3
$\begingroup$

I have been asking fairly general questions in this site related basic 12th standard physics but could get very little answers. I got delayed responses and still could not get some really workable answers. Even the number of solutions are very less.

I think people here should discuss ways to increase the number of participants in this site at this stage. Is it possible to attract people from other Q&A sites to this site?

$\endgroup$

closed as not constructive by user68 Jun 27 '11 at 18:43

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3
$\begingroup$

While I don't speak for anyone else, you questions to date have not been very interesting to me. I haven't felt any drive to answer them.

  1. "Finding direction" has an ill-specified title and can be answered out of an encycopedia, or with a few minutes doodling on a pad.
  2. "How to place a mirror parallel to a wall" [without doing the obvious thing and measuring or shimming it] just made me shrug. Without explaining you motivation it just seems silly.
  3. "Is nature symmetric between particles and antiparticles?" is general reference.
  4. "How to find the principal point in an image?" Finally! This one is potentially interesting. But, I don't know the answer. ::sigh::
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear dmckee, I would like to give a point wise reply. 1. I newer heard or it earlier. I sincerely though it to be an original idea. May be you are right with the title thing. 2. The reason I asked this question is that we are performing here a gaze tracking experiment and me need to create a reference points for ground truth. They should be very precise hence I abstained myself from direct measurement and asked for an optical method. 3. After watching a leture of Dr. Feynman this doubt came to my mind as he was discussing and describing if there can be any way tell any aliens about how we(cont $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ 4.This again is related to what I am performing in my lab. I am actually trying to place a camera perfectly perpendicular to a mirror. To do this I need to know the co-ordinates of principle point. $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was always trying to be very specific and was trying to place the actual problem which I was facing at anytime. $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 16:31
-2
$\begingroup$

You are welcome to support Theorethical Phycics proposal, which will be a site 10.3x less crappy than this one, and thus will gather many more great answerers.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I wish you all the good luck for theoretical physics site, but I really have no idea about this stream of physics. Making a separate site for theoretical physics will be detrimental to both this and the new site as we already have crunch of people for support. How can you guarantee that your site will be able to survive if this site cant? I guess before making the proposal its a point worth pondering $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 8:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Theor-ethical physics? Like how does one measure the momentum of evil? $\endgroup$ – wsc Jun 27 '11 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ The theoretical physics proposal was started by and caters to people who objected to the fact that we allow anything less than research-level questions on this site. So it perhaps really should be called "Research Physics" or something like that. @bubble, I would expect that that would be an even worse place for you to find answers to your questions, since they're certainly not research-level questions. $\endgroup$ – David Z Jun 27 '11 at 17:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No-one admires my sarcasm :-( $\endgroup$ – user68 Jun 27 '11 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ @David I agree. $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ @David I feel that their proposal should be merged with this site or something. A new site for theoretical physics will only reduce the user numbers in both sites $\endgroup$ – bubble Jun 27 '11 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ @mbq: hm, well perhaps you're too good at it ;-p $\endgroup$ – David Z Jun 27 '11 at 19:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bubble: I would like that too, but I guess the people supporting that other proposal don't want to have to deal with the "low-level" questions we have here at all. (To be fair, in the early days of this site, when the TP proposal was made, the level here was much lower than it is now) If you think you can make a good case that the TP people can have their needs met here, then feel free to try to convince them. Perhaps it's something that can be discussed in our chat room. $\endgroup$ – David Z Jun 27 '11 at 19:09

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