0
$\begingroup$

If you travelled at exactly the speed of light, what would the stars look like behind you? was closed as off topic, reasons include

I think that it's clearly not relevant to space exploration (if Alcubierre 'drives' are possible at all, they're not possible for us).

and

We have a couple of hundred posts on the Physics stack on the Alcubierre drive that you might like to browse. As you can see, such questions have a fairly high probability of getting closed.

Of the 10 questions tagged this was the only closed for being off-topic. The previous nine can at least be inferred to show that the community has decided that faster-than-light alcubierre-drive questions are not off topic simply for that reason.

Of the 7 questions tagged or "faster than light" three were closed as off-topic, two of which for more fundamental reasons than topicality.

Question: While the first nine Alcubierre drive questions were on-topic, why is what an astronaut would see gazing out the back window be off-topic?

We have dozens of questions about what astronauts see out windows of capsules, lunar landers, shuttles and space stations, why can't we allow further answers to a question about what an astronaut would see out the window of this on-topic spacecraft?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ While I agree it shouldn't be closed merely because it's an Alcubierre Drive question, in this particular case, I don't think it's a good fit for this site. Our previous Alcubierre Drive questions were about practical considerations for space exploration. This one is more about the physics impacting a hypothetical observer. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    May 10 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ @called2voyage we have dozens of questions about what astronauts see out windows of capsules, lunar landers, shuttles and space stations, why not a question about what an astronaut would see out the window of this on-topic spacecraft? "If you travelled at exactly the speed of light, what would the stars look like behind you?" As I get older I think that "not a good fit" no longer means my body is wrong, but that my clothes are wrong and need to adapt. I don't think it will kill this site to allow answers to this specific question about an astronaut's experience aboard a future spacecraft. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 10 at 13:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I haven't voted at all on the question in...well...question, but from my perspective, I would keep it closed as it pertains to a hypothetical that is physically impossible to realize. It's not an alcubierre drive question -- indeed, it asks nothing about the drive. It's a "what would you see if you were going light speed" question, and that's, if anything, a physics.se question. Hypotheticals, in my opinion, should at least have an aspect of practicality to them to fit here. $\endgroup$
    – Tristan
    May 11 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Tristan So my question (about re-deciding topicality over and over under each question rather than consulting community behavior) is moot in this case because the question is not really about Alcubierre drive but simply has the tag added? And a question like "Does current theoretical scholarly research on Alcubierre drive address what an astronaut might see looking out the back window?" would be a different question who's on-topicness should be considered separately if and when it were asked? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 12 at 0:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh I think that's getting into the territory of shallowly forcing questions to be on topic by framing them as "How does XYZ (which really has nothing to do with space exploration) work, but in space?" We already see some of that, where someone basically wants someone to debug their MATLAB or Python code, with the only tenuous link to topicality being that it's purportedly solving an orbital mechanics problem. $\endgroup$
    – Tristan
    May 12 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Tristan I certainly do recognize the ...in space? phenomenon and try to help to advise/edit/close/suggest migration paths when I see it. If Physics SE were healthier it would seem that it really would be a better place for "Does current theoretical scholarly research on Alcubierre drive address what an astronaut might see looking out the back window?" I wonder if because I don't see Physics SE as a viable option that I subconsciously try to remesh topicality space around it? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 12 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Tristan Anyway I've edited and limited the scope of this question now so that it's more answerable. Thanks for your thoughts and engagement! $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 12 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @called2voyage I've whittled the question down substantially in order to ask only about the specific question in question. Your comment continues to apply nicely (not a coincidence!) and might even be an answer now. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 14 at 0:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .