-12
$\begingroup$

Expanding Confusion: Time integral of the reciprocal of the scale factor from Hubble parameter equation

I know, I'll only get more downvotes for this statement out of sheer defiance, but I don't care since the second ban on physics.stachexchange. I've decided to speak bluntly and from heart. Please, read the original question carefully and with comprehension, before you downvote it or this post.

This community headed by moderators has tied its hands so tightly with the rules, that probably only outlaws like me seem to say what they think and feel here.

Community, have mercy on me
I know you're angry when I disagree
Community, crazy indeed
You'll be so lonely
Without me

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

15
$\begingroup$

I'm the moderator who cleaned up some comments on the question, closed the post, and locked it after you began an edit war. I'd like to write out a few things for transparency and clarity.

There was a long chain of 37 (!!) comments, which, along with the post itself, attracted a total of 15 (!!!) flags. Many of the comments were argumentative and a couple were somewhat rude. A comment thread should never get anywhere near that long; if it does, there's a major issue with a question -- and rudeness has no place here. After two days the discussion was still going nowhere; I saw the flags, deleted some comments, moved the rest to chat, and invited you to again consider whether you might be dealing with a conceptual issue, and to revise the question to pin that down. (As a rule of thumb, questions that are ~5 paragraphs long are typically hard to follow and contain too much extraneous information; this was definitely the case here.)

I closed the question because it certainly needs edits, and because it was increasingly apparent that you believe that you've found a mathematical error in how distances are calculated. The comments make that clear, as do the things that happened three months ago on Physics Stack Exchange (c.f. the deleted question and a subsequent meta post), when the same basic sequence of events played out. Personal theories and questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic here; your question seems to fall into that category.

I'd like to reiterate my recommendation that you take a step back, take a break -- hey, that's never a bad idea -- and reconsider the situation. Try and look at things from another angle. If you're able to succinctly rewrite the question to focus on a conceptual problem, please do; flag it after making edits and ideally it will be reopened. But if you're just trying to make claims that the astronomy community doesn't understand how distances work -- well, this isn't the place for that.

$\endgroup$
18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ First of all, quote the rude comments please, to prove, that they were actually rude. Second of all, that's not my fault, that physics.stackexchange.com can't handle this question. But you still have a chance. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 23 at 19:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 3. You say, that i'm trying to make claims that the astronomy community doesn't understand how distances work - please, again, quote my claim. That's deliberately unfavourable and antagonistic choice of words. I do not claim anything about anyone or the community, although i already have my uspoken, unshared opinion. What i really do, is pointing out the basic error in common calculation, that is clear as day for me, as well as pretended misundersting of it. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 23 at 22:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 4. it was increasingly apparent that you believe that you've found a mathematical error in how distances are calculated - i did, i'm deeply convinced about it and it's also announced in the title of this post. I have nothing to hide, and nothing had to become increasingly apparent, because it was obvious from the beginning. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 23 at 22:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 5. As a rule of thumb, questions that are ~5 paragraphs long are typically hard to follow and contain too much extraneous information; this was definitely the case here - None of the informatiom i'm giving is extraneous. All the information is laser-focused on the specific problem considered from various angles to make my explanatiom as clear as possible for everyone. And it's also my hard work. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 23 at 22:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 6. i also recommend you to take a step back, take a break (hey, that's never a bad idea) from moderation. If that's rude for you, it means, that you were rude for me, suggesting me to take a break from my actions. i'm suggesting you the exact, same thing. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 23 at 22:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Moving my comment from the original question to the meta-side of things: Marcin (in his recent question edit today, version 9) is claiming that he can't use the chat room you created, but his reputation score seems high enough (>20 as of yesterday), so something seems off here. $\endgroup$
    – Hokon
    Sep 24 at 19:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hokon my account is suspended on the chat's parent site and cannot chat for 53 days. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 24 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 7. the reason of closing is that the question needs more focus. The last reason of closing on physics.stackexchange was that it needs more details and clarity. Now I've given a whole load of details and all are focused on the problem. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 24 at 20:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Marcin I see. Well something needs to be done, because routinely editing a closed question to respond to a chat room bumps it up to the top of the queue, which is unfair to open questions (I won’t flag it, but someone may eventually flag that behavior as spam). $\endgroup$
    – Hokon
    Sep 24 at 22:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm done, unless they post something new on the chat. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 24 at 22:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I dare to ask for locking the original question (so it's not auto-deleted), as the discussion seems to be over, the problem is unresolved and fundamental for astronomy. I don't want to argue like a child in a sandbox about the reason why it's not acknowledged. You have your opinion and I have mine, and they cannot be reconciled. Undisputable fact is that the problem remains and it's not only my problem - It's yours problem now too, because this site is dedicated for asking such questions and this question in no way differs in terms of topic from the dedicated topic of this site. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 25 at 18:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 8. Personal theories and questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic here; your question seems to fall into that category - There has probably never been more on-topic question in the history of this site. As to my "personal theory" - there has never been a theory in the history of mainstream physics, that wasn't personal at the beginning, but mine is different from all the others, because it does not propose nothing new or replaces the old theory - it just points out the error in commonly accepted formula. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 26 at 4:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 9. After two days the discussion was still going nowhere - that's where the reasoning of all my interlocutors was going and i proved it every single time. You can obviously deny it, but You'll have to ban me or lock this post or comments to your answer, to make me unable to reply and prove you wrong. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 26 at 6:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 10. If you're able to succinctly rewrite the question to focus on a conceptual problem, please do - i would really like to know your definition of conceptual problem and your reasoning behind your claim, that my problem is not conceptual. I'm also deeply and totally convinced, that i shouldn't give up on a single piece of explanation that i've given. I suppose that's the end of my reply to your answer. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 26 at 7:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I was banned for a week. Now I'm asking for a lifetime ban, so I don't have to remind you what you've done to maths and physics with your voting. I'll keep posting this comment until you ban me, so please, do it right away. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Oct 6 at 16:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .