# False duplicate

I asked this question: What is the magnetic field of a radially moving current?

"What is the magnetic field of a radially moving current?"

It was closed as a duplicate of "Why is the magnetic field of a spherically symmetric current zero?".

Three remarks:

1. Unless we share a different definition of the word duplicate, asking what is the amount of something and why is the amount of something this value, are not the same as the latter assumes an answer.
2. The said answer is false because it takes unrealistic assumptions regarding the real world experiment I described. There WILL be a magnetic field.
3. Nobody cared answering my concerns between the time it was first voted to close and its closing days later.

This does not look good. "probably_someone", who answered my question, mentioned the issue.

So it would seem only the title of the question was used to declare it a duplicate and in a rather loose way. And I still did not get an answer to my real question either way.

• OK, I've reopened your question. As a general rule I'm happy to be challenged if I dupehammer a question. Just ping me and my usual response will be to reopen the question immediately while I think about my original decision. – John Rennie Oct 3 '19 at 7:41
• Note that you can ping the close-voters by a comment on the question itself, using the @UserName syntax, even though tab-completion of the name doesn't work (unless that user has commented on the question). Another option is to come to chat if you want to discuss why your question should be reopened. – PM 2Ring Oct 3 '19 at 8:02
• @JohnRennie A knee-jerk reopen sounds like a bad reaction to me. Think about the decision carefully, and then revert it if required. Direct reopening is unfair to the previous close-voters, who could well be correct and who will be unable to vote-to-close again. – Emilio Pisanty Oct 3 '19 at 10:26
• I was just about to comment with the same thing Emilio said. And I think even if you're considering reopening a self-hammered question, it's less disruptive to take some time to think first before you decide to reopen, rather than immediately reopening and then marking it as a duplicate yet again later. It's more important IMO to make correct decisions than quick ones. (obviously there is a point at which that stops being true, but I don't think we're there yet) – David Z Oct 5 '19 at 5:45