0
$\begingroup$

2 days ago a group of people Listed here:"Red Act, Brandon Enright, Danu, JamalS [and] John Rennie" put my question on hold as off topic. I refuted their claim that I was off topic and gave 2 quotes from this very website stating a question like mine was indeed on topic and have gotten no response whatsoever ever. I find it extraordinary that a wrongly accused questioned stay on hold and unreviewed for so long especially considering after 5 days the question gets permanently closed. I now have less than 3 days until it's closed so if an authority figure such as an admin could review my question on behalf of the website I would greatly appreciate the correction.

The atom, solid or liquid?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is worth noting that there is no actual difference between "on-hold" and "closed"; both phrases represent the same state. The difference in vocabulary was established as a way of indicating to new users that the state is not automatically permanent and can be reversed. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Oct 18 '14 at 0:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "I refuted their claim that I was off topic and gave 2 quotes from this very website stating a question like mine was indeed on topic and have gotten no response whatsoever ever." No, you didn't refute anything; check the meta post on the role of precedents: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5799. $\endgroup$ – JamalS Oct 18 '14 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ "so if an authority figure such as an admin could review my question on behalf of the website"... good grief, are you a sad cat? youtube.com/watch?v=PKffm2uI4dk $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Oct 19 '14 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ No one has adressed the two quotes I left saying my question is acceptable, also if no personal ideas are allowed the why is there a "perception" tag? $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 0:42
  • $\begingroup$ 1) "Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena" are considered acceptable. $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ 2) "a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK." $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ Those are literally from the site, if that isn't good enough for the moderators then I really don't know what is. I will try to state my main arguments here once more and afterwords I'm not going to bother with this anymore. I am simply how to imagine an atom through perception. For instance if we know an atom has a repulsive force the closer something gets to it, One could simply say that the closer you moved your hand to it the more resistance you would feel. I am not asking what it might be like to break the rules of physics, but how I might better understand the atom using a normal human $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ method, called imagination, the root and fundamental process of all thought a person has. $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 12:44
6
$\begingroup$

When an on-hold question is updated it goes into the review queue and all users with >3k rep see it. I did see your question in the review queue and I voted to leave it closed. I would guess the same applies to all the other reviewers.

The reason why I voted to close your question, then voted against reopening it, is that it can't be answered using the laws of physics because you propose a physically impossible situation. Your question even concedes that:

If I were to break the laws of the universe and shrink down to the size of a nucleus

(my emphasis)

The long term aim of this site is to provide a definitive searchable resource for anyone interested in Physics. That means we expect answers to be based on impeccable physical reasoning and we downvote and close answers that do not meet this standard. It is impossible to answer your question whilst maintaining the standards expected of answers posted here, and that's why your question was closed and remains closed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ +1: If we had a list of canonical answers, this should be on it. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Oct 19 '14 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ It's a figure of speech Rennie, the question would still stand without that specific piece so just for you I will remove that section. $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 20 '14 at 0:37
  • $\begingroup$ @DiamondLouisXIV: you have comprehensively missed the point. You're still asking how an atom would feel, and that can't be answered in any physically meaningful way. You could ask about interatomic potentials i.e. the force between two atoms as they are brought together, though I'd check first that this hasn't been asked before. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Oct 20 '14 at 5:38
4
$\begingroup$

Your question was reviewed by a moderator, whose decision - leaving it on-hold - reflects that the question still suffers from the problem for which it was closed.

It's unusual for further information to be left in these cases; unless there's something specific that you could do to alter the question such that it would be allowed here, there's really nothing more to say.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So in essence after a person supposedly fixes their question, we can just assume that is has been reviewed however we don't, for sure, have a set time after the correction that it will be reviewed. Therefore there is no way to tell when it was reviewed however after this unknown time, x has passed we must assume that it has been reviewed and try to fix it again? Am I the only one who sees a problem here. I have clearly shown using quotes from the meta post used in the link of the "off topic" section which says I am topical and I think I deserve either a un-hold or at least some explanation. $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 18 '14 at 0:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your comment definitly implies that when a question is put on hold for a certain reason that the members were right in deciding that it was. It implies that the asker was definitely wrong and gives no way to prove that the 'accusers' were incorrect. $\endgroup$ – Diamond Louis XIV Oct 18 '14 at 1:34
4
$\begingroup$

The problem with your question is that it deals with counterfactual physics. These are only on-topic in a few cases but this is far from that. There is no way to answer your question because the situation you ask about would not happen within real physics. To get an answer you'd have to extend the laws of physics to that case and the are multiple, non-unique ways to do that. Hence your question is more about science fiction than science.

Regarding the review procedure, it worked pretty much as intended. Your edit was really minor and does not really warrant a specific response. You do have to assume that after a day or so (but usually a few hours), your edit has been seen and deemed insufficient. Your options then are to continue editing, or ask on meta for further guidance, which you did. (That said, a less confrontational attitude where you simply ask why exactly your question was thought off-topic, and how you can fix it, will be a lot easier to work with and will make less people not bother with a confrontational post.)

You are correct that the closure text does not completely cover what's wrong with your question. This is by design: we have a small number of canned closure reasons and we get more personal theories than counterfactual queries. In a case like this it is good practice to leave a comment explaining why it's off-topic, which Red Act did, before the question was closed. Until you had actually addressed that, there's little point in providing further input.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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