# Tag Info

-2

After doing some research on this particular question, I found out that my initial notion of the issue was entirely wrong. I have therefore voted to delete that answer and submit one based on more in depth study. It is strange to realize, but the site policy to suppress opinion based questions and answers is not due to judgement or preference as a product of ...

-3

This seems like a completely legitimate question. It's effectively 'how can I find an accurate surface area of some real world, fairly complex shape'. Then, requiring an approximate amount of material to cover a certain number of these shapes given that there would be a variance in their exact shape is another layer of complexity. I don't think the comedic ...

6

Welcome to Physics! In its current form (v4) it’s unclear to me what your post is asking about. One symptom: it does not appear to contain a question that ends in a question mark. Your self-answer suggests that you have solved the problem you were having by locating a factor of two. That’s typical of check-my-work questions, which our community has decided ...

1

I know this gets downvoted to the ground every time I suggest it, but I still think the best option by far is to move these questions to Worldbuilding. Worldbuilding.SE is all about fun, often physics-inspired questions, which rack up tons of questionably-correct but entertaining answers. The questions are already written in the characteristic Worldbuilding ...

-2

If it's a duplicate, then it should be closed. But not because it is a bit silly. As far as I remember, math problems I had to solve in elementary school were not realistic either. However is it a true duplicate? I would not be so sure. It seems people forget chicken have wings and feathers. If this is about area, there is some fractal like complex area to ...

5

In my own experience, I VTC as opinion based if the question is asking something subjective, or has some element that users could disagree on and there is no correct position. I can somewhat see it for this question in its current form, although it might be a little harsh. I'll still go through what might have happened. In this this particular example, we ...

5

At a top level independent of the questions you linked to here, it's important to remember that applying site policies is done by humans, and humans aren't perfect at implementing things -- so there are always going to be examples where something is closed that maybe shouldn't be, or something didn't get closed that should be, and so on. It also tends to ...

7

Yes, the question is on-topic. Measuring the surface area of an object is either on-topic or it is not. It is absurd to suggest that measuring the surface area of a rock is on-topic, but measuring the surface area of a chicken is not. And it seems to be very well-established that the current duplicate target, How do I experimentally measure the surface area ...

5

The question is imprecise in many respects. Is one looking for an average area or for the area of individual chickens? In my world there’s no chicken army so what other assumptions on the chicken should be made? How accurate need to be the estimate? Would a typical spherical chicken work (seems like it to me!) or does one need to use an spheroid or ...

10

The issue I take with the question is its nonsensical context ("building a chicken army to conquer the world"). If the question were just about "How do I measure the surface area of an irregular object, e.g. a chicken", it would be fine. However, editing the question this way would make a lot of the answers look odd, since they are ...

5

Yes I tend to agree with @GiorgioP that the question is technically about physics. My own answer has involved physics on two levels: Archimedes method for measuring volume Scaling approach to relating volume and surface Both clearly make a part of physics. No Having said that, I however concede that the question is low-level and is rather about engineering....

-6

Why should measuring a surface area be different from measuring a cross-section area? This cross-section is what particle physicists are very interested in (more often the cross-section is said to be the probability that two particles will collide and react in a certain way). High-energy particle physics is considered even the crown of physics. A huge body ...

19

Suppose the question had asked “How do I find the approximate volume of an asteroid ?”. I doubt there would be any serious arguments for closing that question. If we are happy to accept a volume/asteroid question then why should we reject a surface area/chicken question ? Estimating volume is on-topic for PSE but estimating surface area isn’t ?? But that ...

3

"Fun" is subjective. As long as the question follows the site policies then it should stay on the site. If it doesn't follow site policy it should be closed. It doesn't matter what else you think about the question. Therefore "fun" questions can be either on-topic or off-topic. Note that "being about physics" is not a sufficient ...

10

Disclaimer: I did not give closing or reopening votes for the surface area of the chicken question. I have to say that this is one of the few times I completely disagree with Emilio Pisanty's opinion, usually so wise and equilibrate. Let's forget the funny context the question has been asked. The real problem is how to estimate the surface area of the ...

4

As long as the fun context contains a genuine and interesting question about Physics, I do not see any reason for considering off-topics. Of course, people should not abuse this style and one has to consider that what may sound funny, in some cases, could be considered offensive for someone else. However, I am more concerned by the proposal to close such ...

3

This was mentioned in Emilio's answer, but I wanted to draw attention to it. Especially because the relevance to physics here is a red herring IMO. The reason I voted to close this question was because there is no definitive answer that can be accepted as the right answer (the OP could actually accept an answer, but that's not the point I'm making here). To ...

-2

Move to Worldbuilding ? I would suggest it is more suited to Worldbuilding SE than Physics. There is no real physics concept here. It's just how do I approximate a surface area of a complex object. This (as someone commented on) is Spherical Cow territory. Now the question itself related to armor for an army of chickens. I think it would be on topic there....

7

Here is my opinion on this. Personally, I think that it is not a problem to start with some fun context. It can spark interest in the reader and encourage them to read the complete post or answer it. However, I think that the "fun context" should be clearly separated from the actual question (which should of course be about physics) and should not ...

20

My take on it: No, this question is nowhere near on-topic. It is simply not about physics. I agree it's a fun question, and that this can make it attractive to some people. But we don't set the site scope depending on whether questions are fun or not $-$ the site scope is physics, and questions are judged against that standard. And the fact of the matter is, ...

3

Consolidating some ideas expressed in the comments here... This is a Q&A site. We want questions that have a single, definitive answer that will not change in time rather than open-ended questions that might need to be updated in the future. "What are the current research problems in ..." is too broad of a question; there could be many answers ...

7

Back in the day we used to close this type of questions with a custom close reason: I am voting to close this question as off-topic because it shows insufficient prior research. with a link to this meta post. I just checked the stats and it seems we haven't been using this anymore, I wonder what happened. But anyway, that is always a valid close reason (if ...

2

The limiting standard is in part already there: if it's non-mainstream it should be closed. This is not a discussion forum so speculative questions have limited value unless they are grounded in solid physics and can be answered using physics principle. Thus, it is speculative and out of place to ask if one could increase the density of angels on a headpin ...

6

This is based on V1 of the post. The largest issue might be Question being open-ended This is a Q&A site, with the goal being the each question has a well-defined answer that can be accepted. An open-ended question means that there could be multiple "good" or "not incorrect" answers without there ever being a unique, correct answer. ...

Top 50 recent answers are included