# Tag Info

## Hot answers tagged reopen

30

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

13

First, note that not all homework related questions are off topic here. However... I wasn't interested in learning or understanding any physics methods; my interest was to find out whether 13 is indeed the answer for the problem in question. It's the Devil's dozen that made me interested. For me, the value of the posted solutions is that they prove that 13 ...

13

Your question does not ask a conceptual question about physics, it simply asks users to solve the exercise you call "the Devil's problem". That you ask us to solve the exercise not by saying "Solve this for me" but by asking whether a given number is the answer doesn't change anything in my eyes - how is an answer supposed to make the ...

12

Yeah, I think that makes sense. The question in its current form seems like just the kind of thing the new recommendation policy is designed to encourage, and we should definitely have one open question about intro QM books. (Of course we also have to make sure the answers are in shape, but that can happen whenever.) Since this is an active meta discussion ...

10

Questions which are edited are put into a queue to be reviewed for reopening. This is the primary mechanism by which questions get reopened after being put on hold. Flagging for moderator attention is a backup option, to be used when the review process isn't working - either because the question is too old to be reviewed, or, if you really believe that the ...

10

Based on some of the comments (now deleted), it looks like the first user who voted to close did so because they were focusing on how the OP was trying to apply scaling space to Newton's second law. Perhaps the first user figured that the OP was talking about their own theory of scaling space then? Although in my (speculative) opinion, this user seemed upset ...

9

This is a question that would help with the understanding of specific heat and conductivity and which has a greater effect when it comes to transfer of energy between objects. If the question is about that, then it should be clear that this is what it's about. In other words, the question could be something like: "How do the thermal conductivity and ...

9

Even though you have eliminated an explicit reference to opinion, this does not change the fact that IMO the question is still opinion-based. I can answer yes/no/I think so/I don’t think so without reference to any physical law or principle, and my answer would be just as good as anybody else’s.

8

You're asking for a list of theories, which is a question without the potential of having a "correct" answer and is usually seen as too broad around here. See e.g. Good list, bad list and its linked questions for prior meta discussion of questions asking for lists

8

I do agree that it's not really a duplicate; but it should remain closed. For one thing, it's hard to understand the question behind the huge rant. Your rant seems to entirely focus on how unclear some people are when they discuss the "number of atoms in the universe". From what I've understood, you seem to have an issue with how some people choose to ...

8

I have a degree of sympathy for your position, and had I seen the question before it was closed I would have posted an answer. But my answer would be that you have misunderstood what we mean by the term photon. Have a look at my answer to Do photons truly exist in a physical sense or are they just a useful concept like $i = \sqrt{-1}$? Photons are only a ...

8

I did imply in my question that I wanted to see a solution, but that was merely because I wanted to verify. I wanted to get convinced whether 13 is the answer. We call these check-my-work questions. Yours is exceptionally interesting, and perhaps the community will vote to reopen it on that merit. But generally check-my-work questions are not high-quality, ...

7

I don't support reopening this question (currently, revision 3) because I think it has a couple of issues that justify it being put on hold: First, as enumaris brought up in the comments, This will depend a lot on the mass of the black hole and how close the approach is. There's no way to answer this question without further parameters. Basically, there ...

7

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce ...

7

This should be an easy answer. Yes. We should trial this. Stack Overflow tried it and were really happy with the results. And that's just what it is, a "trial". Rather than speculating on what the ups or downs of this could be, we have the opportunity to experimentally determine the true situation. If it doesn't work well, we don't adopt it permanently. If ...

7

I agree that it's not really a homework question, though pasting a screenshot of the problem they're working on certainly looks like our everyday HW problem, but as you stated, Possibly it could be closed as being unclear, because the problem itself is not sufficiently defined. But this can be easily rectified. OP requested an explanation but didn't ...

6

I think the question is now perfectly acceptable, and I personally would vote to reopen it. That being said, it's not very good for the community moderation model if I go around closing and opening things willy-nilly. Your question was reviewed twice since you edited it (first review, second review, and all four reviewers thought it was still inappropriate ...

6

While I can't speak for DavidZ, I will say that I voted to close due to "primarily opinion based". DavidZ picked the engineering reason, so his vote reason is what is shown (to users with high enough reputation). The reason I chose to close as such is because answers to questions like these usually involve much speculation. Usually the OP either doesn't, ...

6

Honestly: your question is not very good for the site. Ignoring losses, does that mean a AA battery could theoretically lift 10,620.9 pounds, 1 foot high? YES. But of course, that’s not a very enlightening answer. The next paragraph talks about efficiencies, but it’s not possible to answer “what’s the best efficiency you can hope for” as this would ...

6

I am the OP in question and I feel like I should post some clarifications, since some people seem to be jumping to even further conclusions than I did in the post. I don't think there is anything non-mainstream about my question, it was mostly a question about sloppy maths and I was well aware that I was in the wrong when I posted it but couldn't see why ...

6

If you were just looking for someone to confirm that the answer to the problem was 13 without showing any work, I don't see how that would make the question a better fit for the site. To me, that would be off topic as a "check my work" type question, and a particularly bad one because no work was shown. An answer of "yes" would not be ...

5

My question How can a black hole reduce the speed of light? has gone through this cycle when I raised its closure on meta: Why more than a thousand views for my 'closed' question?

5

As pointed out in the comments here, this question is absolutely too broad. That's pretty much always the case for "what could happen if ...?" questions which don't further restrict their scope. Your comment on the original question kind of makes the point: We might discover new particles, and perhaps new forms of interaction. We might also get a lot ...

5

As someone who voted to close, I would say you cannot make this question on-topic because it is inherently not about physics - it is about choosing some model for how an archer aims/shoots/hits a target and then computing the outcomes of that model for the two different paths. But it is not apparent what the physical aspect of this question is, and ...

5

If you had a question about fluid dynamics and wave formation then that's physics. Why waves might look like mythical creatures is not.

5

I would personally have used the "too broad" close reason rather than "non-mainstream" to close your off-topic question. The experimental evidence supporting conservation of energy is a central part of a year-long introductory physics course, talking up most of two chapters of a typical introductory textbook. Your question is answerable, but it contains so ...

5

These are my takes on the subject: Are there guidelines for reopening questions? A question should be reopened when there are no reasons why it should be closed. That simple. This means that If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed, should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes ...

5

The “single person” who closed your question is a moderator who is intentionally empowered to close questions unilaterally. The Edit link is still there after the question is closed, but the edit history shows that you have not made use of it. May I ask why not? If you will excuse my saying so, it seems that you prefer to complain that the moderator is ...

5

Yes. As stated here, both reopen and close votes expire after a certain period of time: For a question with less than 100 views, they expire one per day after 14 days. Otherwise they expire once per day, starting 4 days after the last vote was cast.

5

I'm going to say no, it should not be reopened, at least not in its current form, though of course I voted to close it in the first place so that's not saying much new :-p The reason I voted to close it is basically that your question is just asking how some fairly arbitrary thing happened. We get quite a few questions that, like yours, tell us about ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible