1
$\begingroup$

This question was closed as being about "non-mainstream physics" and/or a personal theory, and I don't understand why.

In the question, I asked two things:

  1. for the possibility of a certain effect (see question), and
  2. whether that effect has been experimentally observed.

I don't know how "non-mainstream physics" or "personal theory" are defined here, but I guess it is a nicer way to say "crackpottery". However, I don't think that question 1) would fall into it, and question 2) certainly not, since it is only a factual question.

Or perhaps I am mistaken in my assumption, and these two terms mean something completely different. In any case, I would like to know, why is this question about "non-mainstream physics"?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know how "non-mainstream physics" or "personal theory" are defined here..." Did you read the help section of this website? $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 26 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538 $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Aug 26 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, and according to that definition, my question is not about non-mainstream physics; however, it was closed anyway. That's why I asked. $\endgroup$
    – BlenderBender
    Commented Aug 28 at 8:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-19
$\begingroup$

Don't bother. These gatekeepers close questions to get their "fix" of stars, points, or whatever StackExchange gives them. I've asked some "how do you do this type of physics" questions because... well, I'm an "aspiring physicist," and @Qmechanic et al go around and close them. I'm thankful that this Inquisition-style tactic isn't employed in the whole of physics or else I'd be aspiring for quite a while longer.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ You are posting this likely because you are dissatisfied with the closure of your recent question. There is no need to take things personally. There is no "gatekeeping" going on. We simply don't take certain types of questions. Nothing is preventing you from asking it elsewhere where it would be on topic. If you wish to challenge the closure of your question, ask a new question here on meta. $\endgroup$
    – Vincent Thacker
    Commented Aug 30 at 6:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That is certainly the proverbial last straw. It is ABSOLUTELY gatekeeping. Nearly 20% of the questions I run across here have been closed because of similar reasons. You all are divining the motives of the question authors! If there is a single scientist that made their journey without the explicit help of another, I'd concede. Whether the question is "can someone show me how..." or "what is the answer to..." it doesn't matter. We've all had similar questions. $\endgroup$
    – AspiringPhysicist
    Commented Aug 31 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ @AspiringPhysicist With the advent of generative AI and the downfall of community culture, these Q&A sites become increasingly irrelevant. Who needs to have petty arguments over mintuae with midwit tyrants, when you can obtain that same information from someone who is impartial and doesn't have an ego that needs constant stroking? $\endgroup$
    – BlenderBender
    Commented Sep 7 at 18:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @BlenderBender As a midwit tyrant in need of a good ego-stroking, I agree that AI can be mostly used for the purpose of checking work and such. But when you need the nitty-gritty of interpretations or explanations, nothing sort out the minutiae better than having petty arguments with an actual person. That said, most of us have learned the hard way that we don't have the bandwidth to answer "do my work" or "what if my idea is correct" questions all day. The former never ends (and is morally dubious) and the latter results in the odd "crackpot" stalking us $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Sep 13 at 19:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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