dimensionless
- 461
- 1
Are there any good web sites I should be using 
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 4K views
scott1
- 353
- 1
https://www.physicsforums.com/index.php"
I use it for finding links to other sites with articles
I use it for finding links to other sites with articles
Last edited by a moderator:
heartless
- 220
- 2
there's a lot of them out there just do a google search for science news,
I admire these websites:
http://sciam.com/
http://slashdot.org/
http://nationalgeographic.com/
Thanks,
I admire these websites:
http://sciam.com/
http://slashdot.org/
http://nationalgeographic.com/
Thanks,
neutrino
- 2,093
- 2
I'm more into astronomy. I rely on these sources...
www.universetoday.com
www.spaceflightnow.com
www.space.com
...and for my dose for physics news I use www.physicsweb.org
I might also start using other, interesting places mentioned here.
www.universetoday.com
www.spaceflightnow.com
www.space.com
...and for my dose for physics news I use www.physicsweb.org
I might also start using other, interesting places mentioned here.
jquark
- 18
- 0
i have read science news magazine since i was 10. 1970. ok 9.
theyve recently undergone a new format, but the content is just great. after reading it for 30 years I've read an encyclopedia britannica
they are .ORG! not that other 'c' word...
www.sciencenews.org
well worth a subscription.
i specifically have an enthusiasm with the idea that they arent as popularized, that they are written engagingly, if anything like that shows up, and specifically that its conversationally presented, a fact i loved about isaac asimov, and after that richard feynman. it helped me a lot to know people can just casually use sentences that include words like zinjanthropous like they just went to mcdonalds. and, when the topic has a salient point, they don't chince on the vocabulary. it was a big jump from my weekly reader to science news around 6th grade but it gave me a fantastic vocabulary. i wish it were given as current events readings at schools. now they're every 2 weeks.
i am always nervous something would happen to it, its kind of like a diabetics insulin to me!
their website is doing well. presentation and format come after content but i have almost no complaint.
i highly recommend it. they used its predecessor in the Scopes monkey trial in 1925 as evidence. if you read it for a couple years you'll find other popularized magazines are written loosely. it is a good teacher.
and also, several of the reporters have been there together for more than a dozen years, richard montarsky, ron cowen, janet raloff, all have won awards for science writing. its a little secret seems not enough people know about. could be a subscription drive going too!
go for it. if you're not happy you wouldn't be by much!
best wishes
theyve recently undergone a new format, but the content is just great. after reading it for 30 years I've read an encyclopedia britannica
they are .ORG! not that other 'c' word...
www.sciencenews.org
well worth a subscription.
i specifically have an enthusiasm with the idea that they arent as popularized, that they are written engagingly, if anything like that shows up, and specifically that its conversationally presented, a fact i loved about isaac asimov, and after that richard feynman. it helped me a lot to know people can just casually use sentences that include words like zinjanthropous like they just went to mcdonalds. and, when the topic has a salient point, they don't chince on the vocabulary. it was a big jump from my weekly reader to science news around 6th grade but it gave me a fantastic vocabulary. i wish it were given as current events readings at schools. now they're every 2 weeks.
i am always nervous something would happen to it, its kind of like a diabetics insulin to me!
their website is doing well. presentation and format come after content but i have almost no complaint.
i highly recommend it. they used its predecessor in the Scopes monkey trial in 1925 as evidence. if you read it for a couple years you'll find other popularized magazines are written loosely. it is a good teacher.
and also, several of the reporters have been there together for more than a dozen years, richard montarsky, ron cowen, janet raloff, all have won awards for science writing. its a little secret seems not enough people know about. could be a subscription drive going too!
go for it. if you're not happy you wouldn't be by much!
best wishes