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

June 10

Feisty baby gull...

Has anyone else here ever seen a gull chick deliberately starting a fight with an adult bird - and winning? Today, I had the opportunity to observe a colony of nesting Black-headed gulls at close quarters in their natural habitat. I noticed that most of the gull pairs had built their nests on small salt marsh 'islands', meaning that space was at a premium. The gulls (being typical gulls) were of course bickering, squabbling and pecking each other constantly over minor territorial encroachments and airspace above the nest. What surprised me, however was to see one of the older chicks joining in.

This particular bird was about 2/3 adult size with partially-grown wing feathers, so he/she was probably about three weeks old, or so. Yes, this youngster was starting fights with any adult gull which came too close to his mother's nest. Not only was he starting fights, more astoundingly he was winning them too! While I was watching, he must've seen off about 15 intruders with his chest-puffed, charging pecks. He certainly wasn't staying on his side of the line either - more than once, he chased an adult gull all the way across the island and into the water with his heel-snapping, causing absolute pandemonium amongst the uninvolved sitting hens. I just can't understand why the adult birds were prepared to take that from a chick...

Oh yes, in answer to the question someone asked the other day - it seems that baby gulls of this species *can* and do swim. I saw birds that were no more than a couple of days old trying to swim away from their nests (much to the annoyance of the parent gulls, who would corral them back, scolding loudly). They seemed to be fully waterproofed too. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like behavior typically associated with species that have ascribed social status. That is, the offspring of the "alpha pair" may have the right to push around others, even adults. Do gulls exhibit such a complex social pattern as this ? 67.38.24.177 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so but I can't say for certain. I'm not as familiar with this species as I am with some of the others. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

gravitational redshift

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that gamma rays lost energy/frequency as they fell through the building, due to gravitational redshift. Only by moving the emitter downward relative to the receiver could the gamma rays be given enough (doppler) frequency to be absorbed. This diagram and relativity-common-sense would seem to support that "time" runs slower for things (like photons) undergoing acceleration.

But the gravitational redshift article (and general relativity) says that light originating from a stronger gravitational field will have longer wavelength when received by an observer in a weaker gravitational field. Redshift for deceleration now! Which is it? The former makes more sense to me.. like a pendulum, the left-right motion of the wave in the horizontal direction stays the same, but the wavefront moves faster due to acceleration from gravity. So a stationary observer sees "more wave" go by for each cycle.. a redshift. So which is it for falling light? Redshift or blueshift? .froth. (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueshift. If you move deeper in a gravity well, then you gain energy. Since photons can't actually move faster, the way this is manifest is by their blueshifting to higher energy state. Dragons flight (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fans and heating/cooling

Two questions:

1. If I put my hand in front of a fan, I can feel lots of air getting blown out. But if I put my hand behind the fan, I can barely feel any air getting sucked into the fan. So where does the air getting blown out the front of the fan come from? It feels like there's way more air coming out then getting sucked in.
2. It's summertime, and for the moment, I'm in a house without an air conditioner. At night, when the temperature drops, the second floor rooms stay way hotter than the first floor rooms and way hotter (by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit) than the outside environment. Presumably, what is happening is that all the hot air from the first floor is rising up to the second floor and then getting stuck in the second floor rooms without being able to go out. I've tried opening all the windows on the second floor, but the temperature seems to still refuses to drop by much up there, probably because there is close to no wind these past few days. I was thinking that I could improve air circulation by sticking fans in the windows. My question is, if I did so, which way should I stick the fans? Would it be more effective in cooling the rooms to have the fans blowing cooler air from outside into the hot rooms, or to have the fans blowing the hot air inside the rooms out the window?

—Lowellian (reply) 07:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fan pushes air which is in front of its blades. It does not suck from behind. Window fan, or as I call it Exhaust fan may solve your problem. manya (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, manya, but your explanation isn't correct. Fans generally take air from one side of the blade disk and push it out the other side of the blade disk. With regard to the original question, if the fan were mounted in a duct, so that all of the air was constrained to travel within the duct, I think you'd find that air flow would feel the same on either the inlet or outlet sides of the fan. But room fans aren't mounted within a duct so the airflow isn't so constrained. I think the cause of the effect is two-fold: air flows into the fan blades from a variety of directions and a rather large "subtended angle". Because of the large subtended angle, the inflowing air can move at a pretty low velocity and yet move into the blades a large volume of air. On the outlet side, though, the moving air stream is probably more focused, so the same volume of air needs to now move at a higher velocity. A second-order effect is that the outlet air stream probably tends to drag surrounding air along with it, decreasing the stream's velocity but further increasing its volume (in the same fashion as a jet pump moves more water). This would probably be a lot easier to explain if the Reference Desk were equipped with a wind tunnel so you could see, via the smoke streams, the various flows of air. ;-)

With regard to exhaust fans, see whole-house fan.

Atlant (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good answer! --Anonymous, 00:01 UTC, June 11, 2008.

The best way to clear out the air in a room is to have one window fan blowing air out, and another one across the room blowing it in. I speak from broken-air-conditioner-in-102-degree-weather experience. --Sean 12:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Atlant with his explanation. To explain it slightly differently, the air being blown out of the fan is focused to travel in a specific direction by the shape of the blades, therefore the moving air takes up a given volume (lets call it x for fun). On the 'input' side of the fan, there is no such restriction on where the air comes from. As the blades push the air directly in front of them out of the way into the volume x above, there is a (momentary, instantaneous, imaginary, useful for this exercise) vacuum that is created because there is no air present. To keep the air pressure in the volume constant, the atmosphere rushes in 'uniformly' and 'from all directions'. Because its coming in from all directions, it occupies a greater volume and (as Atlant said) the flow rate is lower because theres a greater volume flowing.

To address your second concern, Sean is correct. Having all fans blowing outward would be the least useful solution because (assuming theres no other source of air) all of the air would have to travel through the rest of the (substantially warmer) house before it could reach the second floor, which would minimize cooling capacity. If all the fans face in, you'll get lots of cool air in but the warm air in the house will still be present increasing the amount of air that needs to be cooled. But having an equal number pushing in and pulling out will bring an influx of cool air (what the first method lacks) and also remove warm air (what the second method lacks). If done correctly, it will also reduce the amount of electricity needed compared to the other two. EagleFalconn (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need the fans - just opening one window at the front of the house and one at the back (and the internal doors inbetween) will create a significant flow of air through the house. The fans will increase the effect, especially if there is no natural wind, but they aren't essential for the basic principle. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article I wrote on home cooling with fans: [1]. It seems to answer most of your questions listed under part 2. In your case, I recommend blowing cool air in on the lower floor and out on the second floor. Note that this will cool the lower floor more quickly than the upper floor, though, as the hot air on the lower floor must first move to the upper floor before being exhausted. You might want to sleep on the lower floor if it remains too hot upstairs. The other option is to have fans blowing in and out on both floors.

Note that the inside temp often increases after sunset because the exterior walls, which have been absorbing sunlight and changing it into heat, begin to radiate this heat inside the house. The delay between when the sunlight is absorbed and the heat reaches the inside has to do with the thickness of the walls and their thermal conductivity. Something like a 6 hour delay is typical for the average brick house. Thus, if the hottest point outside is at 3 PM, the hottest point inside may not occur until 9 PM. Hosing down the brick wall periodically may also help to reduce the heat which they contain. Be sure to close any windows, first, though. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw a couple more tidbits into this dicsussion, as I too lived in a house with no central AC for 25 years.

• If you only have one fan, have it exhaust the hot air.
• If there's any breeze at all, use it -- don't try to exhause hot air into the wind!
• If you have a built-in fan in the bathroom (a "fart fan"), use it too -- it's closer to the ceiling than anything else.
• Having a fan blowing on you is pseudo-cooling; you're increasing the evaporative effect but doing nothing to cool the rest of the room.

