I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: Is it really true that space is continuous?
This question was closed by Qmechanic♦ on the grounds that "This question already has answers here":
and this is the linked question.
Apart from the question I posted having very similar title to the one linked, the body of the question is much different, as can be seen easily.
I am, for example, asking:
- Are there really legitimate physical theories (or subtheories) where there really seems to be a mostly physical need to assume that space is not continuous?
and this question is non-answered in the answers to the linked question, because answers address mathematical constructions and not precise physical needs, whether of theoretical or experimental nature.
Furthermore, I also ask:
- And, if there are such attempts to actually quantize space, are they consistent with the so far collected physical data and successful models constructed so far?
and the answers seem to address some consistency with data and other models while possible inconsistencies are almost not mentioned at all, even if they are only of theoretical nature.
And, furthermore, this is included in the private feedback:
Your post has been associated with a similar question. If this question doesn’t resolve your question, ask a new one.
So, even the edit of the question (which is even not needed) does not resolve this issue but all the effort I included is supposed to be futile since there is a suggestion to ask a new question.
Observe that my question is not about re-opening of the question I asked but about abuse of moderator rights.
Specifically, it seems as the question I posted was closed with just a quick glance over it, and without detailed and analyzed attempts to observe how much it is different from the linked question.
Because of that, I would like to know what moderators think about this abuse of moderator rights and what is the procedure that needs to be done when things similar to this one happen?
Edit: After some responses I can agree that was not an abuse of moderator rights, but rather misuse of moderator rights.