user7141: Wouldn't it be nice if the elite on this site help new resourceful people come up.They can help new people gain more rep depending on their behavior.we are all trying to help each other please consider this proposal.
I posted the following question on the main site, and one of the moderators deleted it:

Buddhism and Reletivity
According to Albert Einstein when you reach higher speeds (Speed of light) you can go faster than time itself,so you will be able to go and see the future.when Buddhism describe the speed of "Deva's/Brahma's" they can reach anywhere within seconds,So are they travelling through time?
theravada science


Is this a good question or a bad question: do you agree with its being closed, or should it be left open to answers?
If you think it is not suitable for this site, can you explain what's wrong with it?
If you don't think that it's suitable as it is (quoted above), can you suggest how to edit/change it to make it suitable so that it could be reopened?


user254: I agree that it's not a suitable question for this site (i.e. it is not a question which is likely to attract good answers).
Some problems with the question include:

I don't think Einstein said that "you can go faster than time itself" (instead, Physics talks about spacetime and about light cones)
"Are they travelling through time?" isn't a clear question

The site has had some questions like this in the past: see e.g. Is our mind faster than light?
This question is based on mistaken assumptions and many of its answers are meaningless.
Most users of this site don't really know Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and so it's not worth asking people about it here; also theoretical Physics is not really on-topic on this site.
This blog entry Good Subjective, Bad Subjective suggests that

your answers must be based on either:

Something that happened to you personally
Something you can back up with a reference


Given that ...

Acting as a Deva or Brahma isn't something which people have "personal experience" with
Einstein's Relativity isn't a subject that's described in (pre-20th century) Buddhist references

... therefore I think it's not a question which will attract sensible and useful answers.

user106: This question (and similar ones) 'rings bells' of two scenes in me (i.e. it reminds me of two scenes).
It is not only that I doubt this is a good and acceptable question for the *Q&A-site whose topic is "Buddhism": not only because it is --while boldly formulated-- based on a false premise; but also because it (and a bunch of sister-questions) ignores the Buddha's hint to not to speculate too much about fruitless constructs of the mind (constructs of rationality/reason): it is (in my opinion) surely OK to ask such a question one time - but I would also expect a learning curve (I expect the type of question to change), and everyone knows, there are trolls around (who repeat the same types of question)...
A second aspect why --and now for completely personal reasons-- I tend to dislike such questions because since my early youth in school and later with friends I've met people with this style of "philosophical" playing with concepts of the modern time: and what remained to me from that time was a big grief about that near and remote friends, because that "questioning", that "discussing", did not lead to anything, let only to more unhappiness, more contention in life, delivering/lighting-life-problems. Thus also, in politics (when I was a student), I liked more to be with the "Unionists" instead of being with the "anarchists" or other "utopists": because I didn't find the relation to the discussants' true life, the problems with their partners, with their own life-perspectives and even more with their problems, to feel happily embedded in society with near fellows and people around them.         
So when I now come across questions which ring that bell, the same old grief comes from the memory and I feel unlucky to see, that again in the next generation such "lost minds" (as I may provisionally denote it here) are following such a zig-zag-path so far away from life-related thinking/consideration/meditation.           
As I said, all the latter is purely personal and does not matter for the question whether such questions are acceptable for this site. But it makes me an impulse to even give a downvote (which I do very rarely in general) - especially if I do not see subsequent improvements with increasing "seriousness" (in my view) and personal attempts to resolve such questions by one's own thinking (and possibly by doing simple research in the Pali-canon or other resources first). So that part of my answer might explain my emotion to give a downvote sometimes, instead of simple ignoring of questions.        
Giving it a perspective, seeing not only a single, individual, question but a set of them, a history, a "form" of them: I wouldn't like this Q&A-board to cultivate such fruitless speculatiions, the bell rings: "oops, this might go in the wrong, in an unwanted, in an unwholesome direction".           
I hope that personal reflection does not frustrate now you !  - but helps to explain, that beneath such possible downvoting by me there is still an impulse to correct something which I associate with unfortunate praxis of looking at life (and thus unavoidable self-training when repeated) - (think that this is after now about 50 years long experiences with myself and with our "folks around").      

7141: <p><strike>Wouldn't it be nice if the elite on this site help new resourceful people come up.They can help new people gain more rep depending on their behavior.we are all trying to help each other please consider this proposal.</strike></p>
<p>I posted the following question on the main site, and one of the moderators deleted it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Buddhism and Reletivity</strong></p>
<p>According to Albert Einstein when you reach higher speeds (Speed of light) you can go faster than time itself,so you will be able to go and see the future.when Buddhism describe the speed of &quot;Deva's/Brahma's&quot; they can reach anywhere within seconds,So are they travelling through time?</p>
<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/theravada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;theravada&#39;" rel="tag">theravada</a> <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/science" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;science&#39;" rel="tag">science</a></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Is this a good question or a bad question: do you agree with its being closed, or should it be left open to answers?</li>
<li>If you think it is not suitable for this site, can you explain what's wrong with it?</li>
<li>If you don't think that it's suitable as it is (quoted above), can you suggest how to edit/change it to make it suitable so that it could be reopened?</li>
</ul>
 254: <p>I agree that it's not a suitable question for this site (i.e. it is not a question which is likely to attract good answers).</p>

<p>Some problems with the question include:</p>

<ul>
<li>I don't think Einstein said that "you can go faster than time itself" (instead, Physics talks about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime" rel="nofollow noreferrer">spacetime</a> and about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone" rel="nofollow noreferrer">light cones</a>)</li>
<li>"Are they travelling through time?" isn't a clear question</li>
</ul>

<p>The site has had some questions like this in the past: see e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5699/254">Is our mind faster than light?</a></p>

<p>This question is based on mistaken assumptions and many of its answers are meaningless.</p>

<p>Most users of this site don't really know Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and so it's not worth asking people about it here; also theoretical Physics is not really on-topic on this site.</p>

<p>This blog entry <a href="https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/">Good Subjective, Bad Subjective</a> suggests that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>your answers must be based on either:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Something that happened to you personally</li>
  <li>Something you can <em>back up</em> with a reference</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>Given that ...</p>

<ul>
<li>Acting as a Deva or Brahma isn't something which people have "personal experience" with</li>
<li>Einstein's Relativity isn't a subject that's described in (pre-20th century) Buddhist references</li>
</ul>

<p>... therefore I think it's not a question which will attract sensible and useful answers.</p>
 106: <p>This question (and similar ones) 'rings bells' of two scenes in me (i.e. it reminds me of two scenes).</p>

<p>It is not only that I doubt this is a good and acceptable question for the <strong>*Q&amp;A-site whose topic is "Buddhism"</strong>: not only because it is --while boldly formulated-- based on a false premise; but also because it (and a bunch of sister-questions) ignores the Buddha's hint to not to speculate too much about fruitless constructs of the mind (constructs of rationality/reason): it is (in my opinion) surely OK to ask such a question one time - but I would also expect a learning curve (I expect the type of question to change), and everyone knows, there are trolls around (who repeat the same types of question)...</p>

<p>A second aspect why --and now for completely personal reasons-- I tend to dislike such questions because since my early youth in school and later with friends I've met people with <em>this style</em> of "philosophical" playing with concepts of the modern time: and what remained to me from that time was a big grief about that near and remote friends, because that "questioning", that "discussing", did not lead to anything, let only to more unhappiness, more contention in life, delivering/lighting-life-problems. Thus also, in politics (when I was a student), I liked more to be with the "Unionists" instead of being with the "anarchists" or other "utopists": because I didn't find the relation to the discussants' true life, the problems with their partners, with their own life-perspectives and even more with their problems, to feel happily embedded in society with near fellows and people around them.         </p>

<p>So when I now come across questions which ring <strong><em>that</em></strong> bell, the same old grief comes from the memory and I feel <em>unlucky</em> to see, that again in the next generation such "lost minds" (as I may provisionally denote it here) are following such a zig-zag-path so far away from life-related thinking/consideration/meditation.           </p>

<p>As I said, all the latter is <em>purely personal</em> and does not matter for the question whether such questions are <em>acceptable for this site</em>. But it makes me an impulse to even give a downvote (which I do very rarely in general) - especially if I do not see subsequent improvements with increasing "seriousness" (in my view) and personal attempts to resolve such questions by one's <em>own</em> thinking (and possibly by doing simple research in the Pali-canon or other resources first). So that part of my answer might explain my emotion to give a downvote sometimes, instead of simple ignoring of questions.        </p>

<p>Giving it a perspective, seeing not only a single, individual, question but a set of them, a history, a "form" of them: I wouldn't like this Q&amp;A-board to cultivate such fruitless speculatiions, the bell rings: "oops, this might go in the wrong, in an unwanted, in an unwholesome direction".           </p>

<p>I hope that personal reflection does not frustrate now <em>you</em> !  - but helps to explain, that beneath such possible downvoting by me there is still an impulse to correct something which I associate with unfortunate praxis of looking at life (and thus unavoidable self-training when repeated) - (think that this is after now about 50 years long experiences with myself and with our "folks around").      </p>