And despite all that, sometimes you just have to sleep on the floor in the basement :-). --Danh, 67.40.166.141 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree on using a single fan for exhaust. That will result in a slight negative pressure in the home which may cause air to backup down chimneys, may suck in bugs and dust when you open exterior doors, etc. Also, a room in which the fan blows inward will quickly cool, and the air circulation will make it feel even cooler than it is, so that's a good place to sleep. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

StuRat, the "single exhaust fan" is the exact working concept behind the whole-house fan. The idea, of course, is that you don't just exhaust from the house, you also open "inlet" windows , usually concentrating on the room(s) that you're currently occupying. This (and the damper that you've installed on your chimney) prevents pulling soot, bats, etc. down the chimney or radon from below the basement floor. And because the exhaust fan is usually located remotely from you, you don't hear it very much. I've lived in two houses now that had whole-house exhaust fans and found them to be very useful. Their principle disadvantage is that because you're circulating exterior air through the house, you're alos bringing in pollens and other exterior pollutants.

With regard to bathroom exhaust fans, before anyone implements that strategy, be sure you know where the exhaust from you bathroom fan goes! Some just recirculate through an activated carbon filter and those will be worse-than-useless in helping to cool you. And some that are meant to exhaust to the outside aren't properly installed. My curent house was an example of this. All our various bathroom fans exhausted into wall spaces and the previous owner's use of these fans resulted in nothing but the creation of rot. Mis-exhausted fans won't help keep you cool either.

Atlant (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm biased here because we have a defective chimney with no cap or damper (which led to a friendly visit from our neighborhood squirrel doing his Santa impersonation), and the whole house smells of smoke when I have more fans blowing out than in. However, even in a home without a fireplace or with one tightly sealed, there are still exhaust vents from the water heater, furnace, and dryer (unless they are electric), so creating negative pressure in the home could cause those to back up. If they are properly functioning and enough windows are open they likely won't back up but will only work somewhat less efficiently. Another risk is that negative pressure can pull air out of the wall spaces, which might have mold spores in them, while a positive pressure would push the air in the wall spaces outside. However, as blowing air in (with windows open where you want to exhaust air) will result in just as much air exchange as blowing air out, why take the chance if you have the choice ? StuRat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One further point. I live in a house with an unfinished attic above the second floor. The "ceiling" of the attic is simply the underside of the roof structure, and the "floor" is the structure supporting the second-floor ceiling. The important thing is that the attic space is not thermally part of the house, but is part of the outdoors; the attic "floor", not the "ceiling", is covered with insulation. If your house is like this, it may be helpful to increase the ventilation between the attic and the outdoors by adding vents; since the attic is heated during the day by sunlight on the roof, ventilation reduces heat buildup. It may also be desirable to increase the amount of insulation, both to reduce warming of the second floor by the attic in summer and to reduce heat loss through the attic in winter. --Anonymous, 00:01 UTC, June 11, 2008.

Thanks for all the advice, everybody! Keep cool! ;) —Lowellian (reply) 05:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Physics -- Force, Mass and Acceleration

I've been asked this question by somebody who found it in a book (which didn't bother to provide the answer): We know that F=ma. If we consider a constant acceleration, and then plot a graph of the force required to give/achieve that acceleration against different masses taken, the graph assumes the form of a curve. Why is it so, knowing that the relation between force and mass is linear? 117.194.226.154 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a sample of that graph, or at least the specific axes used (and anything else non-obvious, like not being simple/unconstrained linear motion, etc). As described, F vs m for some constant a should indeed be linear as you say. DMacks (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the only reason it would curve is if a is being factored into the graph, and is only held constant at intervals, but not during the entire length of the graph, or else if a was always the same value it would be linear as stated.--十八 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be a straight line, unless we're missing a key detail. Of course, a line is a type of curve by the strict mathematical definition, so perhaps that's what it means... a rather strange way to say it, though. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming a vacuum with no other forces acting on the mass, it should definitely be a straight line. Certainly in many realistic situations you would get a curve, though, due to things like air resistance or friction on the surface it's travelling on - is that perhaps what the book was referring to? ~ mazca ^talk 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could have a slight curve to it, because the gravity of the mass of the object to be accelerated is also attracting the mass of the observer, thus reducing the acceleration of the object away from the observer (or increasing the acceleration toward the observer). However, this effect would be beyond what could be measured, unless you were dealing with a rather massive object. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The question wasn't about gravity, it was about an arbitrary force. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if you have any two objects with mass (one being the observer and the planet, ship, etc., where they are located) there will be some gravitational attraction, which will affect acceleration of one object relative to the other, and therefore the force you must apply to achieve any desired acceleration. This has such a minor effect for objects of any reasonable mass that it can safely be ignored, but the effect would become measurable for massive objects. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have any sample of that graph. The book didn't provide any. It only said that force was plotted on the y-axis, and mass on the x-axis. But I've been assuming that the graph was somewhat like a rectangular hyperbola. 117.194.225.216 (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any details of the book (Title, Author, ISBN number) so we can try and find it online? SpinningSpark 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that as the mass approaches infinity (speed approaches lightspeed), the force required to achieve a certain amount of acceleration increases non-linearly? F=ma fails to hold at relativistic levels. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gyroscope

Why angular momentum is in direction of rotating axis?Shouldn't it be in the direction of spin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.81.247 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The direction of spin is different on different parts of the spinning body, and at different times. Consider the hour hand on a clock, for example. At 12, the hand is moving to the right, at 3 it's moving down, at 6 it's going to the right left at 9 it's going up. The direction of the axis is the only direction which is constant (that's basically what "axis" means), so it's the only one you can usefully use in the definition of angular momentum. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

At 6 it's going to the left. Am I allowed to just change your comment to fix minor mistakes like that? — DanielLC 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed it. I wouldn't mind you just correcting it, but others might - it's easiest just to reply like you did. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neptune

