Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 9

Which was used first in nuclear bombs? Radium or Plutonium?

I couldn't find any specific information on nuclear bombs that answered this question.

"The world's first nuclear explosion occurred on July 16, 1945, when a plutonium implosion device was tested ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think radium has ever been used to create a nuclear bomb. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Radium is not particularly fissile, which means it does not undergo a spontaneous fission reaction. Not all radioactive materials do so. Generally speaking, most fissile elements are isotopes of actinides with odd mass numbers. Radium is not an actinide, and has only 5 isotopes that have a halflife of more than a few seconds; of those only two have halflives measured in years; radium-228 and radium-226, both of which are even mass number. --Jayron32 12:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The OP was probably thinking of "uradium". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

See Trinity (nuclear test). The Manhattan Project created two bomb designs: a uranium gun-type bomb ("Little Boy"), and a more complicated plutonium implosion type bomb ("Fat Man"). Little Boy was simple enough that they were sure it would work on the first try, but Fat Man had to be tested first, just in case. So the first three explosions were 1) Trinity, a test explosion in New Mexico of the Fat Man design, mentioned above as the first nuclear explosion; 2) Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima and therefore the first atom bomb actually dropped in a war; and 3) Fat Man, a second copy of the implosion design, dropped on Nagasaki. I'm sure Wikipedia's articles cover this stuff in detail, but a very thorough history is the 1987 book The Making of the Atomic Bomb. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Explosion/burning in chemical equation

In chemical equation are there any symbols / special characters to indicate that the reaction produces an explosion, vigorous burning or similar hazard? Googling only suggested that "gas explosion can be simplified as an one-step, exothermic chemical reaction: CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O + 886.2kJ/mol". Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've only ever seen that denoted using $\Delta H_{\text{reaction}}^{\ominus }$. Professional chemists will do a hazard/risk assessment (similar to HACCP) before they attempt any lab-work since having a career in chemistry means avoiding blowing up oneself or colleagues. In my industrial lab it was, for example, prohibited to do anything for the first time on a scale greater than 0.1 mol so that even if the hazard were underestimated the resulting exotherm would be unlikely to do much damage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The $\Delta H$ of a reaction only tells the difference between the starting and ending points, not how fast it got there. There are many reactions which are highly exothermic (rusting, for example), but which have very slow kinetics; if a massive amount of energy is released, but it does so over years, than the reaction is not described as explosive. Even if less energy is released, if the energy is released in fractions of a second, and if the energy does pressure volume work, only THEN could it be described as an explosion. To answer the OP's question, no, there is not any particular way to indicate "explosiveness" in a chemical equation. --Jayron32 13:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron32, that reminds me that that the thermite reaction converting the rust back to iron can also be fast and furious. Also worth mentioning for the OP is that in many lab reactions the real hazard is any flammable solvent, which is usually present in much larger amounts than the reagent and if set alight can give many times more than the reaction's exotherm. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a side note, taking the oxygen out of rust is still endothermic in that half of the Thermite reaction. It's the putting the oxygen on aluminum in the other part which is so exothermic. And yes, the reaction is vigorous because the kinetics are rather rapid. --Jayron32 14:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to the considerations of kinetics, "explosion" is not really a scientific term, so there is no real demarcation between burning and exploding. There is a scientifically-meaningful distinction between deflagration and detonation depending on whether the flame propagates slower or quicker than sound in the medium (the latter allows for a shock wave to form, among other things).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There are no rigorous rules, but if a single molecule of a material in the solid or liquid state releases multiple gas molecules during the reaction (e.g. TNT), it indicates the reaction is potentially explosive, due to the sudden increase in atmospheric pressure. 51.155.110.141 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

February 10

What's the record for "highest number of rings in an active ingredient molecule"?

Amongst drugs where the active ingredient is an exact compound and not a mixture. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we including macro-molecule therapies, such as ones using a protein? A protein is technically a single molecule, and it can have a LOT of rings. Also, are we talking aromatic or not? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has an RNA sequence with 4284 nucleotides, each with several rings. --Amble (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Proteins made of amino acids, several of which (proline, phenylalanine, histidine and tyrosine) contain 1 ring, and one (tryptophan) contains two. While insulin, a necessary medication for people with diabetes, is a relatively small protein (only 51 amino acids), the broad class of proteins known as interferons can get MUCH larger, and many have therapeutic uses. --Jayron32 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

While peptides/proteins are clearly going to set the record, Sagittarian Milky Way, maybe you meant to exclude them. There is then a different problem: you could go through Category:World Health Organization essential medicines and look for those with a large number of rings. But how many will you count for compounds like vancomycin which has one very large ring, if you choose to take the maximal periphery, plus numerous smaller rings? Or morphine with its interlocking bridged system? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How many rings or cycles does vancomycin have in the most common counting convention? 11? If they counted rings that contained rings then olympicene would have a lot more than 5 rings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was pointing out that graph theory, as applied to chemicals is relevant. If you read International Chemical Identifier, you'll see why I chose morphine as an example. Your question interested me: having thought about it, I moved on to wonder which drug had the most ring bonds, as a proportion of all its bond (or maybe its non-CH bonds). That number, expressed as a %, can reach 100% for buckminsterfullerene (not a medicine!) and it is certain that the record-holder won't be one of the polymer-like materials of vaccines, peptides etc. Jayron32 makes a perfectly good point below but thinking about questions like this is good for my aging brain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As a percent of all or non-CH bonds is also interesting, if I had the last Physicians Desk Reference I could check some each day till I found the answers, at least for the subset of drugs that both show the structure sufficiently and weren't removed for obsolescence or missing the deadline for inclusion (I don't know if drugs that have been obsolete for many years are still listed). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You could instead start from Wikipedia entries that use Template:Infobox drug, of which there are apparently about 8000 which are not mixtures. Amantadine is a drug with a carbon framework of entirely ring bonds but it may not be the record holder even on the % criterion because of its attached -NH2 group. Good luck.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Phencyclidine has 100% of its non-H atoms in rings, but amantadine beats it in terms of percentage of the non-C–H bonds that are ring-bonds. DMacks (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• The problem with a question like this is not "Is there a record?" Given that there are a finite (extremely large number, but still finite) number of different therapeutic compounds out there, there is going to be one "most" of any random property one could care to name. That such a "most number of rings record" exists does NOT mean that anyone has ever thought to note such a record before. Without sources to confirm that such a record has been noted before now, it is essentially impossible we're going to hit on that record by guessing random molecules we've heard about. Questions of this type are unanswerable, not necessarily because there isn't an answer, just because no one has ever figured it out, and we're for sure not going to reliably create that answer here. --Jayron32 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to consult Category:Heterocyclic compounds with 7 or more rings. However I may not have all the compounds that could be there categorised. And I have not included biological macromolecules. DNA and RNA with their purines and bases have numerous rings, but not fused together. A seven ring heterocycle has seven rings interconnected, so you have to cut 7 bonds to turn this to a connected branching molecule. But for the category, it may additionally include other rings with lesser connection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

February 11

Thermostatically controlled shower

Our shower is supplied from the cold water supply only and it heats the water electrically. The temperature is thermostatically controlled so it does not matter if the water pressure varies. The knob setting the water temperature, although it has radial marker lines, turns smoothly with no sign of discrete positions. There is another knob for "high", "medium" and "cold" which we leave on high. How is the heater likely to be controlled? Will the power be being switched on and off fairly rapidly or will there be some sort of "analogue" control? Thincat (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

One possibility, of many, is Infinite switch Greglocock (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that looks the sort of thing. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A device like that made today might instead use a potentiometer and sensor setup, maybe as part of a PID controller, rather than deal with the mechanical unreliability of the infinite bimetallic switch. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Speciation in coral view

A coral diagram seems to be a good way to depict speciation. In the illustration here, created by Lajos.rozsa, the first detail view appears to be at a moment just before the species are separating. But the magnified picture (second from top) looks pretty homogenous. Shouldn't there be some signs of the impending separation, such as a reduced reproduction rate in the middle of the top border? ◅ Sebastian 09:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a hard time interpreting the diagram. Its caption in Coral of life says: "Zooming out from a network/tree of individuals to a coral diagram in 4 steps." Usually, in a stepwise zooming-out presentation, the full rectangle of the image of step N shrinks to a smaller rectangle embedded in the image of step N+1. So I guess the "zooming out" is bottom-to-top, which (I think) is unusual. Then, the image in the shrunk rectangle embedded in the image of step N+1 is usually still recognizable as a scaled version of the image of step N. Here, I don't see a correspondence. Also, the branches of what is supposedly a single tree overlap in the middle two images, making it difficult to see this as a tree diagram. As to your specific question: (a) is the reproduction rate in a population about to speciate known to be reduced? and (b) how is the rate supposed to be represented visually in such diagrams?  --Lambiam 10:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those two problems. I agree with your interpretation of the composite image being described bottom-to-top, which is also expressed by the direction of the arrows, and I agree that that's rather unusual. Maybe that could be added explicitly to the caption. The second problem is tougher, since it requires a thorough change of the image file. (Most obviously it can be seen in the last two sub-images: Whereas the smaller rectangle in the second last sub-image has only 3 lines entering the bottom edge, the last sub-image shows 7, and a much more even distribution.)

