5:44 AM
@ManishEarth: Have a look at this answer...
2

You say you have this: $$D = \sqrt{(v \Delta t')^2 + L^2}$$ You seemed to recognize that you could eliminate $D$ by using equation 2, but the key you don't seem to have recognized yet is that you can eliminate $L$ by using equation 1 to get $$c \Delta t' = \sqrt{ (v \Delta t')^2 + (c \Delta t)... I suspect that it disagrees with our policy... (We can't do anything now, since it has been accepted, but..) hem, not a full solution it's ok @ManishEarth What..? Edit is the full solution...! I mean, 1 step to go... @ManishEarth So, while answering HWs, can we include all the steps except the last step..? :O Better not to, but not against our policy @ManishEarth I know it's not against... But, providing so many steps has no use... I mean, the author don't have to think at all..! :/ C'ya later... ;-) @ManishEarth: Wait a second... What are you mods doing out there..? Don't you guys do the job..? :P 5:54 AM @ManishEarth My VTC has become the threshold... 0 There are 2 small metal balls of radius r_1 and r_2 which are kept at very large distance. What should the ratio of charges on them be for the electrostatic energy to be minimum? In this problem, electric potential must be zero since the balls are at a very large distance from each other, so... oh yeah we're trying to let that happen @ManishEarth Oh... Nice mods... Why's that so..? Surrounded by problems..? Technically mods aren't supposed to handle closing in the first place The community should We're trying to encourage close votes from the community itself @ManishEarth I know... But,... Then, what are you..? :D ah... So if posts no longer get closed immediately, more people will start closing Oh, there are other flags to handle 5:57 AM IMO, That's a very nice and cool decision... I honor it ;-) You guys don't have to handle every single situation... @ManishEarth: Sharing problems in the name of learning & sharing..? @ϚѓăʑɏβµԂԃϔ Moderators are supposed to handle what the community can't. Human exception handlers. So, when was this planned to execute..? (I saw that today) If the community can't close, we help. But we're trying to push back on that problem I know... But, don't have to handle everything..! Provide a cut to the people That's what I said ;-) @ϚѓăʑɏβµԂԃϔ a long time ago, but not all of us withdrew fully (we didn't have much communication on this, it was understood after the initial idea). I in particular kept cleaning the close queue. After I went on vacation and saw that there were many threshhold-closes, I stopped VTCing too 6:01 AM @ManishEarth Cool... New plans, New executions - H.A.P.P.Y ;-) @ManishEarth: BTW, I thought of asking you something (while you enjoying your vacation :P) hm? I can digest a few things in sandbox... But, some like this one - meta.stackoverflow.com/a/89700/205334 and most importantly - this one: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/74702/205334 @ManishEarth: All made me shout..! :) What are they..? How..? I can't imagine those creatures..? First one is zalgo Second is just the commenter using magic links THird has and HTML comment Yuck..! Understood totally nothing..! @ManishEarth Okay... leave that - Can I use comments exceeding 200 chars. or the threshold here..? No, the comment doesn't exceed 600 chars The comment says [sqa.se] repeated 6:15 AM ahh... Understood something about zalgo... @ManishEarth What about the 3rd one? - If I try to edit it, the cursor goes mad...! All are in the reverse... Clearing something triggers it to be readable 4 I was reading through the Formatting Sandobox here. In the comments section of this answer, there are some comments that contain some text to the right of the username. Such as: Hello, I am Jon Skeet. ‮ teekS noJ - – Manishearth Mar 30 at 11:18 As a reply to a comment that asks how do the... Same thing as that Unicode bidi override @ManishEarth Okay, I'll check that out... Thanks Manish... C'ya later ;-) 2 hours later… 8:38 AM Is this wrong? -1 Self energy of sphere:$$E=\dfrac{q^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0r}$$Total energy of system :$$\sum E=\dfrac{q^2_1}{8\pi\epsilon_0r_1}+\dfrac{q^2_2}{8\pi\epsilon_0r_2}$$Now use$$AM\ge GM $\sum E$ would be minimum when both terms are equal.

Other answer could have been " 0/0 " , but it should not be considered......I think.

8:51 AM
@userØØ7 the question is wrong or incomplete

@ManishEarth Yes I had thought about it, they can't ask the value of 0/0 (ie. for minimum) but then AM>GM stuck my mind and I thought I can try answering....

the minimum energy is when both have minimum charge
The ratio could be one
Using limits
It could be anything
I think the question wants there to be a fixed total charge Q

Yes, it can be true....
______________________________________________________________
Do you know some good PC games that I can play now....

@ManishEarth that is good when mods can step back a bit, there are obviously enough people interested in closevoting. Reopen is however a different issue since high rep users refuse to review the reopen queue and maybe more generally to take part in reopening anything, as Chris White's highly upvoted comment below this says :-/. So for reopen the help of mods is still needed...

@Dilaton There are around 100 questions in the close queue a week. And like 2 in the reopen queue.
I think I mentioned to you somewhere why those questions didn't get reopened

8:58 AM
My PC RAM:2GB, running win7 home premium.. With no additional graphic cards (It just have those ones which were present when Laptop was bought..... ACER aspire 4920.

AOE III
Warcraft
My current comp is actually similar, though it's almost conked out :P

9:24 AM
Hi.
@Dilaton, I still have trouble with the heat problem.

@ManishEarth I did not just mean these to particular questions. The reopen process does generally not work well enough here, as the reopen queue is mostly empty all the time and I see hardly anything getting reopend or anybody stating a reopen statement etc... Even though people leave from time to time comments saying "I close this for now, but you can improve it such that whatever problem it has gets fixed and then I will reopen".

@Dilaton Because people don't try enough to reopen
There are changes being made to the close system that may fix it
@Dilaton I usually leave such comments. But that doesn't mean that any improvement is sufficient
Usually people whose questions get closed don't come back
And remember, it's actually quite hard to ask a good question. Not because of the rules, but because it takes your own effort to make it really "good"
Even harder to improve someone else's question so that it is good

Would you mind give me an hand?

@ManishEarth yep, that is exactly what I complain about: that nobody apart from me tries to get sommething reopend.

So if the OP goes away, it's harder for others to improve it
@Dilaton Not true
That's what you see
Others do indeed edit and reopen

9:37 AM
@ManishEarth so why can I not see others doing it? And when I try it always fails, so I have given up my attempts.

@Dilaton You don't see flags, do you?
And when you try you try for unsalvageable ones or your attempts aren't good enough
How about this: If you see a question that could be reopened, ping me in chat. I'll let you know if it can be fixed

@ManishEarth I see not the flags but I maybe I would note if a formarly closed question is no longer closed.

Also, I can only remember 3 attempts from you
@Dilaton trust me, there are others.
Not HW

The ping in chat is a good idea. You can look at my flag history to see the failed attempts.

I have. I only see 3
And there are a few which got opened as well
Remember, a flag without an edit doesn't count as an attempt
@Dilaton see, I can't remember specifics but your attempts only superficially solved the issues with the question
Just editing a few words to change "books" to "papers" won't work
Neither will converting a question that asks for a list of examples
There's no way to fix that
If there's a question asking for a recommendation for a book, do the following:
1) If the topic is broad, see if you can find one of the older book questions and edit in a section. Otherwise point the OP to chat
@Brooks Sure, what happened?
2) If it is narrow, try to make it into a "Could someone explain X in brief to me". Be very careful so as not to make it broad.

9:45 AM
@Brooks hi, I have made a new chatroom.

And pay more attention to the edits
Not just superficial
If the OP doesn't reply in a few days then edit

@ManishEarth Do questions get closed just because they ask about something to read along with a conceptual question? I got the impressein that this is indeed the case :-/. I thought the answers to the questions are not only for the OP, so if I and maybe others are interested in saying answers to a question, this would be enough to try to reopen it, even if the OP does not respond.

@Dilaton No, it's perfectly OK if you ask for books in a non-mandatory footnote
@Dilaton Yes, but first you see if the OP will respond

@Brooks what do you need to know?

I am in that room.

9:54 AM
@ManishEarth I think of the OP has his account get deleted or has no account here because his question has been migrated to physics SE, one can start to edit immediately and how long one has to wait depends on the recent activity of the OP on the site.

I have trouble in my mind, not just have trouble with calculate something.

For example the OP of the anomalous dimension question has probably solved his problems, because that was an older question that was suddenly closed recently (I dont see the point in closing now older questions that have been considered ok a year ago or more). But he is still here asking new questions, commenting, etc
@ManishEarth I mean this question, the OP of it is still active.

the physical site is belong to stackexchange?
Who is the OP?

@Brooks the OP is the Original Poster of something

10:03 AM
Thanks

@Dilaton reopened
looks ok to me

@ManishEarth thanks :-)
Maybe we can work it out together in chat sometimes, if I think something could be improved and reopend...

Yeah, that way there's less miscommunication

@ManishEarth yep :-)

5 hours later…
3:21 PM
0

As things stand at present, questions of people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, who are looking for help in solving a particular problem (homeworky), are mixed up with questions of physics students (university level) up to research level questions on Physics SE, so things have ...

