-1
$\begingroup$

I presented a very insightful answer to the question Can electromagnetic fields be used to deconstruct and reconstruct molecular bonds?. I put a great deal of time and effort into including diagrams and a 3D perspective of the molecules the question asker was clearly talking about. A moderator "rob" waltzed in and deleted it saying that he felt it was a "springboard" onto another topic.

The truth is that there is only one reason for breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism, that is circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body to produce a biological energy source by breaking ionic bonds.

In short, i am very dissapointed by this site and the hypercritical moderation. No appeals, no discussions, just unilatteral decisions. I would say that if this moderator is not a biochemist and a particle physicist, he has no right to say what is or is not on topic regarding this post.

This is obviously why every answer i have seen so far is no more then a couple sentences. Modzillas.

Anyways, just thought i would point this out before moving to a far less censored site. Just don't want other new people to waste their time here like i obviously did.

$\endgroup$

migrated from physics.stackexchange.com Jul 12 '18 at 17:12

This question came from our site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Link to post in question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/166700/25301. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 12 '18 at 17:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Most plasmas are generated by breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism. And that has nothing to do with biology. No censoring going on, its just that your answer really didn't seem to answer the question. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Jul 12 '18 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ My point on the post in question was circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body, this is how those plasmas are produced. It is the exact same mechanism without the biological aspects. Which i discussed in detail. Most all modern advancements are based on biology on some level. And you notice we are still talking about energy generation by circumventing the mitochondria? =) $\endgroup$ – Michael Bush Jul 12 '18 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ Using an external physical mechanism to fill the function of the mitochondria has been at the core of energy research since we figured out how we derive our own energy. This has a ton to do with biology, even though the situation you mentioned is not biological. $\endgroup$ – Michael Bush Jul 12 '18 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, where do you think that idea came from? =) $\endgroup$ – Michael Bush Jul 12 '18 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ I removed the lock so it should now be possible to edit this post if you want. $\endgroup$ – David Z Jul 13 '18 at 18:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I am voting to reopen because I do not think it is unclear what is being asked. I have changed the title to reflect my understanding of the user's intention - viz. to challenge the unilateral deletion of an answer which he put a lot of work into. IMO it is unhelpful and insensitive for this question also to be closed unilaterally by another moderator, because I think when users dispute the decision of a moderator they are entitled to appeal to their peers, and the closure of this question deprives the user of that right. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 13 '18 at 21:03
6
$\begingroup$

I agree with the Moderator that your post does not answer the question, which asked about the use of electromagnetic fields for breaking molecular bonds (physics), not about how bonds are broken or formed in metabolic processes (biochemistry).

The question is not "clearly" asking about the biochemical molecules mentioned in your answer (ATP, DNA). It mentions only the molecular structure of "objects." In the context of physics and the separation of matter from anti-matter this usually means inanimate objects. The question does not use the tags of biophysics, biology or chemistry so answers given in those contexts would probably not be appropriate. You appear to be expounding a topic which you are very passionate and knowledgeable about, regardless of the requirements of the original poster.

This is a site for questions and answers about physics. Biochemists are welcome, but their questions/answers must be about physics (eg biophysics), and not biochemistry.

There are appeals and discussions - which is what you are doing now.

Moderators are entitled to act unilaterally and do not need to be experts in the topic of a question or answer before they interfere with it. They are voted into office, and because of their long involvement with this site they do know better than most users what is off-topic here.

If you do not wish the effort you put into your answer to be wasted you could post a suitable question in Chemistry SE or Biology SE and answer your own question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, if you noticed i included a theoretical physical mechanism to break the bonds in question quite clearly that is very widely regarded and recently published, just not for this use. =) I also included all the surrounding information, as to the only possible uses for breaking bonds with electromagnetism in a very clear and concise manner. I do not understand the issue you are taking with the answer exactly. Breaking bonds via electromagnetism is particle physics despite there not being a tag for it. $\endgroup$ – Michael Bush Jul 12 '18 at 18:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I noticed your reference to "the magnetic effects of superconducting spintronics" but you do not explain how that answers the question which was asked. The question was not asking about the uses for breaking/forming bonds, nor about energy production. Particle physics concerns elementary particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc - perhaps also nuclei) not atoms and molecules. Photochemistry is not particle physics. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 12 '18 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ By "voted... because of their reputation" do you mean their physics.se rep or actual, personal reputation? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 13 '18 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ I mean PSE rep. I will edit to make this clear. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 13 '18 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree then, rep has little bearing on whether they know something is on or off topic (there are several high rep members who do actually think HW Qs are on-topic). $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 13 '18 at 19:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ IMO rep is probably the best indicator available of familiarity with the site and its policies. (Do you have any better suggestion?) High rep users usually become reviewers above 3k, which requires them to be aware of what is on/off topic. It is not infallible, not all high rep users are reviewers. But there is a fairly good correlation. ... HW Qs are on topic - if they conform to the HW policy. I don't doubt that some high rep users (like many low rep users) disagree with the HW policy, but this is not the same as believing that all HW Qs are on topic. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 13 '18 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ @sammygerbil rep literally just means you ask and/or answer questions on the site. Being familiar with site policies is though activity on meta and reviews, so that is a far better metric to use than rep. HW questions aren't on topic, were not a homework help site. What is on topic is questions about physics concepts that come up during homework and are preventing one from solving a problem. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 13 '18 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ And, FWIW, your use of 'if it conforms to HW policy' is exactly what I just said: HW help you won't find here (except through low rep users and the few high rep users who don't care) but you will find physics concepts help because that's exactly what the HW policy says, if you bother to read it. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 13 '18 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ Also, rather than sub-texting me, please tag me so I know you're responding. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 13 '18 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ It's worth adding that one occasionally sees a high-rep (>5k) user answering homework questions with a little more than hints. But the present wording ('long involvement') is quite accurate. I think that flagging history is the best indicator of involvement and familiarity with site policies, but much of that isn't public, and long-time moderators frequently have relatively small numbers of helpful flags. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Jul 14 '18 at 3:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Access to privileges, such as voting to close or delete, and to moderator tools are awarded solely (and automatically) on the basis of rep, not activity on meta and reviews. Even users who never review become familiar with site policy through experience, eg votes cast to close their own questions, and questions they answer being closed. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 14 '18 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ @sammygerbil yes, access is granted based on rep but understanding of policies is not automatically gifted at any rep threshold, do you understand the difference? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 14 '18 at 10:05
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Yes of course I understand the difference, which is why I wrote that the correlation between understanding and rep is not infallible, and that moderators know better than most users what is on/off topic. SE policy is that users who attain rep thresholds are trusted to have gained requisite understanding in the course of accumulating that rep. They do not need to prove their understanding, eg to those who question it. ... There is also a distinction between understanding policy and agreeing with it, following it and enforcing it. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Jul 14 '18 at 11:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .