The h Bar

OK, we probably should discuss the non mainstream one now. In the meantime, think about "engineering questions" and see if you can come up with a good wording if necessary

Colin McFaul

5:07 PM

@DavidZaslavsky If the math-specific reason is supposed to be temporary, and non-VTC'ers are meant to use the general "belongs somewhere else" reason, then we should get rid of the math-specific reason.

ManishEarth

@ColinMcFaul Belongs somewhere else has a specific Math subreason now :)

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth Ah. Even better.

ManishEarth

About the non mainstream policy, here's the way I put it:

Crazy Buddy

@DavidZaslavsky I had proposed it for scicomp and chem...

Bad luck - only math had higher migrations...

ManishEarth

> Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be "mainstream physics" is considered on topic for this site. A question that proposes a new concept, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK.

> Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed. On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely deleted.

~~See also, the discussion below this meta.MO thread~~

Basically, our current reason conveys that established physics (one which you don't see journal articles about) is off topic

wait wrong meta.mo link

See the comments below this thread

One alternate wording is:

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Posts should be about topics that have been published in reputable journals.

Alternatively

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Posts should work within the bounds of physics that has been published in reputable journals.

David Zaslavsky

5:13 PM

Well, but physics doesn't have to have been published in a reputable journal to make it mainstream

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth I think this is far enough for theories...

ManishEarth

That one's a bit awkward

@DavidZaslavsky We allow posts that propose new (mainstream) theories?

David Zaslavsky

@Manishearth well, like what?

ManishEarth

Not sure

Crazy Buddy

I haven't seen any yet ..! :P

David Zaslavsky

5:14 PM

If a post is literally just proposing a theory, then it's not a question

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky Asking for evaluation of a new theory, then it is

"Does this make sense?"

David Zaslavsky

Well, if it's more specific than "Does this make sense?" then yeah, it should be fine

ManishEarth

kk

user54412

This is tricky - we want to exclude people from proposing their own theories ("neutrinos are really cupcakes!!111!") - while still allowing people to ask "Is this theory I heard about on solid ground?"

4

ManishEarth

So, any idea what the reason should be?

@ChrisWhite yeah

David Zaslavsky

5:15 PM

But I'm also thinking about things like Newton's laws. Their discovery was not published in a journal, because journals didn't exist at the time, but they're definitely mainstream physics

What @Chris said

Colin McFaul

@DavidZaslavsky Yes, I was going to mention that exact example.

user54412

it almost seems like the discriminant is "did you come up with this, or did someone else?"

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky yeah the journal reference is likely to be misleading

ManishEarth

Hmm, yeah

David Zaslavsky

@Chris I don't think that should be it though. If someone manages to ask a good question about their own, legitimate theory, that should be allowed.

user54412

5:17 PM

@DavidZaslavsky not trying to be cynical, but has that ever happened?

David Zaslavsky

Non-mainstream physics is kind of one of those "I know it when I see it" things

@Chris probably not

but I'm not sure

ManishEarth

Again, there's a difference between a theory that proposes new physics and a theory that proposes a new way of looking at old physics, and asks for evaluation within the framework of established physics

Yeah, doubt that will happen.

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything giving an aura of child pornography is off-topic for this site.

user54412

(Obligatory supreme court reference.)

ManishEarth

lol

Crazy Buddy

5:18 PM

Let me conclude..! *Proposal* --> NO..!
*Check if something is right?* --> Not yes... Okay'ish --> I have seen "closed as TL" if it's far too basic ..!

ManishEarth

For example, this controversial question is the latter type. It doesn't propose a new theory, it proposes a new way of looking at strings and asks if it works.

David Zaslavsky

I would say the characteristic most shared by non-mainstream posts is a disregard for existing evidence

Crazy Buddy

Oops... No TL now..! :/

David Zaslavsky

@Chris thanks ;-)

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky hmm, yep

David Zaslavsky

5:20 PM

@Manishearth One thing about that question is that the OP did not seem to have the requisite background knowledge to be proposing new ideas in string theory

ManishEarth

yes, but I'm not sure if that's a good criteria

David Zaslavsky

It certainly doesn't cover all non-mainstream posts

ManishEarth

yeah

Also, it sounds like "Only PhDs can talk about new physics here". Not really, but along the same lines as that.