3 hours later…
6:07 PM
@ManishEarth Interested in RTS..?
@userØØ7 Someone's in a big haste for games...? :P

Yeah, I like rts
I also like FPS games like Call of Duty, but I find RTS much more fun

6:19 PM
@ManishEarth Okay... But, Do you play games? or Have you played before..? :D

Yeah.
Not much currently
But we do play multiplayer DotA and AOE III

Ahh... That's what - Once I joined this site, I "STOPPED"..! :P
@ManishEarth Where..? Hostels or Cloud..?

hostels
LAN
unfortunately the subnet mask is per-wing, so we don't get to sit in our rooms and play

ah...

But yeah, we all sit in a room with an ethernet switch or an ad hoc network and play. The corner rooms (box rooms) are quite spacious, 8 people can easily sit and play.

6:23 PM
8..? That's very large...!
We can't sit more than 4 in a room..! (except the TV room)
But still, Hostel guys can sleep in the same room (max. allowance - 9 or so)
in 2 beds - quite enjoying ;-)

@ϚѓăʑɏβµԂԃϔ That's 'cos it's a box room. See, at the end of every wing there's a room that's the size of a normal room plus the corridor
My room is a box room ^.^
people can sit in a smaller room (3 on each bed, 1 in a chair and 2 on the ground), but it's cramped

@ManishEarth You say 6 as cramped..? (especially as a hostel fella) :P

that's 8, each bed
5 is ok

each bed, each bed, ok... South people are pretty weak in MATH :P

7:15 PM
@Dilaton Sorry, I realized something about the anomalous dimension question
2

I'll copy my reasoning here: while it's certainly better than it was as a resource recommendation, the question is still unfocused. It says I am looking for an explanation about the idea of "operator mixing" and its associated concept about when anomalous dimension has to be thought of as a m...

^^that still applies to it
And it's really not a good idea to make radical edits narrowing a post without the OPs consent, even if s/he isn't around.
It's far better to just re-ask the question. (You may wish to do that, keep in mind that it shouldn't be broad as mentioned in DZ's answer)
Keep this in mind for further closes as well

7:43 PM
@ManishEarth why cant you just look at the current question and decide if it is a good one now? I am really disappointed that you have closed that again. So what is the point of improving closed questions, if it is not allowed to improve them to make them a better fit for the site? Why is it not allowed to clarify what the OP wanted to say, if he it is not formulated clearly and to the point enough?

@Dilaton it isn't. It's still broad
@Dilaton What's wrong with not allowing improvements if reposting is allowed?
As long as you repost with specifics.

Edits are not something reversible and I always say in the message that I am traying to improve things to get it reopend and that the OP should roll it back if he does not like it. Qmechanic does similar comments when editing question.

@Dilaton Yes, but one that changes the meaning of the question...not so much
Again, how does it matter?

@ManishEarth now I see that I am right, trying to closed questions to improve them and get them reopend *is completely pointless. Now I finally see why nobody elses does this. It is only me who is so naive and stupid to think this could work! Working things out in chat together I better forget about too, if you go back later and close the ropend questions anyway.

@Dilaton Again, if you are allowed to assume specifics and re-ask the question, how does it matter? The question still gets asked. Just that the older, broad version stays closed.
I closed it again because I hadn't realized that operator mixing/etc was a broader topic
@Dilaton just because this happened here doesn't mean it'll always happen

7:51 PM
@All this comments left by people stating that they are willing to reopen questions after improvement are completely vacuous! The same is true for any statments that closing a question does not mean that it is dead.

Fine, say what you want. If you're just going to ignore me, there's little point arguing.

@ManishEarth these topics are well defined and not that broad, as Mitchell Porter who knows a bit about these topics says. And Mitchell Porter knows what he is talking about, he is quite competent in many physics topics. But obviously nobody is willing to listen to people knowledgable about the physics topics, when there is a disagreement about closing a question.

Mitchell Porter asked a for a book. For example, if someone asks "What are some good books for general relativity", that's not broad.
But if you convert that into an "explain X", question, "Explain GR to me" suddenly becomes extremely broad.
See, if there are whole books on it it usually is broad.
If the edit asked for the definitions and a little elaboration it would be fine
If the edit asked their application it would be fine
And, please tell me how it matters.
You're allowed to narrow it down as you choose and re-ask (as long as it is narrowed down enough)

@Manishearth I read what you say too. What? General relativity is a very very broad large topic, whereas anomalous dimensions are a very specific issue in remormaliation for example. How can asking about a book for GR be specific enough and asking about the small issue of anomaous dimenstion be not?

Because the GR question asks for a book. That can fit into an answer.
Of course, book recos are off topic, but if they weren't, a book reco on a broad topic would be fine. An intro request on the same wouldn't
Also, try to understand that narrowing it down will help the question get answers
If I find a question which I find a bit vague I wouldn't answer it.