But the overlapping branches are not a problem: That is the whole point of a coral diagram as opposed to a tree diagram. That said, it is a weakness of the image file that it doesn't show any such case in the last sub-image.

As for the specific questions regarding the OP:

(a) I don't know. But: In the scale of the topmost sub-image, which we should call “sub-image 4”, the two branches diverge right above the edge of rectangle for sub-image 3. That means that, If we moved sub-image 3 up just a millimeter or two, we should see no nodes in a wide stretch of the top edge. I can see two ways for that to happen: All the lines need to either suddenly die out or abruptly change course, deciding for one of the two branches. I avoided the second possibility in my question, since it's harder to explain. But let me try: While the diagram type has, to my knowledge, no explicit rule for the x-coordinate of any node, I would say that expediency demands that it represents the closeness (by phenotype or genotype) to any of the two resulting species, at least in the vicinity of a speciation event. Thus, all offspring of that generation would exhibit a sudden change, which violates my understanding of evolution, which is gradual under normal circumstances.

(b) As I understand it, the rate should be the average of lines pointing upward from each node (divided by the number of lines coming in from below, but that's mostly 1 here, so we're safe to neglect the deviations from 1). ◅ Sebastian 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Re. While the diagram type has, to my knowledge, no explicit rule for the x-coordinate of any node, I would say that expediency demands that it represents the closeness (by phenotype or genotype) to any of the two resulting species, at least in the vicinity of a speciation event. There's no such thing as "the vicinity of a speciation event". For speciation to occur two groups of the same species need to be geographically separated for a large number of generations. There's no 'split' in the family tree caused by a slow dwindling of reproduction rates in that 'area'. The x-coordinate in these diagrams (which are not graphs) is just an abstract way to visualize separateness. The way the lines waiver and go off at various angles is misleading. nagualdesign 15:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the term “vicinity” wasn't as clear as I thought. Since none of the dimensions of the coral diagram are spatial, it didn't occur to me that anyone could read it as geographic vicinity. What I meant was: “any point within the same contiguous area of the branch whose time is much closer to the speciation event than to any other event”. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. ◅ Sebastian 23:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How many electrons from an atom form the electron gas?

Been wondering which electrons of a metal atom contribute to the electron gas in metals and which ones remain attached to nuclei. I was wondering specifically for lithium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles like electron gas go way above my head but electrical resistivity and conductivity#In metals is a bit easier to understand. This suggests that it is the outermost shell of electrons that contribute to the conduction and for lithium it's pretty certain just to be its single 2s electron that matters. Note that no electron "attaches to the nucleus", they are all in atomic orbitals around it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also important to note that electrons are not individually identifiable; neither is their location knowable. In terms of modeling metals, the Valence and conduction bands matches up pretty well; in the sea of electrons model, the valence band is those electrons that are capable of participating in electrical conductivity, and gaining energy to reach the conduction band. --Jayron32 16:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my question is aimed at determining whether any of these electrons don't participate in conduction [and in superconductors, if any of the electrons don't form Cooper pairs] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

biohacking

Is there a forum about biohacking that is reputable?--2A02:908:426:D280:E489:4BB:F7DD:7E43 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but if such a thing exists, gwern.net or erowid.org would likely have links to it someplace. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Biohacking means different things to different people, as you'll see from that disambiguation page. If you mean specifically Do-it-yourself biology, that article has plenty of reliable sources and some links to organisations that should have discussion forum via their websites. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

February 12

Does drinking chlorinated water cause cancer?

My local water utility occasionally gives us a slug of extra chlorine, making my tap water smell like a swimming pool. Is there any science showing that drinking that water could be harmful?

