, for example, should cut back on technological
progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming
that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of
us. Holy robots The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever
sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of
technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively
democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty,
dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to
progress, eventually the di

Jan18-05, 12:56 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I have been an occassional reader of general science mags since 1948.\nThere was only ever one mag that really understood how to address the\nenquiring public. It was called \'Science\' and lasted for just two years\nin the late 50\'s or early 60\'s. Anyone interested in publishing should\nresearch this mag. It ceased publication due to costs and was greatly\nlamented at the time. Its ablitility to take one subject and anylise it\nmathematically and grammatically using only simple language and detailed\ndiagrams, has never been equalled.\nNS and Sciam fall way behind in quality, but they survive by employing\nmainly science writers instead of the leading scientists themselves. In\nthe end we have to accept what we are prepared to pay for and \'Science\'\nwas twice the price of Sciam.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54034#post398540\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I have been an occassional reader of general science mags since 1948.
There was only ever one mag that really understood how to address the
enquiring public. It was called 'Science' and lasted for just two years
in the late 50's or early 60's. Anyone interested in publishing should
research this mag. It ceased publication due to costs and was greatly
lamented at the time. Its ablitility to take one subject and anylise it
mathematically and grammatically using only simple language and detailed
diagrams, has never been equalled.
NS and Sciam fall way behind in quality, but they survive by employing
mainly science writers instead of the leading scientists themselves. In
the end we have to accept what we are prepared to pay for and 'Science'
was twice the price of Sciam.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...034#post398540