A diamond on Earth retains a certain shape and hardness(?). What would happen to a diamond if it was placed on the planet Neptune? Will it become harder or change in any way? --Vincebosma (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what would happen if a human spaceship attempted to land on Neptune? --Vincebosma (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a homework question, so I won't give you a complete answer. I think the first thing you need to consider is what you actually mean by "placed on" and "land on" - Neptune is a gas giant, there is no land, at least not without going deep down into the thick atmosphere. The things you'll need to consider when determining what will happen to things on Neptune are pressure and gravity. Our article on Neptune will give you some data that should help with that. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm flattered you thought this was a homework question, but I am a 35 year old man with no homework. Just a curious question. So considering Neptune has no land, the question about diamonds and human spaceships won't matter. I was trying to determine what would happen to things like diamonds and human spaceships on planets (with land) that are at least 20x larger than Earth pressure-wise and gravitational-wise. --Vincebosma (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Planets that large are almost certain to be gas giants. They will have a solid core, but it's a long way down. There will be very high temperatures and pressures, which diamonds can probably survive intact, but spacecraft wouldn't. You might find Galileo (spacecraft) interesting - it sent a probe into the atmosphere of Jupiter, which was destroyed by the harsh conditions (after sending back lots of useful data) - the article gives some details. It is possible to have spacecraft in the upper atmosphere, though, see Floating city (science fiction) for (a little) more information. --Tango (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What you need is a phase diagram for carbon. We don't seem to have one on Wikipedia, but Google should find you several. If you know the local temperature and pressure, you can determine whether your diamond will be stable. I note that diamond is a pretty stable allotrope of carbon at high pressures and moderately high temperatures (thousands of degrees). There has been speculation in the past that the core of Jupiter may be (mostly) a large diamond, formed by the heat and high pressure. There's also suggestion that Jupiter will have layers of other rather exotic materials as well, including metallic hydrogen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to our Neptune article, the core is several thousands of degrees hot, so a diamond could burn (if oxygen was present) or melt (but the high pressure might prevent this). StuRat (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, probably due to its low density compared to earth, Neptune only has about ~2% more gravity than earth at the cloudtops (I don't remember the exact figure). Also, it has been theorised that the pressure at the cores of Uranus and Neptune can put methane under enough heat and pressure so that it forms diamonds (the CH₄ is stripped of its hydrogen, which forms metalic liquid hydrogen, then the leftover carbon is compressed into diamonds). It might be better to land on a moon of Neptune with reasonable gravity such as Triton, but it's -225C there. Depending on which layer of Neptune you are in, you may have to face temperatures anywhere from -240C to +15000C, gravity anywhere from 0.5x Earth to 220x Earth, and gasses from hydrogen to methane to ammonia. There might also be electrical storms in the planet. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That 220g figure sounds highly suspect to me, do you have a source for that ? StuRat (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, no, I just calculated based on OR and that gravity goes up up the square of distance. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd love to see your assumptions and calculations, because I suspect there's a big mistake in there somewhere. I'm guessing you're using a point-mass model, which is highly inaccurate within a planet's atmosphere. With gas giants, at the top of the atmosphere the density is very low, so there is a great distance to any substantial mass, so the gravity is low. At the bottom of the clouds/top of the ocean, the density is much higher, but there is a great deal of mass above you pulling upwards, which cancels out much of the gravity pulling down. At the bottom of the ocean/top of the solid core, the density is even higher but the mass above is greater yet, so there still is a major effect of the pull upward working against the pull downward. There's also a great deal of mass on the sides of your location, which, of course, also cancel each other out.

Gas giants also spin at a rapid clip, reducing the gravity substantially, due to apparent centrifugal forces. Note that our Neptune article states that the "equatorial surface gravity" is only 1.14g. This NASA fact sheet confirms that info: [2]. Note that Saturn and Uranus even have less gravity than Earth. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Physics

Are there any scalar quantities which are formed by a product of 2 vector quantities? Can anybody give some examples of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.211.252 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See Mechanical work#Force and displacement for one example. --Tango (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, there are several. It's unlikely that anyone here will answer your homework question for you, however. I'll give you a hint—force is a vector quantity. I suggest you examine the basic physics formulae that you've been taught and look for scalar and vector terms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read dot product? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework, kid! 117.194.226.115 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence enhancing drugs

Have there been any drugs that show a positive correlation between intelligence and their use? ScienceApe (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Nootropic? Friday (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do any of these replies help?--droptone (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wired Magazine actually covered this topic briefly in their May issue. Check it out here. They suggest adderal, Aniracetam, aricept, methamphetamine, modafinil nicotine, rolipram, and vasopressin may potentially "boost cognitive output," although many of these drugs have negative side effects and may also be illegal in your area. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking-glass protein

