Timeline for Mischaracterization of questions that attempt to connect to mainstream physics
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24 at 4:09 | comment | added | Ghoster | @gstieger I encourage you to edit your post to make it on-topic. For example, you might consider deleting all mention of your specific ideas and making instead a reference request for papers that attempt to connect Bohmian quantum potentials, Euclidean-to-Lorentzian projection operators (something that I am unable to see how it makes sense, but nevermind that), and General Relativity. | |
| Mar 24 at 3:46 | comment | added | Ghoster | @gstieger Let me summarize the situation for you: 1. The first comment that your post got (mine) said that it asked for peer review (and was thus off-topic). 2. A moderator’s answer to your meta question says that your post asked for peer review (and was thus off-topic). 3. That answer has been upvoted by double digits, indicating that the community here strongly agrees. My “framing” was correct and there was nothing “unfortunate” about it… at least from the community’s point of view. | |
| Mar 23 at 16:25 | comment | added | gstieger | Ghoster, you are arguing over semantics. Stop. | |
| Mar 23 at 16:22 | comment | added | Ghoster | @gstieger There is no way to “ensure this paper is solid” without a full review. Please do not instruct me on how to vote. | |
| Mar 23 at 16:20 | comment | added | gstieger | Ghoster, let's not rehash this again. Asking a question so that I can finalize a paper should not be conflated with asking for a full review of a paper, neither that a referral would be obtained here - I did not specify. Get up to speed with the discussion - we've already gone through everything once. Not again pls and pay attention to descriptions accompanying down/up-voting! | |
| Mar 23 at 16:15 | comment | added | Ghoster | @gstieger My goal wasn’t to submit a full theory—though an early commenter unfortunately framed it that way… This is a blatant mischaracterization of your goal and of my comment. The initial version of your post ended with “Just want to ensure this paper is solid before attempting to obtain a referral for submission to arXiv (gr-qc).” My initial comment, based on that initial version, correctly framed the original post as a request for peer review. | |
| Mar 23 at 11:09 | comment | added | gstieger | ACuriousMind, Thank you for responding. I understand the concern about peer review. My goal wasn’t to submit a full theory—though an early commenter unfortunately framed it that way—but to ask whether my projection mechanism (deriving gravity and the Schwarzschild metric from a 4D quantum potential) aligns with known GR results. I included derivations to clarify, not to invite full review. Based on the meta rule, I thought asking whether a specific projection reproduces GR behaviour was within scope. That said, narrowing the question (e.g., just on recovering 𝑅𝜇𝜈=0) may have helped. | |
| Mar 23 at 10:25 | history | answered | ACuriousMindMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |