2
$\begingroup$

Background

My closed question originally asked: Why is the sign of gravitational inertial mass chosen to be positive like EM inertial mass? and was put on hold:

On hold as unclear what you're asking by Buzz, safesphere, Jon Custer, ZeroTheHero, Chair Feb 3 at 7:50

After reading feedback from the answers including "to save writing negative signs", "how could one know the motives of an author?", I took out the text in the body of the question referencing introductory textbooks I've read. I then used a question from a respected long-term user as guidance for the content of the question's added text: crisp, to the point, with enough information that adds to the question for the audience it's likely directed to: physics graduates or interested readers of advanced undergraduate texts who understand that potential energy contributes to inertial mass. I edited my question to: Is gravitational inertial mass positive or negative?

I was confident that this should have been enough to remove "unclear what you're asking" as the original reason for putting on hold my question, and an answer was added, confirming another answer that the gravitational field contributes negatively to the total inertial mass. But after a few days only one person voted to reopen it. After chatting to a user in PSE chat, I was told it probably hadn't been voted for reopening for indirectly stating in the question that gravitational potential energy has inertial mass.

To save me arguing that my question was directed to a particular audience and to just get my question reopened, I edited the question to: Does the gravitational field possess an inertial mass ? which quickly upped the number of reopening votes to four leaving just one more. But today, it's now been closed:

closed as unclear what you're asking by Buzz, safesphere, Jon Custer, ZeroTheHero, Chair Feb 3 at 7:50 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

I don't think the reasons and users quoted are relevant for closing my question in its current form. The idea that gravitational mass makes a negative contribution to the total inertial mass is interesting IMO. So before my question is deleted I'd like to ask:

Questions

  • Are there guidelines for reopening questions?

  • If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed, should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes as for the original problem?

  • Can a closed question be deleted and then reposted if the original reason for closing it is corrected?
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

These are my takes on the subject:

  • Are there guidelines for reopening questions?

A question should be reopened when there are no reasons why it should be closed. That simple.

This means that

  • If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed, should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes as for the original problem?

No, it shouldn't. Fix all the problems with the post first.

  • Can a closed question be deleted and then reposted if the original reason for closing it is corrected?

I would class that as an abuse of the site mechanisms, and well worth flagging for moderator attention, particularly if you're posting an identical copy of text that e.g. has already been voted to Remain Closed by the reopen review queue.


That said, note that the passage between On Hold to Closed is automatic and does not involve any human intervention. "On Hold" is simply what the system calls closed questions during the first five days after closure.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I find it somewhat strange this was downvoted. This is a pretty textbook approach. $\endgroup$ – JMac Feb 9 at 16:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JMac There are a number of pretty thin-skinned members these days... not suggesting the OP is one but I do notice a lot of borderline frivolous downvotes on meta. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Feb 9 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero I didn't vote since it at least answers my question, even if I don't agree with all of them. $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Feb 9 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ @LarryHarson no worries mon... Didn’t want to imply you had to do with the downvote... just observing there is or are some who are trigger-happy and thin skinned when it comes to downvotes, and more so than usual. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Feb 9 at 22:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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