This site was written to support our ideas, rather than to re-explain standard physics literature.
It might seem strange that this page is intended to warn you to 'go away', or at least be prepared to set this site in a context apart from the standard literature. However, we wouldn't want someone to believe this is standard literature.
Our intended reader[a,b] is perhaps a graduate, post-doc, or research fellow in mathematics, physics, or related fields, who is looking for alternative ways of formulating some parts of standard literature, or is looking for a new perspective.
Having said that, we do not require that you have any qualification; we simply recommend that you proceed with your sceptic defences up, and armed with the ability to discern whether this project is relevant to your interests.
This project is a work in progress, and might contain errors or speculative material. Our published work also contains speculative material, and in most cases this is clearly labelled.
If you arrived at Po8 to help with a standard academic syllabus (you're at school or college), then this material is probably not for you. If you are here to help with research-level work, then please proceed with caution, and, as with all material on the web, try to carefully measure the value of the information you find here.
If you want to use speculative information presented on this site, and would like some guidance about its suitability for your purposes, please ask the authors.
But watch out... Wikipedia is great with details, but poor on helping you grasp a subject from nothing. If you want to learn stuff at least semi-formally, then this might help.
Throughout this site we link to Wikipedia, as general background material. From our perspective, it is an uneasy decision to include these links. It is satisfactory for us to direct casual physicists on to Wikipedia, because they provide public access to general principles, but we are hesitant to recommend these links to someone who is studying formally, because the material will not be best placed in the context of understanding, whereas an academic course of study would be well-connected and consistent.
Here are our reasons: firstly, aside from the obvious problems that Wikipeadia's contribution model suffers, we see a danger of readers being swayed towards any bias that might be present in Wikipedia articles. It is unfortunate that some academics or amateurs are very keen to promote their understanding of physics without also conveying the overall context of their picture. This might corrupt or disrupt someone in their studies, but we still provide the Wikipedia links on the understanding that such students are usually sufficiently briefed on the problems and benefits associated with 'Web 2.0' content like Wikipedia.
[a] I hope there is more than one.
[b] Apart from family and friends who are curious about what I do — in which case, this might explain a lot