8:01 PM
@ManishEarth it is often way to subjective, if a question is a good fit is in the eye of the beholder and it may even depend on what the beholder knows about the corresponding topic. In disagreements, comments of people known to be knowledgable about the physics topic should be considered and taken into account. Mitchel Porter is knowledgable about the topic of this last question.
Reasking the question would be a duplicat no? And concerning anomalous dimenstions, this is just a concept in renormalization and it is explainable in a single answer, which may or may not be accompanied by hints to further information.

@Dilaton Not if it was a bit more specific
See David's post above as to how to make it more specific.
@Dilaton Sure. But if others think that it is broad, that's a few possible answerers that you're losing out on.
If someone asked me "Explain special relativity", I would be able to give a nice answer.
It's still broad -- many people would just skip it.
The same applies here, to a different extent
@Dilaton I'm really getting tired of repeating the same points. How about this: The next time you want something to be reopened, ask me in chat. We will properly discuss it (and I may ask other mods), and see how to improve it. And if it can be improved with edits to the same question or will need to be re-asked.

@ManishEarth was the question now too broad or to localized? Please dont get angry, but could it not be that Michtell Porter who is very knowledgeable is right on this issue and David is wrong on this case? Please dont get angry but from my pointless efforts I got the impressions, that in particular question that David has closed on his own, can never be reopend for some reasone and the anomalous dimension question is among them ...

This incident here with the reopen-then-close was a mistake on my part, I'd forgotten about the reason why it was kept closed
@Dilaton Again, I think I gave reasons for the examples of unreopenable questions you gave. As did commenters on meta.
Converting a "What is a good book for X?" question into a "Explain X" isn't as simple as replacing a few words in the first/last sentence.
@Dilaton It could be. But the downvotes on the question and meta post (and comment upvotes) suggest otherwise
With broad questions, it's not enough if one person thinks that it's not broad
Even if s/he is knowledgeable

@ManishEarth but you thought it is a good one first from just looking at it, why can you not judge and decide as a mode like this on your own, taking the risk that you dont see it in the same way the originally closing mod did? Do we not have more than one mod, such that one can get a second opinion from another one, if needed? Second opinions seem just not to exist here on Physics SE.

@Dilaton Yes. And the problem is that I myself didn't see the broad issue. Again, I made a mistake here.
When mods disagree we discuss it. Which is what we did.

8:16 PM
@ManishEarth I generally think it is bad if in particular specialized questions get closed by people who are not knowledgable about the corresponding topic. The comments, words, etc experts about the specific topic or of people who are in the know about it, should always be taken into account upon disagreement about a questions.
People who know about the topic can better judge from a physics point of view if the question is answerable in a single answer, and maybe they even know how the answer could look like or even write one. I observe it too often that the opinion of observed and knowledgable people is ignored on disagreements.

@Dilaton That has only a little to do with whether a question gets closed or not. Closing is mostly a matter of Stack Exchange standards, it's not so much about the physics content.
In this case, the moderators reviewed the question and decided that it was still close-worthy. The community reviewed the question and decided that it was still close-worthy. So the question remains closed.
If the OP shows up and decides to edit it in a way that invalidates the reasons it was closed, then it can and will be reopened. Otherwise, it is still a close-worthy question and thus it stays closed. You're free to ask a better version if you want.
This happens with other questions all the time - the OP edits and they get reopened - and you shouldn't take the fact that it's not happening with this question as an indication of a general trend across the site.

@DavidZaslavsky I have just recently learned that Shog9 said in this nice answer meta.stackoverflow.com/a/124915/184300 it is not only allowed that the communities of the individual sites determine the standards they want to adhere to on their own a bit, they do not have the exact letter of each SE rule and guidlines, adapting their policies to the needs of people is even encouraged. So I think it is possible to take the opinion of real physics experts into account on disagreements about
a questions, if the deciding people are willing too. I think it is a pitty that the freedom we have, as Shog9 says is not used to make Physics SE as good as possible for the physicists and enthusiasts who come to hear to study, learn, or even research physics.
The SE standards can be adapted to the needs of physics community as I understad Shog9. In addition, it worries me that there are one or two non physicist closevoters, who often lie with their closevotes their closevotes a bit outsiede, in particular about technical questions. Often they both say close, and three others of whom I know they are physicists then say leave open and take the question out of the close queue.

9:08 PM
1

There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) like 1 2 3 4 There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2) And they do not get the attention they deserve...

2 hours later…
11:02 PM
2

StackOverflow has a tab for questions entitled "Interesting" that is based on favorited tags and history: Is it possible to get said tab on physics.SE based on recent discussions such as Is Physics Stack Exchange getting Cluttered? in order to help users organize the questions better?