Conflicting answers from the Internet:

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/chlorine-cancer-myth/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4824718/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-tapped-out/

03:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:D096:A2DF:EE0B:35D3 (talk)

You may wish to look at Monochloramine, one of the main things formed in the chlorination. It mentions cancer as a risk, and the references might tell you about testing and how much is safe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Being safe is often a relative thing. Drinking chlorinated tap water is generally safer than drinking unchlorinated water. People who worry about chlorinated water may do so while enjoying barbecued meat and beer, both linked with cancer.  --Lambiam 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass and curvature in General Relativity

In Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is a fictional force arising from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is said to be due to the presence of mass. But what is "mass"? Is it possible that what we call "mass" is actually nothing but this curvature, and that the conservation of mass is a geometric conservation of curvature? Thank you. Hevesli (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the conservation of mass doesn't quite hold up, since matter and energy are interchangeable on a quantum scale. nagualdesign 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lay-level (non-mathematical) explanation of General relativity says that the curvature of spacetime is caused by mass. If mass is the curvature, what would be causing this curvature?

In Quantum mechanics, it is similarly suggested at the lay level that mass is a quality imparted to matter by the Higgs boson and Higgs field via the Higgs mechanism. It is widely stated that at present the two theories or models, Relativity and Quantum mechanics, are incompatible even though each appears to be accurate within its own sphere of application and measurement. Your suggestion does not readily seem able to contribute to the reconciliation of the two. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It is not my purpose to reconcile these theories. Nor do I strive for the Theory of Everything with this idea. The fundamental nature of energy is probably even more mysterious than that of mass. I believe that heat is kinetic energy and chemical energy is potential energy. Using the relativistic mass formula, maybe we can equate kinetic energy with mass. Maybe a curvature of spacetime moving through space (in a stationary observer frame) causes additional curvature. And maybe a photon is accompanied by a curvature that moves with it. For other fields than the gravitational field the force is very local because at longer distances the positive and negative forces cancel each other out, but perhaps all forces are accompanied by curvature, only the effect is so local that it has not been observed yet. My question is really not whether I am correct, but whether this idea or similar ones have ever been considered. Could they not be a basis for theories with experimentally testable prediction? Hevesli (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Photons absolutely can curve spacetime just via their inherent kinetic energy. See Kugelblitz (astrophysics). In General Relativity, it's not that "mass = curvature", it's that "mass = energy" and "energy causes curvature". Mass is just energy that is bound up in the interactions that are matter. It's far trickier to get photons into the same volume of space long enough to generate enough curvature to trap them, but there's nothing in the theory that says they can't. In ordinary matter, that energy is mostly doing things like holding the atomic nucleus together, though small amounts of it are holding electrons around the atoms, or holding atoms to each other in compounds. Another small fraction is involved in the Higgs mechanism. But its all energy. And it curves spacetime. As an aside, the kind of curvature that causes gravity is mostly in the time dimension. this video does a good job explaining it for a layperson. --Jayron32 21:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I then rephrase the OP's question as follows:

Is it possible that what we call "energy" is actually nothing but this curvature, and that the conservation of energy is a geometric conservation of curvature?

Thank you :).  --Lambiam 10:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In a way this is the very heart of general relativity. The Einstein field equations equate the energy-momentum tensor to the Einstein tensor that describes the geometry of space-time. Everything that holds for the energy-momentum tensor holds for the Einstein tensor and vice versa, and this is in particular true for the continuity equation $T_{\;\;;\beta }^{\alpha \beta }=0$ which embodies the conservation laws for energy and momentum, so that a similar continuity equation holds for the geometric tensor, $G_{\;\;;\beta }^{\alpha \beta }=0$. In fact, GR – the Einstein tensor and the field equations – was constructed such that this holds (see Einstein_field_equations#Conservation_of_energy_and_momentum, even if you don't follow the math). Conservation of energy and momentum is an empirical fact that needed to be in GR, and the mathematical structure of GR followed from that. This does not mean that "curvature" and "energy" (to use simpler terms) are the same, just that they are intimately related (mass and energy are not the same thing either...). There's also Noether's theorem in there, which relates conservation laws to symmetries of space and time. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

February 13

Gardening / landscaping: what do you call this?

