# How can I make my question On topic? 2

I asked a question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.
I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So

• Should I explain more how my question is about "Mathematical Physics"
• Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?
• It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?
• Is my question a bad question, why?
• To be clear, the tag mathematical-physics does not apply. It is intended for questions which fall within the field of Mathematical Physics, whose scope is well described by Wikipedia. Your question is simply about multiplication. I might add that a stubborn insistence on this and other such points really does more harm than good to your case for the on-topic-ness of your question. – Emilio Pisanty Apr 25 '14 at 15:43
• I am tired of these things. I have got some good response at Math.SE. You guys keep closing and downvoting. I am better at Math.SE. I always tried to post answers and help others, Huh what I got, can't even ask a question. This is not a physics website. This is a political, hard and fast, expert-level website with strict policies, rule etc. I am outnumbered. I might be banned too now. – user31782 Apr 25 '14 at 16:29
• Why would you be banned? – Kyle Kanos Apr 25 '14 at 16:35
• Each Stack Exchange site has it's own culture and set it's own rules inside the wider SE culture (and there are exceptions to most rules). The fact that Math SE is OK with your very basic, unresearched math questions does not imply that Physics SE will (or should) be happy with their physics equivalents. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 25 '14 at 21:38
• I also want to emphasize @EmilioPisanty's point about the tag "mathematical physics". That phrase means something very specific to a physicist, and claiming that the question you've linked should have that tag isn't even wrong: it shows a total misunderstanding of what the phase means. And while it is a common misunderstanding among laymen--note the first sentence of the tag wiki excerpt--we are still going to use that phrase our way and no other way. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 25 '14 at 21:44
• I never asked a question without researching. I know how much research other questions show. I will find some other beginner physics.com. – user31782 Apr 26 '14 at 4:02
• @dmckee For the record I have asked 12 questions on Math.SE with the research as far as I could. I ask a question on Math.SE only when reading the researched material does not give my answer. – user31782 Apr 26 '14 at 4:33
• Your new question is still off-topic because you ask something about mathematics. It's true that the author uses physics, but you question is about mathematical definitions. – jinawee Apr 26 '14 at 9:18
• @jinawee My question is :"The physics concept that the author used is correct or not?". – user31782 Apr 26 '14 at 9:24
• @jinawee I have forgotten it. – user31782 Apr 26 '14 at 9:57
• @KyleKanos I would be banned because of this:meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5690/… – user31782 May 12 '14 at 5:05
• @user31782: You realize that the -3 next to his post means that people don't agree with his position? Or were you saying that your comment to his post would be leading to a ban? – Kyle Kanos May 12 '14 at 12:31
• @KyleKanos Yes the comment(s). – user31782 May 12 '14 at 13:34
• @user31782: I see. So you're actively trying to get yourself banned now? Not sure why you want that, but that's your prerogative. – Kyle Kanos May 12 '14 at 14:05

I voted to close your question because you posed it as an experiment on Physics.SE users and not physics (you've twice now eliminated the disclaimer stating this).

As you've re-written it, it appears that your question is merely, Why did the author assume the commutative & associative properties at this point? The answer may not be known (especially without looking at the ~70 year old book) or it might be a guessing game. Either way, I do not think it is worth re-opening.

Edit:

What should I do now?


You cannot expedite the process, so the best you can do is hope that your pleas sway 3k+ voters to re-open it

Should I explain more how my question is about Physics?


I don't see how it's about physics period, it appears to me to be purely about the associative & commutative laws of algebra. You probably could post it on Math.SE for a reasonable answer.

Should I quote the whole artical [sic] from the referred book?


That might be a case of Too Long; Didn't Read (TL;DR). Personally, I think you've done enough to show what the article is stating, I just think it's a bad question.

It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?


As stated above, probably Math.SE because it's not about physics (at least as far as I can read into it).

• My question is not:"Why did the author assume the commutative & associative properties at this point?". The current version of my question is closed for the reason "it is not a physics question" not because "The answer may not be known". And I am flagging your answer as "not an answer" because you are not answering my specific question:"How can I make my question On topic" – user31782 Apr 25 '14 at 12:49
• @user31782: I've edited the answer to answer your 4 questions. – Kyle Kanos Apr 25 '14 at 12:58
• Kyle, If it is the prohibition of commutative,associative laws then I have ejected this root. Also I have edited my question. I don't think Math.SE welcomes physics related questions. – user31782 Apr 25 '14 at 13:13
• Your main question still states this "confusion" with the multiplication of negative numbers: Shouldn't+40\times-5=+200?. – Kyle Kanos Apr 25 '14 at 13:20
• Mathematics doesn't define multiplication of negative numbers on the surface of some physics concept. That book is using physics to explain the Math. If the explanation that the author has given is incorrect then that would mean the physics concept which he used is incorrect. Mathematicians wont answer my question because Physics is not their business. – user31782 Apr 25 '14 at 13:25
• I'm not much interested in a debate. I think your question is a bad question and not worth voting to reopen it. You've already voiced & acted in disagreement with my opinion, there's not much else to say. – Kyle Kanos Apr 25 '14 at 13:28

As you originally phrased your question it seemed as if you weren't really that interested in an answer and the point was to see if if got closed. I suspect the original question is beyond recovery and if you're really interested you should pose it as a new question.

Incidentally the answer is that you're mixing up the perception of the flow of time with time. Time is just a coordinate that extends to the positive and negative of some arbitrarily chosen point (as is space). If you wish to experience time moving from 0 to -5 you can do, and of course you would see the direction of motion reversed, but this doesn't change the sign of quantities like dx/dt.

• Should I delete it and ask a completely new question? Although I have also posted this on Math.SE. Regarding the question: it is not that much simple. The velocity in that context is not $dx/dt$ because division is not yet been defined. – user31782 Apr 26 '14 at 8:51
• It's your choice whether to delete the question on Physics, but I think it might be a good idea to do so. Then if you honestly want an answer, see if you get one on Mathematics. Remember questions are usually not supposed to be cross-posted to multiple SE sites. – David Z Apr 26 '14 at 16:48
• @DavidZ I have to undelete it because I do not want to get banned again. – user31782 May 8 '14 at 8:17
• @user31782 you don't have to undelete it. You won't be blocked from asking because of a single deleted question. – David Z May 8 '14 at 19:25
• @DavidZ The rest of my question which I have deleted are worse than this one. I will undelete them slowly one by one after improving the formatting but I had to start from somewhere. This question had at least not so much formatting errors. If I undelete any of my other questions it will get more downvotes. So I had to undelete this question. You need not to worry; comm mod has done his job. – user31782 May 9 '14 at 9:05