I have been wondering why it is that I stay subscribed to this list, I have not stuck with other lists in the same way.
The problem with other lists is that too many of those participating can be kinda clueless, also the aim may be too narrow and the topics can become decidedly erm, metaphysical. Also there is generally decent behavior, relaxed but effective moderation. But as I have expressed elsewhere it has 2 problems. First is that most of the posts and most of the threads do not in truth have any possibility of an outcome that would impact the world positively. (Thanks to Horace for that point) As an example of an often reoccurring discussion, Algae for energy might be a valid idea but talking about it on vortex is pretty pointless as no one here is going to start an algae processing farm, and at least that is vaguely on topic but it is not useful. Ask yourself what are we here for? Is there a purpose to this list? Is it just making conversation? Fun thoughts about science? The other problem is that despite the notice on the door, it has a tendency to become often times skeptical of anything "weird", what happened to the big ole' nasty nest of believers? Of course there is a balance, going too far the other way is no more useful. Rather we must be on the fringe to reclaim new land for science, but Algae, betteries and wind farms aren't fringe! Nor are they useful as topics (unless looking to buy stock). Cold Fusion is somewhat fringe, but as much respect as I have for Jed's dedication I can not imagine either in a technological nor political-business-economic way in which cold fusion would be what powers our houses or cars even if the science were totally sorted, further the experimentation is *generally* beyond that which can be achieved outside of a good lab or without good expertise. No doubt Jed will have answers and arguments for the above but getting into that would be missing the point) You can't reclaim new land for science by standing on firm well established land (nor by falling into the bog), you can't act all respectable, you may have to get a bit muddy, those who don't understand may indeed point and laugh. (to change my metaphor slightly, to pull something out of a bog you put one foot in the bog to reach in far enough and keep the other on firm ground) If I mention say "Orgone" or "Chi" I expect most here to indeed point and laugh, it is not that these things might not have some very real evidence and even prototypical theories to explain what they are, rather it is that truth, logic and evidence take a back seat and instead prejudice and emotion does the driving. I can tell you that I initially found such ideas to feel very unscientific, it seemed uncomfortable compared to the clean neat model of the universe I had learnt, but then again Quantum physics had the same 'weird' feeling to it too. Of course not all are opposed but I do feel some should take another glance at the message on the door you ignored when you came in. While no one has any reason to believe me, personally I believe I have solved the essential physics behind most of these "weird" devices (AG, FE) but by in large I wouldn't dream of sharing it here (the variable cap thing is a bit different). I don't believe my reluctance is hard to explain, I simply don't expect to find most here very open minded. (and indeed my experience of people in general including scientists is that their beliefs are not changed by logic or evidence sometimes up to and even beyond something becoming puclical knowledge) I have also found that negativism and skeptisism can always find excuses to be believed, evidence to back up the belief, and indeed it seems to be a part of the human condition in this society to be resigned, defeatist and sceptical. (and suspiscious at all the wrong times) Indeed my above paragraph is it's self defeatist. Ok, I had better wind down my rant here, but I think this shake up of the list is a good thing if it makes everyone re-evaluate why we are here, what the point is of this list. John (seldom signs his posts) Berry
