Hot answers tagged

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 ...


9

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 ...


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 ...


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


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


4

See here: Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be added to the reopen queue when it is... ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or, ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to delete it. Or, ......


4

Moderators can't make flags vanish, and neither can the flagging user himself. Once a flag is cast, there is no way to remove it. Moderators can either decline the flag or declare it as helpful. Either way there should be an entry for that flag in your flagging history with a notice on how the flag was handled exactly.


4

I see that it has been three days since the math version and two since the mathoverflow version, both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web ...


4

In it's current form your question looks painfully like an exceedingly specific "do my research for me" demand. And perhaps you were just missing one notion, but when I googled steam tables latent heat of vaporization the first three non-sponsored links included tables. OK, for one of them you needed to know that engineer sometime talk about the "enthalpy" ...


4

Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold. This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else. The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer, particularly since I had no competition. My disappointment with the On Hold ...


4

To echo what user36790 said in a comment, when you think a question (B) which has been closed as a duplicate of another question (A) is not really a duplicate, you should edit it to make it clear that it's not a duplicate. After editing, the duplicate question (B) should ask something that the original (A) does not, and explain clearly and explicitly why ...


4

One can think of $k$ as the measure of smaller solutions it is composed of. In fact, one can impose the condition $y(0)= \ln(p + \hat \epsilon)$ where $p$ is some arbitrary prime. Then, $k$ becomes the number of prime factors. The last part is rather unclear. The number of prime factors of what? Now making the change of variables in $ e^y y' = k \hat \...


4

When you first edit a closed question it will automatically be submitted to the review queues. Sufficiently high-rep users have the opportunity to view the new version and vote to re-open it or leave it closed. Editing is the only approved method of fixing a question, and you should not resubmit. If you repost it will be marked as a duplicate of the ...


4

Because Leave Open votes are a mechanism that works exclusively within the review queue. The core mechanism for community-driven question closures is that a quorum of five 3k+ regular users agree that it should be closed. This is a hard-and-fast rule, with the only exceptions being (1) moderators, who have full control to be used where appropriate but ...


3

The comments on the post seem to indicate that those closing thought it was unclear. It has nothing to do with your answer -- well, not exactly anyway. When you edit a post or answer a question, it bumps the question back to the front page of the website. When you answered the question, that put it back on the front page and that meant people would notice ...


3

Some examples I've found that I can think of (one so far): Finding generalized coordinates when the implicit function theorem fails


3

A quick note on this: Matt posted his question in a series of edits that took about half an hour to reach the final form. I saw the question at an intermediate stage and it looked very like homework hence the close vote. In it's current form the key bit of the question is: How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a higher spin system than ${1/2}$ when ...


3

There's no need to apply anything, or apply for anything, if that's what you meant. Questions on hold that are edited are automatically placed in a queue to be reviewed by high-reputation users for taking off hold. In its current form as I write this, I expect that the outcome of the review will be to leave the question on hold. Your question doesn't ...


3

I still think the question, as posed: In the end, can we say that different crystalline forms have different solid states? Can ice freeze further by transforming into a different crystalline form? is unclear. You demonstrate that you are aware of the possibility of different crystal lattices (hexagonal vs. cubic ice is your example), which consequently ...


3

The first problem I can see is the presentation of this question. It could be far better organized to get across what the question itself is trying to address. At first, after reading most of the question, it appears as though OP is just trying to work us through what they believe to be a good solution to a common problem. It's only at the end that they ...


3

The answer to "why" is simply because design choices had to be made when the site was implemented, and it was decided to do it like this. The suggestion to make "Leave open" more powerful was done in the past. Instead of what you suggest, a change was implemented which removes the question from the "Close Votes" queue after three "Leave open" votes. Making ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/reopen/hot
physics.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
170072
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CPSJ6G5K74DNOAYSCECYEQVP4DMWVINC
<urn:uuid:0adbc276-dcbb-44be-8d6d-bf78cd23c11b>
2019-10-17T05:09:24Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:SNRCX2FEYUTMB7S3EVKGT5D27OEDWBR3
<urn:uuid:1bd577c9-514d-4f5e-af5a-61fec00d540b>
https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/reopen/hot
response
<urn:uuid:78ced61d-7da8-4b7d-8e0d-a01876326346>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-141.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/