1
$\begingroup$

My question was put on hold 5 days ago.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206880/the-mechanics-of-accelerating-a-massive-body-in-a-vacuum

The mechanics of accelerating a massive body in a Vacuum [closed]

I did edit the question as I was told that it was on hold because it was too vague.(and that I should amend it)

I hoped I had narrowed the question to make it more answerable .

I waited 5 days to be told whether I would get an answer to my now edited question but the question has just passed from "on hold" to "closed" without an explanation.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

I think there are actually quite a few reasons this question isn't appropriate for the site:

  • It's too broad. You're asking for an open-ended list.
  • It's an engineering question (you're asking how to accomplish some task, presumably by building a device), not a physics question
  • It's so blatantly not physics, in fact, that people may be assuming you must be describing a physics question and simply doing a really bad job of it. Under that assumption, it's not clear what is the actual physics you're asking about.

I can't really think of a way to fix your question without fundamentally changing what it's asking, and that sort of a change will have to come from you. It may be best to just give up on this question. You can keep trying to fix it up if you like, but I just don't know what to tell you about how to do that.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The reviewers do evidently not agree with you (one voted to reopen, three voted to leave closed) that you narrowed down the question sufficiently. In my view, it still asks for a list of possible propulsion methods, adding "in a vacuum" does not remove that.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Surely there are extremely few methods of accelerating a massless object in a vacuum.I can only think of magnetic propulsion and gravitational methods plus rocket propulsion.True I was asking for a list but I only expected it to be very small in number. $\endgroup$ – geordief Sep 19 '15 at 15:24
1
$\begingroup$

The reasoning is because it IS too vague. What kind of massive body? What's your definition of massive? Cars are pretty massive. Just put it in neutral and start pushing down a hill. You wouldn't even require a vacuum for that.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A massive body is surely just a body with mass- as opposed to a body without mass (like a photon) $\endgroup$ – geordief Sep 19 '15 at 15:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ While your question is clear to you, multiple people have now indicated here and in the review process that it is not clear to them - instead of arguing, it might be a better use of your, and our, time to figure out exactly what you want to ask. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Sep 19 '15 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ I have already been told that "I can't really think of a way to fix your question without fundamentally changing what it's asking, " so I might as well give up because noone here is willing to help. And I anticipate that if I continue trying to clarify and be more specific I will just be met with new objections.I have a better use of my time.Bye $\endgroup$ – geordief Sep 19 '15 at 20:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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