David Zaslavsky

And posts like that can perhaps also be grouped under too broad or unclear. So I don't think we necessarily have to tailor our non-mainstream reason to them.

ManishEarth

Yeah

David Zaslavsky

5:24 PM

@ManishEarth yeah, pretty much. Not that you need to have a PhD to ask about new physics, but you need to have a solid understanding of the relevant existing physics to ask about new physics, and that solid understanding is at a level that most people can only acquire in grad school

ManishEarth

true

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Personal ideas that propose alternatives to standard treatments are off topic unless they have been deemed worthy of investigation by some part of the physics community, or have been shown to explain previously unexplained observations. As a rule of thumb, topics that would not be mentioned in reputable journals are a poor fit for this site.

user54412

^ Meh - just a draft to get people commenting on something definite

David Zaslavsky

Not bad

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Oh.. my... What a lengtheeeyy comment for personal theory..? Wouldn't the theorist be busy to read that?

ManishEarth

5:28 PM

@ChrisWhite I like it

Colin McFaul

More possible thoughts: We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, your question will need to
be specific in order to fit this format.

user54412

@CrazyBuddy you'd be surprised how industrious crackpots can be - many of them I feel would make good scientists/mathematicians if only they had been given a mainstream education

ManishEarth

@ColinMcFaul Yep. That would also go nicely in the accompanying meta post

David Zaslavsky

@ColinMcFaul That I think is the main idea that should underlie this close reason: that we can't evaluate new theories.

But it doesn't necessarily need to be in the close reason.

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Very true... ;-)

user54412

5:31 PM

@ColinMcFaul that is definitely needed somewhere - several of the other science sites already make it explicit that they are not there for preprint checking, and we should follow

Colin McFaul

I agree; we don't necessarily need it in the close reason. I'm mostly trying to feel out what the difference is between "good" new theory questions and "bad" new theory questions.

ManishEarth

CS has this:

> Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see [our policy for questions about preprints]."

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth Er... do we have a policy on personal theories..? :P

ManishEarth

N-M physics = personal theory

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth I like that wording with "preprints and solutions of major open problems" replaced with "personal theories."

user54412

5:36 PM

@ManishEarth == ? or are you assigning your personal theory to NM physics? :P

Colin McFaul

and maybe adding a sentence to the effect of "specific questions might be on topic."

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Grr. free(ChrisWhite). There. Problem solved.

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. While specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are allowed, questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic. For more information, see Physics Meta

Colin McFaul

i like that.

ManishEarth

Yep

David Zaslavsky

5:40 PM

I'd like to see something more along the lines of "may be allowed" in the first part of the second sentence.

ManishEarth

Yeah

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite: Okay... the 10k user is contributing now :D

ManishEarth

"generally off topic"

@CrazyBuddy hat did he do? Vote to delete in the review queue?

user54412

whoa - [meta]() -> [Physics Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com) in chat? Testing: Physics Meta()

ManishEarth

No, [meta] --> Physics Meta

[main] --> Physics

Crazy Buddy

5:41 PM

@ManishEarth VTD? I thought it was for 20k users..!

(Nah... he doesn't review at all)

ManishEarth

[help] --> help center when used in a comment

David Zaslavsky

Maybe flip it around:

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Physics Meta.

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Oh, also you can see full review queue history now. And you can vote to delete closed questions with <=-3 score.

David Zaslavsky

This is for the close reason, right?

user54412

yes

ManishEarth

5:42 PM

@DavidZaslavsky yep

That works too

user54412

Yeah, I was debating which order that sentence should be written

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Btw, see Magic links

@ChrisWhite By far, the most useful one is How to Ask ([ask])

user54412

David's wording definitely flows better; I think there is a small chance someone reads it as "Some personal theory questions are bad, but some are good, and yours might just be in this category"

ManishEarth

Well,

> specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science

is pretty objective

so if a question is a non "within the context" question, that immediately shuts it down

If a question is "within the context", then we may have issues

user54412

I'm just talking about word order - usually when there is a "but" I think the wording following it is what really applies; everything that came before was a setup for a plot twist

ManishEarth

5:48 PM

ah right

user54412

but smoothness of speech is just as important as parsing rules, so I'm not against David's wording

ManishEarth

David Zaslavsky

My thought is that by putting the wording about non-mainstream questions being off topic first, we subtly induce people to first think that their question is off topic by default, but then if (specific exception) applies to it, maybe it is on topic.

user54412

It's a meme!

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky yeah

user54412

5:51 PM

@DavidZaslavsky do we want these questions to be reworded? are some of them salvageable? (I don't know the answer to this - just asking)

ManishEarth

For those of you who use the terminal a lot: finalterm.org

@ChrisWhite Sometimes.

See, we have those "PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE TROLOLOLOL" questions

And then we have the ones which propose something newish and ask for evaluation, but have a good question hidden in the core

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth Cool ;-)

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite I think in most cases they are not

ManishEarth

Yeah that too

most cases (the ones you don't see) aren't

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth "essential stuff such as vim does not run inside Final Term yet" :(

ManishEarth

5:54 PM

I know, I know

user54412

Ok, well then I like David's wording - can we apply bold?

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta].

ManishEarth

yep

same bolding as the current one

David Zaslavsky

Yeah, I was just too lazy to copy the bold

BTW now I want cupcakes :-/

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky If you were using Final Term it would have copied the bold for you :P

David Zaslavsky

5:56 PM

huwhat now?

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite This is an example of what most non mainstream things look like (we get more N-M answers, though)

@DavidZaslavsky finalterm.org. Terminal that's really a GUI in disguise

David Zaslavsky

I see

Crazy Buddy

Even 2 hrs. isn't enough for us to discuss a simple close reason... Lazy? or Complex'ey?

David Zaslavsky

cool :-)

user54412

I think we're within $\epsilon$ of a consensus on this one

ManishEarth

5:58 PM

@CrazyBuddy The whole point of these close changes was to introduce clarity

On both sides

Crazy Buddy

I know...

user54412

@ManishEarth I remember that post - I have a downvote on it

ManishEarth

It's now much clearer to me what I can flag on SO. And I bet some of our VTCers have realized that HW sans concepts is off topic even if work is shown

@ChrisWhite ah

5 mins ago, by Chris White

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta].

^ any objections/improvements?

Crazy Buddy

Crap... I hate HWs to the core..! Shall we ban homework and kill everything in it? :P

David Zaslavsky

@ManishEarth It might be worth making a faq meta post about non-mainstream physics now and putting that link in the close reason

The post can just be a stub for now, and then we can fill it in afterwards

user54412

6:01 PM

Agreed

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth: I was satisfied with 3 quotes I think..!

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky Yep

Anyone up to doing that?

I could try

But not right now

David Zaslavsky

Same here, I don't feel like doing it right now. I could later today (~10 hours) though.

ManishEarth

kk

Crazy Buddy

So, we've finally clarified 2 of our reasons..?

user54412

6:04 PM

+ math

user54412

the only question is "what do we do with that third slot? engineering?"

Colin McFaul

I don't know if we want engineering for our third spot, but we could just steal the math wording: "Engineering questions are off-topic unless they relate directly to physics. These quesions might be on topic on other SE sites. Possible suggestions: DIY, EE, robotics, reverse engineering, patents."

user54412

we have a patents site?

ManishEarth

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Don't just stick with Physics.SE. The world is a lot bigger :D

user54412

6:06 PM

whoa - it's beyond beta even

Gugg

neutrinos are really cupcakes!!111!

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite never was beta

It's a special tie up between E and USPTO

Colin McFaul

I think they may have fast-tracked it

part of its mission is to research prior art and ID BS patents

ManishEarth

@Gugg That explains the Opera Incident. They were deflected by NACHOs

@ColinMcFaul yeah. They started it off with a theme and all. Never had a beta period. Doesn't exactly have elected or pro tem mods either (They have one)

user54412

---
anyway...
tpg had a point about the third slot

user54412

6:08 PM

2

A: What will our list of close reasons look like?

Okay, so I've flagged two questions now that I felt were off-topic but none of the reasons we have in the list fit. We need to expand the list some... In both cases, the question was not: Homework About math Outside the mainstream Belonged on another SE site. In other words, none of the reaso...

ManishEarth

Also, engineering questions: worthy of a close reason?

user54412

non-VTC-enabled people have to choose something, and we don't have a generic "this is just off topic" reason

Gugg

What's the origin/reason of including 1's in a series of !'s ("!!!!!11111!!!!11!1!1!")?

ManishEarth

AFAICT the generic close reason won't usually be needed.

@Gugg knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-1-phenomenon

David Zaslavsky

@ManishEarth We could put one in the list and always deactivate it later

ManishEarth

6:11 PM

@DavidZaslavsky Yep. I bet we can data.se the close reasons

user54412

hmmm, perhaps we can come to an understanding that flagging is primarily to get it into the queue - the VTC people can take over handling spelling out the exact reason - just a suggestion

user54412

speaking of @tpg2114 ...

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite so basically flag with any random reason?

user54412

@ManishEarth would that hurt things?

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite not really

IIRC close voters don't even get to see which off topic subreason was used by flaggers

user54412

6:13 PM

I'm trying to remember - when a question has been flagged but not yet voted to be closed, what does the review queue say? I think it doesn't even tell my why it was flagged

user54412

what @ManishEarth said

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite It only says "off topic", "too broad", etc

tpg2114

Sorry I'm late, trying to catch up on what I missed...

user54412

@tpg2114 oh, there's a lot

Crazy Buddy

@tpg2114 A lot..!

ManishEarth

6:14 PM

@ChrisWhite Check out physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/19172

user54412

summary - we chose wording for HW and non-mainstream, got rid of math (since there's a migration path), and are now debating the third off-topic close reason

ManishEarth

Btw guys, I'm posting the proposed reasons on meta as we finalize them

3

Q: Chat session to discuss and possibly finalize close reasons

We have a bunch of proposed close reasons here, and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's "engineering" close reason). We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16...

votez plz

tpg2114

Okay, got it... Thanks

Crazy Buddy

Looks like our community is really doing the reviewing..! (especially close votes)

I didn't review today (and, I see that there are 14 in the queue) o_O

ManishEarth

Homework Close reason discussion

2 hours ago, 45 minutes total – 195 messages, 5 users, 0 stars

Bookmarked 17 secs ago by ManishEarth

45 minutes. wow

tpg2114

6:17 PM

I would propose some sort of other catch-all like "Doesn't fit into the types of questions in our FAQ" for the 3rd type so the flags show up in the review queue unlike custom messages that only go to mods

I would rather see that than an "Primarily engineering based" reason

ManishEarth

Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

1 hour ago, 56 minutes total – 167 messages, 5 users, 3 stars

Bookmarked 4 secs ago by ManishEarth

user54412

points to remember: (1) we can petition to have a 4th reason - SO has 5 already

user54412

(2) we can abuse flags and just have flagging people use any flag to get it into the queue, let the VTC people figure out a good reason

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Physics.SE vs SO..? Woah..? o_O

user54412

6:20 PM

(@tpg2114 we don't actually see what specific sub-topic of off-topic was chosen in a flag)

tpg2114

So then what's the purpose of having sub-topics at all?

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 That's only for flags

Oh i see

user54412

@tpg2114 that's a good question

user54412

only the SO overlords can answer that

tpg2114

It seems to influence the message put under the question about why it was closed

So when voting to close, do you choose a reason why it should be closed?

And that's how it gets decided what the message is?

ManishEarth

6:23 PM

@tpg2114 yes

When VTCing, the reason chosen is shown to other vtcers

and finally, the reasons come in the banner

tpg2114

So the whole workflow doesn't really matter for flaggers?

ManishEarth

if multiple off topic reasons are chosen, you get a bulleted list

@tpg2114 Apparently yes

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite I'm not even convinced we really need more than 2 yet :-P

tpg2114

Basically we flag to put it in the queue, so what our list is doesn't matter

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 IMO you guys need "off topic" and "belongs on another site", OR the full features

user54412

6:24 PM

@DavidZaslavsky well my consideration (3) was we can wait and accrue data on what is being closed: engineering, off-topic in some other way, etc.

tpg2114

That's what it looks like to me too

ManishEarth

'm asking a meta pst on this now

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite yeah, that works

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite I probably can tweak my data.se query for that

Crazy Buddy

Maybe, we don't have (or very diffuse) questions on other topics (which we don't remember)

tpg2114

6:25 PM

Cause the only need for reasons is to make it easy to put boilerplate messages when it closes right? That's just to make life easy since VtC'ers can always put in a custom message to cover other reasons

Crazy Buddy

Isn't 3 enough..?

@tpg2114 Yeah...

Crazy Buddy

Maybe I should spam myself now..! (before everyone disappears :P

"Everyone wish me for my b'day" before "today" ends (only a few mins left) --> I turned 18 finally (It's quite special ya know) :D

user54412

@CrazyBuddy You're, like, an adult?!? o.O

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite No... I lied till now ;-)

tpg2114

So I think we don't need a 3rd reason until we see some stats on what's the next most common reason

Crazy Buddy

6:29 PM

@tpg2114 Isn't 3rd reason engineering..? hello..?

I thought we're still thinking about it ;-)

tpg2114

I don't know if that's the most common one or not though

Crazy Buddy

Same to me..!

4 mins ago, by Crazy Buddy

Maybe, we don't have (or very diffuse) questions on other topics (which we don't remember)

user54412

placeholder suggestion:

user54412

> The subject matter here is not a part of physics as defined in our faq.

user54412

feel free to tear it apart

tpg2114

6:32 PM

I'd be happy with something like that

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Yeah..! Let's override everything to this one..! :D

user54412

It may overlap a little with other reasons, but I'm okay with them not being mutually exclusive - users should pick out the most specific reason that applies

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite And, you didn't notice that our FAQ has already been changed to help center..! :D

user54412

but I suspect @DavidZaslavsky thinks we should leave the slot blank for now?

tpg2114

physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

It would go straight to that page instead

Crazy Buddy

6:34 PM

Yeah...

ManishEarth

Yep

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite oh, no, I'm all for putting something in that slot, even temporarily

user54412

much better link

Crazy Buddy

3

A: Chat session to discuss and possibly finalize close reasons

Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics Bookmarked chat conversation We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually a...

ManishEarth

We could just un-defaultify the default close reason

This could be confusing though

Crazy Buddy

6:35 PM

> The Physics Meta bit will link to a specific faq post once we have that written.

user54412

I'm already confused

David Zaslavsky

There's already a default there, so it probably would be confusing to add our own other default

tpg2114

Default for whom?

For people who are just flaggers, there isn't a default option

David Zaslavsky

For me :-P

i.e. mods

I'd rather see that particular issue fixed by giving flaggers a default close option, or just taking out suboptions for flaggers entirely, or something.

tpg2114

Yes, I'm all for taking out sub options for flaggers assuming there's a help thing somewhere on reasons to flag

David Zaslavsky

6:38 PM

The point is, it's an issue to be fixed in the design of the SE system, not by sticking in a hackish close reason

Anyway I have to go

@DavidZaslavsky yeah

See you all later

See ya

Query done

C'ya David ;-)

6:41 PM

So by that, Engineering is a bigger issue that non-mainstream

Slightly

ManishEarth

Note: This isn't accurate

The Engineering and mainstream ones are determined from the text in the comments

OK, any ideas for an "engineering" close reason?

I'll draft up a meta post for "What's the point of giving flaggers subreasons" thing

user54412

what did @Colin say?

user54412

> Engineering questions are off-topic unless they relate directly to physics. These quesions might be on topic on other SE sites. Possible suggestions: DIY, EE, robotics, reverse engineering, patents.

ManishEarth

scrolls up

Crazy Buddy

6:43 PM

@ManishEarth Not now... I'm half-a-way to sleep..! o_O

ManishEarth

oh that

Not sure about the "possible suggestions" bit

user54412

It would need tweaking

ManishEarth

IMO "directly related to physics" is a bit iffy too. But I can't think of anything better

tpg2114

Well what's the issue we're trying to prevent? It's more questions like "How do I build/design X" right?

ManishEarth

Yeah

Or anything that asks about an engineering problem

user54412

6:46 PM

::enters tag-wiki mode::

user54412

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to constructing something new. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science of studying how the natural world works.

ManishEarth

Like "Why does <complicated system> [not] display <phenomenon>?"

Crazy Buddy

Okay.. C'ya everyone... gtg to "other works" :D

tpg2114

But how would you define that? "Why are airplanes made of aluminum" is a good question though right?

user54412

@tpg2114 true

ManishEarth

6:47 PM

@tpg2114 yes

@ChrisWhite yeah, nice

tpg2114

Plus, design-of-experiment questions should probably be on topic too... "How do I build a supercollider" as an extreme example (which would be too broad obviously)

ManishEarth

yeah, that's broad

tpg2114

Basically I think questions about why engineering decisions are made would be okay, but questions about how to make engineering decisions would not be

But I don't know how to put that into a clear, concise close reason

ManishEarth

Here's a list of recently closed engineering questions

user54412

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of studying how the natural world works.

Colin McFaul

6:49 PM

@ChrisWhite I had just copied that from the current Math wording, and changed Math -> engineering.

The possible suggestions sentence would need re-writing.

ManishEarth

and.... @tpg2114 is correct, all the engineering closes are for "how to make my engineering decision"

user54412

I struggle with this often - explaining to people the science and engineering may work closely together but have fundamentally different goals

Colin McFaul

I was thinking to point people to other SE sites where something would be on topic

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite However, asking why an airplane flies is on topic. Airplanes aren't natural

@ColinMcFaul In those cases we try to migrate

tpg2114

But they fly because of the properties of the natural world

ManishEarth

6:51 PM

Unless it's a bad question

tpg2114

I think the key is the why instead of how

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 I know. But the usage of "natural' could be misleading

user54412

@ColinMcFaul that would be nice, but the engineering sites are so diverse - we can't have a pre-written response mentioning electronics be used to close a chemical engineering question

ManishEarth

Just like the usage of "practical problems" in the FAQ

@ChrisWhite good point

Colin McFaul

@ChrisWhite True, and that's probably the fatal weakness of that approach to the wording.

ManishEarth

6:52 PM

Here's an engineering question that asks why:

4

Q: Why does Guillotine have of 45 degreed blade rather than the one parallel to the ground?

What is the point of having 45 degreed blade in Guillotine? After all, the pressure-Force over Area-blade imposes to the neck is the same either way.

classical-mechanics

user54412

oddly enough, that ^ probably belongs on cooking.stackexchange.com

ManishEarth

LOL

But true

tpg2114

I'm not sure that's an engineering issue though

ManishEarth

I'd like to see what happens if we migrate it

fwiw SO once migrated to Cooking

@tpg2114 that too

tpg2114

I'm sure there's a nice simulation somewhere of the shear forces involved...

ManishEarth

6:55 PM

Guys, I suggest you have a look at a couple of questions here if you've not done so already

tpg2114

And yes, I have seen computer simulations of babies being shaken, blast waves hitting people in the face, and a simulated fist punching a head... It turns out there's a lot of complicated physics involved with how the brain moves inside the skull

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 yep.

@Qmechanic Hey there :) We have semi-finalized two close reasons, and are working on getting a good wording for "engineering question"

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of studying how the natural world works.

IMO this is better. Less emphasis on the "natural"

user54412

+1

Homework Close reason discussion

Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

Transcript for