[WikiEN-l] It's not a good Unified Field Theory unless...

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:42:06AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:58:18 +1000, Brian Salter-Duke
> <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> >Maybe they are, but I have to express some dissappointment about our
> >Physics articles. Many of them are over-complex and in particular do not
> >lead into the complexity with a simple introduction so the reader who
> >knows nothing about the topic will at least get an idea of what the
> >article is about. 
> 
> This is certainly true of some of the more obscure topics.  I am
> reasonably well educated (good honours degree in electrical
> engineering), but have found at least half a dozen articles on physics
> topics that were close to unintelligible.
> 
> Some of this is due to the articles I get drawn to: in most cases it's
> because some loon is trying to rewrite the article to more accurately
> explain this Great New Way of looking at it that the journals
> inexplicably fail to follow up.  If you get my drift.

I get your drift and this can be a problem. However, I suspect the
problem is that many physicists think rigour is more important than
being understood. Just my POV i guess. I can point ot articles that have
just slowly been made unintelligible by people whose motives are pure.

 
> Guy (JzG)
> -- 
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au  
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity