Timeline for How do I need to change this question so it can be reopened?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2024 at 3:21 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | Honestly I really don’t know what to suggest to reopen this. I would start with reformatting the question, removing the “is my work right” type of statements, and then maybe make an argument that a cylindrical object made from constituents subject to repulsive-only forces is possible (??). With so many assumptions maybe angels can remove the water as it accumulates… | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 3:18 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | granted I probably would not have closed this as “non-mainstream” although the large number of pretty fanciful approximation make your question unrealistic, but I would probably have voted to close as “unclear”. Pick your poison really: “non-mainstream” is sometimes used as a synonym of unrealistic. | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 1:56 | comment | added | Alex I | Last comment ;) Could you please try to answer "How do I need to change this question so it can be reopened?". I appreciate your response but I'm not very much closer to a useful revision of my question after reading it | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 1:54 | comment | added | Alex I | "This is not a site for peer-review of ideas" - okay, but that's a reason other than "non-standard physics". If that was the main reason, I could simply change the question to "What would happen in this system and why" (removing all my ideas about it) and it would pass, no? | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 1:53 | comment | added | Alex I | "really happens as opposed to what? Virtually happens?" - I meant "is my reasoning about this correct". Many questions simply ask a question, in this case I did my best to attempt to work out the answer as well, which shouldn't be a negative | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 1:51 | comment | added | Alex I | Thanks for explaining. I see perhaps my wording wasn't the clearest, let me try to clarify. "“only (very short range) repulsive interactions”: how is this even possible?" - I mean between it and water, not between it and itself! In the same way that teflon-water interactions are much weaker than water-water or teflon-teflon. Considering the walls of the cup as a continuum solid which doesn't have either dielectric polarizability or dispersion is a simplified model of that | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 0:36 | history | answered | ZeroTheHero | CC BY-SA 4.0 |