What do you call it where, you have a layer of walls, each with plants on it? Like these https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/714x657q90/923/WPNirL.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/960x643q90/924/HPW7mO.jpg Thanks. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

Terracing. Bazza (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

See also terraced wall. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue reflection

I saw what I think was triply reflected sunlight. There was a double-pane window with a metal spacer. The rays entered through the outer pane, were reflected first on the inner side of the inner pane, then on the spacer, and then on the inner side of the outer pane, before exiting through the inner pane. The path was like the rune, but then upside down.
The reflected light had a vivid blue hue. What could be the cause of this colour? Moving my head in any direction, the hue did not change, but only the intensity.  --Lambiam 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if it were caused by Lambertian reflectance, a type of nominative determinism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Turn that into a load of bull, Mike. -2603:6081:1C00:1187:E88E:4C8A:1E3F:E1D3 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Measurement of spans of suspension bridges

Comparison of bridges

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/comparison_of_notable_bridges has a discussion of the measurement of spans of the longest suspension bridges.

Diagrams at [1] and [2] show that the spans are measured from the towers' centrelines. If one assumes that the span is measured from the inner part of the piers instead, the much wider base above water of the Akashi bridge makes it look like it has a significantly smaller span.

Can someone familiar with this topic please respond in the discussion?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Cmglee the infoboxes at Çanakkale 1915 Bridge and Akashi Kaikyo Bridge list the "Total length" (pier to pier) and the "Longest span" (tower to tower), so I think all is clear in the articles. As far as your SVG file under discussion Here at FPC, after clearing up my misunderstandings, I think your SVG file matches your sources (linked to above) as well as google maps. Bammesk (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

February 14

Earth's axis of rotation

For this question please ignore continental drift or assume it doesn't exist. I know that the Earth's magnetic poles move around over time. I am wondering, does the same thing happen with the geographic poles, that the axis of rotation runs through? Like if you sat down in New York City and waited long enough (millions of years), could you find that NYC is the new North Pole? I know that the axis precesses by a few degrees but I'm looking for a larger effect, like swapping the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Precession is in the constellations, the few degrees of axial tilt change superimposed on that is also in the stars, polar wander on the ground is mostly continental drift (apparent polar wander) and true polar wander. And the constellations themselves scatter like cockroaches after only a few wavy 26,000 year precession circles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So the short answer is no. If you set up camp at the South Pole, its location will still be at the South Pole millions of years from now. The solid Earth globe "wobbles" together with its axis of rotation, just like a fast spinning top tends to do; check out the first image in the article Precession.  --Lambiam 10:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's Chandler wobble. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pregnant woman questions.

Let's say a pregnant woman suffers something where her brother or boyfriend is killed in a car crash, or is murdered. What affect does the stress have it on the future fetus, let's say for 2 scenarios, where it is 9-months pregnant, or where it is just a zygote. Which case has it worse for the fetus? Did the fetus have a high or low probability of turning out abnormal? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

Your (or her) best option is asking the question to the doctor. Internet fora (including Wikipedia's Teahoure or Ref.Desk) are definitely not the right place for seeking medical advice. --CiaPan (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In the event that these may be known cases. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

Nope. No two cases are the same. Read a leaflet attached to any medical product – each of them lists some side effects. Some happen in one case per 100, some in one per ten thousands, some may happen once per the whole history of mankind.

Every accident may end differently. Some people cut their finger off, then get it sewed back and live happily, while some other may scratch it slightly, get infection and die from sepsis.

Some people loose their dog and mentally break down forever, while some (most?) experience a loss of their parents and – even though traumatized – live normally.

Some catch flu or Covid-19 and seem healthy back in seven or ten days, and some stay in hospitals for weeks and go back home with severe pulmonary dysfunctions.

Nobody in the internet knows any special details of physical, mental and social health of the specific person. All you can possibly get here is information about some average scenarios – but you never know if an average scenario applies, because in reality nobody is average. So, even if you meet five proffesors of medicine here, they won't be able to give you a professionally reasonable answer. The only sensible way to obtain a safe advice is to go see your doctor.

By the way, please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer:

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE.

Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Where does paper from US and Europe come from?

In the U.S., does paper come from trees of South America? What about for Europe? And is there such a thing as tree-farms. As in, farm acres of land, to cut down trees strictly used for paper, and once cut down, space is immediately used to grow more trees to cut for paper. The species being the fastest possible -growing trees. And possibly in a glass-ceiling environment where CO2 gas or so is extra given? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

See paper pulp and pulpwood for answers. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)