Assume we found an alternate form of life identical to something we know is edible(say, an apple), except that the structure of its proteins and other molecules was opposite in chirality to that of life as we know it. If we ate such "looking-glass" food, would it be poisonous, or just pass through the body inertly? Would it even be possible for mirror-imaged proteins and molecules to form complex life similar to ourselves and what we eat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.86.164 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no real bias within chemistry and chemical reactions for specific chiralities. That is to say that enantiomers have the same chemical properties. If we were to come across an apple that had the opposite chirality (for example, all the sugars in it were the enantiomer of dextrose) its effects would be difficult to say arbitrarily. There are certain molecules that the body would simply allow to pass right through as its different chirality would make it neigh impossible for any proteins to sucessfully catalyze the digestion. On the other hand, there are also molecules for which the change in chirality would make them horribly horribly poisonous. See thalidomide. There is no reason for biology to be biased towards R molecules, and to my knowledge research is being done to determine why that bias arose. If I recall correctly, the current theory has something to do with the strong force, which seems a little off kilter to me but I'm not really qualified to judge. (EagleFalconn) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The main theory I know of is that the chirality of organic molecules is purely by chance - it just happens that the first life forms to be successful were of that chirality and every life form since has therefore also been. It's an interesting issue, and has many consequences for the fundamental ideas of evolution. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why life couldn't form with everything the exact mirror image of what we observe. Interaction between life forms of each type (for example, us eating a mirror-apple) would be unpredictable, as you say, but interactions between molecules of one type should be indistinguishable from interactions between molecules of the other type. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, my point in the above comment was to say that there is a theory that states that R may have been favorable due to a strong force interaction, which is to say that it wasn't entirely chance but there was something driving it (perhaps competitive reaction kinetics). Interestingly, it isn't necessarily true that just because an interaction works R,R that it will work S,S. As I say above, enantiomers have the same chemical properties, however diastereomers do NOT. So just because we know what an R sugar coupling with an R protein will do, we don't know if it'll do the same thing with the S sugar and the S protein. EagleFalconn (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds off...unless there's a third chiral thing involved (external entity or noticeably affected by low-level like asymmetric Force), enantiomers are completely structurally identical and perfect 3D mirror images, so why wouldn't one think R-substrate + R-enzyme would be identical and bind identically (except perfectly enantiomerically) to S-substrate + S-enzyme? If they don't, then enantiomers aren't really "perfect mirror images". DMacks (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Except for the possibility of very small effects with the strong or weak nuclear forces, the laws of physics are invariant with respect to taking mirror images, so the S versions of things should interact with each other in the same way the R versions do. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, but we know that diastereomers have different chemical properties (R,R != S,R != R,S != S,S) so while individually the substrate and the protein would be chemically identical to their enantiomers, wouldn't (A) the diastereomeric compound they make have different chemical and physical properties depending on whether it is R,R or S,S? And therefore, (B) Wouldn't the metabolization therefore have different requirements that the remainder of our body, having only been mirror imaged as opposed to also having metabolic processes changed (temperature, activation energy provided, catalyst (since R,R,R would, again, have different properties than S,S,S etc), would be unequipped to meet? We might say that its a small change, but biology is very sensitive to small changes because of the complexity of the systems. I'm guess I'm not really following your disagreement, do you disagree with point A or B? Also, I agree that the strong force thing is weird, I'm just repeating something I found in my organic textbook (Loudon 4th edition) that I used in my optics class. EagleFalconn (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as you take the mirror image of absolutely everything, it shouldn't make any difference (except the results will all be mirrored, of course). When we say they have different chemical properties we mean in relation to everything else staying the same, if everything else is mirrored with them, the properties should be identical. Symmetry under parity inversions is a pretty fundamental law of physics. Incidentally, I think it's the weak force, not the strong force, which violates it (at least, that's what it says in that article), and the weak force governs things like radioactive decay, chemistry (and therefore biochemistry) is governed by the electromagnetic force, which is symmetric. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked up a citation, Loudon 4th Edition page 277 and 278. First part addresses enantiomers forming diastereomers (the substrate binding to the enzyme/protein):

Enantiomers have different reactivities with chiral reagents because diastereomers have different free energies. Just as diastereomers differ in their other physical properies they also differ in free energies. In this case, the transition state for the reaction of one enantiomer is the diastereomer of the transition state for the reaction of the other. Because diastereomeric transition states have different energies, the reaction of one enantiomer occurs more rapidly than the reaction of the other (Note that we may not be able to predict which enantiomer will be more reactive)

— Marc Loudon, Organic Chemistry 4th Edition, page 277

Emphasis not mine, by the way. I believe that the above guarantees that R,R would have a different reaction rate than S,S. In addition:

Disatereomers in general have different reactivities toward any reagent, whether the reagent is chiral or achiral. The reason is that, in the reactions of diastereomers, both the starting materials and the transition states are diasteromeric, and disastereomers have different free energies. Consequently, their standard free energies of activation, and hence their reaction rates, must in principle differ...We may not be able to predict which alkene is more reactive or by how much, but we can be sure that the two alkenes will not be equally reactive.

