-4
$\begingroup$

This question was closed for not being about mainstream physics, but the question clearly is on-topic. What guideline, then, is being violated?

My guess for the 'real' reason is the opening statement, which some users found 'upsetting' and touted it as some violation. If a mere negative assessment of some answers is 'unnice', or whatever's closest to the guidelines I've read, then I can claim the "Yes, you are wrong" answer too should be removed, and now we have a censor-parade instead of rational discourse.


Note: marked "answered" to close the question - doubt further progress will be made.

| |
$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

The close votes are all for the "Non-mainstream physics" close reason, but that's actually a bit misleading here.

The reason says:

We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?

I think this is partially an issue with your wording. You seem to have a question based on the concepts you know about, and that's usually on-topic. I think it's word choice of your question that really got the negative reaction:

In case 2, the carrier cannot be infinite in quantity, as there isn't anything infinite within a finite closed system (e.g. a volume spanned by field after some initial time). However; infinite range demands an infinite carrier - else, the larger the radius, the less of the surface area spanned actually experiences any field. So, for a very long range, only tiny patches of regions will experience anything from the charge; the vast majority of matter at the radius will experience exactly zero E-field. Thus: infinite range is impossible.

Am I wrong?

You're going about the question the wrong way in my opinion. If you want to understand what is going on, and why that inconsistency exists, frame it as more of a question than an assertion that it is wrong. Something better could be:

In case 2, I don't see how the carrier can be infinite in quantity, as there isn't anything infinite within a finite closed system (e.g. a volume spanned by field after some initial time). However; infinite range demands an infinite carrier - else, the larger the radius, the less of the surface area spanned actually experiences any field. So, for a very long range, only tiny patches of regions should experience anything from the charge; I would expect that the vast majority of matter at the radius will experience exactly zero E-field.

Based on this, how could we say that the electric field has infinite range?

You might also want to clean up the opening paragraph. Instead of deeming the other question irrelevant, it might be better to recognize that it actually led you to the question you are asking. Go from there to ask your question (as I tried to show), instead of making it come across as an assertion.

I can't guarantee that it will prevent the question from being closed, but in my opinion it would help.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You're absolutely right it would help - but it's petty for the 10k, 100k+ rep users to take my wording so personally rather than focus on the substance of the question. It's politicizing science. Not saying users should be allowed to raise any havoc, but complete overreaction to my question. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 16 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ And yes, "non-mainstream physics" is a mere scapegoat - I welcome any justification to this claim. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 16 at 23:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon I wouldn't say they are taking it personally. The wording is actually pretty bad for a SE question. That's the problem I'm pointing out. The non-mainstream kinda does seem to apply, just based on the way you framed the question. $\endgroup$ – JMac Apr 17 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed it could be better, but I've also seen worse that made it to the "hot" page, just without any aggression - so perceived aggression remains the truer culprit. Guess it's a thing to note for future, though disappointing. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 17 at 1:03
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon You could try to fix your post that is closed. Closed questions can be reopened if the issues are fixed. $\endgroup$ – JMac Apr 17 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ I've yet to be given a valid reason for 'fixing' anything. (1) I still don't see how "non-mainstream physics" applies; if exploring existing theory beyond "it is what it is" qualifies, what's the point of this site? (2) The question isn't "poorly" worded; it's formulated for conciseness, expecting cooperation in interpreting from the reader - anyone capable of answering the question will understand it perfectly. It's clear to me that the true reason is "how dare you critique our knowledge" - and if they are so sensitive as to close a question over it, to be it. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 17 at 13:45
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon Well now I feel like I wasted my time typing this answer if you're just going to disregard or not read anything it says. The question had issues that led to closure, I've pointed them out here. You've worded the question in a way that makes it off topic; this could probably be fixed with some effort on your end. I've given you a good explanation about reasons it should be closed; but you seem dead set on assuming your own reasons instead of taking my advice. I honestly don't know why you bothered to ask if you're just going to ignore the answer. $\endgroup$ – JMac Apr 17 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ What you wrote is accurate, and my question is admittedly less of a question than a statement - but I'm not the first to do this, and statements too need to be made. The question portion did seek for a possible justification on the claimed close reason, but I simply haven't seen it in anything you wrote; you're free to suggest, I'm free to disagree. If anyone better shows how this is "non-mainstream physics", they better be ready to argue the same for many other questions I've seen that can be flagged likewise. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 17 at 15:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon why not slow down a bit here. The question is not very well worded so take a deep breadth and a few moments to fix it: it will be much more constructive than claiming agression, overreactions and censorship by others. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Apr 17 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Marking as answer to close the question - doubt further progress will be made. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 18 at 0:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon Note that because closures rely on the votes of users, not all bad questions will be caught. Sometimes closure of a question depends on how "visible" it was which depends on when things are posted, when users log on, how often a post is edited, who decides to initiate voting to close, who looks at the close vote queue, etc. So you can't base your post off of other posts. You can always find an example of something that slipped by, but that doesn't make it legitimate argument for you to do the same. If you do see that, you should flag it instead. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Apr 18 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AaronStevens I should've clarified the posts were well-received (10+ upvotes) and had 1k+ views. This isn't unique to SE Physics, I see it all over the network - no news here. $\endgroup$ – OverLordGoldDragon Apr 18 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ Sir the question you link to was not well received and does not have 1k views, so you might want to clarify to what other posts you’re referring to. The “other” question related to this has not been closed. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Apr 18 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OverLordGoldDragon Since I answered the question maybe you'll listen to me. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with aggression -- except that aggression on questions on this site correlate extremely strongly with being a crackpot. Because of this, I decided your question was crackpot nonsense after 5 seconds and left a dismissive comment, and I only realized that was a mistake after realizing in the shower that there was a real, mainstream question there. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Apr 20 at 5:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The point is, we get a lot of crackpots, and it's on you to make your question not look like the hundreds of crackpot questions we get per month. I feel like this is a completely reasonable requirement. It takes only a tiny effort on your part, and it'll save all of us time! $\endgroup$ – knzhou Apr 20 at 5:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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