New answers tagged

0

NO Physics.SE should not undergo a 30 day test with 3 votes required to close and reopen questions.


10

YES Physics.SE should undergo a 30 day test with 3 votes required to close and reopen questions.


3

This has (mostly) already been called out on this answer to the announcement on the Mother Meta, which discusses the protected-question banner on more general grounds. This issue should be raised on the Mother Meta, either as a comment on that answer pointing out that the wording is especially awkward if you're the OP, or as a separate answer (probably ...


1

Technically speaking, it is really plagiarism to copy & paste answers to multiple questions and should be addressed via custom moderator flag indicating it as such. Downvotes & comments on such a post are likely expected, I would also think. At the very least, leave a comment informing the user that this is not typical/expected behavior for ...


4

I am not sure there is a "community consensus", but it shouldn't be done. If the same exact answer can be used for multiple questions, then it is most likely that the questions are duplicates.$^*$ If a user is just copying and posting the same exact answer to various questions, and the answers don't really apply to the questions, then this is what flags are ...


6

As mentioned in the comments, the status and reasons for this change are discussed in detail in the thread New Post Notices are live network-wide on Meta Stack Exchange, as well as the linked blog posts and mother-meta threads. In particular, this answer raises the specific complaint that the new off-topic closures don't show the specific closure sub-reason ...


2

I do not see how it is possible to answer this using physics principle. I suppose all engineering is physics (or stamp collecting) but one would need tables of various properties of materials. This is IMO mainstream engineering.


5

Engineering? I disagree. There simply isn’t a question about designing or building things there. The question is about the variation of a physical outcome as a function of a (or several) physical parameters. In particular, engineering shouldn’t mean “this issue is complicated for practical reasons” as that applies to experimental questions. Now, the ...


3

To me, this is definitely a complicated question that depends a lot on the engineering specifics. If it had stuck to the question in the title, and asked primarily about that in relation to faster bullets, other things equal, I could maybe see the case that it's on topic as conceptual. I'll address your points as best I can. A bullet penetrating a plate ...


4

Besides the points made in the answers by David Z & Emilio Pisanty, make sure to mention in the question lecturer, title, etc, of video, so the link can be recreated in case of link rot. minute in video, so the reader doesn't have to watch the entire video.


7

In general, we expect posts to be self contained so that all details needed are provided & users do not have to go off-site to find out what you're really questioning. Hence, you should provide a link for additional reference to the post, but it should not be a requirement to understand what it is you are looking at and/or questioning. Ben's comment ...


13

Ask in the Physics chat room. This is exactly what the chat room is intended for. What response you get depends on who is in the chat room and how much free time they have, but it costs nothing to ask and the worst that can happen is that no-one answers.


1

Is it removed from the forum completely? No. In your example you have given a link that still works, so it has not been deleted Is it no longer searchable? No. One can still search for questions that are on hold. Just take a question that is on hold and search for it to confirm this. Is it no longer visible but rather archived. Is it visible still ...


17

A better site for open discussion is physicsforums. This is not what SE does. Vixra is populated with kooks.


8

There is a lot of incorrect expectations by new users of this site. This is not a social network to discuss random physics, so "what if", non-mainstream and otherwise overly speculative questions are discouraged, along with homework-style questions. The style has evolved to this out of the necessity of avoiding pollution. Unfortunately, too many junior ...


11

Welcome to Physics SE. I am sorry if you have felt like the site is not welcoming to new users, but I think your feelings come from some misunderstandings of how the site works and the intent of its mechanisms, rules, etc. First, down votes are not personal. A down vote on a question means that a user thinks the question is poorly written, does not follow ...


3

tpg2114's answer is a great commentary on your specific post. For a more general view on answers that are "near complete" homework solutions, it seems to be a common trend that if a question should be closed as being an off topic homework question, then answers to this question will most likely be "near complete" solutions. Of course this is not a hard and ...


4

Looking back at the Q&A you are asking about (both Q&A have been deleted, but here is the link for 10k users), I would actually argue that the answer is essentially a complete answer. It's actually closer to "complete" than "near complete" in my view. The only step the answer omitted was solving a quadratic equation -- the answer even said which of ...


7

This is my own opinion, but I think it depends on the role of the unrealistic physics in the question. I ultimately agree with the attitude expressed in JMac's answer on the fictional physics post you link to. If an answer to the question would rely on false physics, then the question should be closed as off topic. However, if the unrealistic physics/fiction ...


7

In cases like this, where the post appears to have no value at all besides to promote something, I wouldn't hesitate to flag it as spam. Having a post deleted as spam helps limit the rate at which spammers can continue to spam, and if the penalties turn out not to be warranted, we moderators can later clear the spam flags and remove the penalties.


5

No, there is no such thing as being shadow banned on the SE network. The user in question has a question deleted as "spam or offensive," which carries a -100 reputation penalty.


1

It seems your specific question is fundamentally a physics question (in the area of statistical physics) rather than a math question. It should be migrated to Phys.SE rather than being crossposted.


5

I think the situation you mention is best described by the idiom "If you can't beat it, lead it". People who would be able to find a duplicate, or downvote a poor answer, are confronted with a crowd of new users coming from the HNQ link, who typically have 101 rep and for this reason cannot downvote or VTC, even if they agree. All they can do is upvote. ...


4

First, I would reconsider your assumption that the question was closed purely because it asked about negative mass. The only way to know for sure is if those who voted to close decide comment on your question (which can no longer happen since you deleted it) or decide to post here. Typically, questions here are not closed purely because of their topic. ...


6

General comments (not addressing OP's specific question): Questions on negative effective mass are on-topic. Questions on particles with imaginary mass (tachyons) and/or negative mass are non-mainstream, and therefore often off-topic. Questions on fields with imaginary mass (tachyonic fields) are on-topic.


13

I think the main effect by which the HNQ questions harm our site is completely disconnected from their quality: They drown out smaller topics, and they favour questions with non-technical answers. Their topics are either classical/quantum mechanics at (at most) undergraduate level, questions about everyday life situations or something some pop-science ...


Top 50 recent answers are included