— Marc Loudon, Organic Chemistry, 4th edition, Page 288

This part indicates that the substrate, once bound to the protein, will also have different energetics. Does this sound reasonable? EagleFalconn (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent). Those quotes are exactly what we're saying and is what you're misinterpretting: it's talking about each of two enantiomers of one compound reacting with the same (one constant) enantiomer of another. See where it says diastereomeric transistion states are different? That means it's an S+S vs S+R type of comparison, not S+S vs R+R (which would be enantiomeric). So it's talking about how a "normal" enzyme reacts with its natural-sugar substrate vs with the enantiomer of that sugar, not how the enantiomer of the enzyme reacts with the enantiomer of the sugar. Or how the (enantiomeric) product of the (enantiomeric enzyme + enantiomeric sugar) would react with the rest of biology in a "normal" (non-enantiomeric-world) system. Consider hands and gloves: left hand fits into left glove identically to how right hand fits into right glove. But left vs right hand fit differently into left glove. And (left hand in left glove) shakes hands with someone else's left hand identically to how a (right hand in right glove) shakes hands with someone else's right hand, but (left hand in left glove) shakes differently with someone else's left hand vs right hand. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Point conceeded, thanks. The point that I was missing was that S+S is the enantiomer of R+R. EagleFalconn (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding specifically proteins and amino acids, and the effect of eating an apples with opposite chirality proteins: I'm pretty sure that the D-isomers of amino acids have greatly reduced bioavailability. This comes up because some chemical treatments that foodstuff might be subjected to, such as strong alkali, tend to racemize amino acids. ike9898 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Increased Gravitational Pull on Earth

What exactly will happen if the gravitational pull on Earth increased ever so slightly? Such as, will I weigh heavier, will certain animal or plant species suffer and die off, etc. --Vincebosma (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "ever so slightly". The Earth's gravity already varies by very small amounts depending on where you are (by about 0.5% or so), and that clearly doesn't have any major effects. It needs to be taken into account for some satellites, I believe, so changing the strength of gravity by less than a percent would probably mess up GPS, but that's about it. Everything would weigh more, but not enough to cause any significant effects. If you increase gravity enough, though, things would start to be unable to support their own weight and would collapse. How much you would need to increase it by depends on what you want to collapse, I don't have any example figures for you, though. I expect it would increase air pressure, although it may in fact decrease it above a certain altitude (the scale height would decrease). I'm not sure what effects that might have, but it could well affect the climate. It would cause the moon to move closer, shortening the length of a lunar month and increasing tidal forces. There are probably all kinds of other effects I haven't thought of, as well. How significant each of them will be depends on how much you increase gravity. --Tango (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about as a reference, instead of weighing 200 lbs, due to the increase, I weigh 250 lbs.....--Vincebosma (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, the moon's orbit will destabilize causing it to impact Earth. Everything else is pretty minor at that point. (Assumes 25% more gravity w/ no other physical changes) — Lomn 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A 25% increase in gravity would cause the moon to impact the Earth? I'll have to find the back of an envelope, but that sounds unlikely... Do you have the numbers for that, or are you just guessing? --Tango (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the back of my envelope, a 25% increase in Earth's gravity would cause the Moon's closest approach to each to be about 2/3 of what it is now, that's nowhere near enough to hit the atmosphere and impact Earth. (Note, there are very rough numbers - I'll try a more accurate calculation in a sec.) --Tango (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(The more accurate calculation is proving more complicated that it's worth, the 2/3 figure should be pretty close, and it's far far outside the atmosphere, so there's plenty of margin for error. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

You're right, my back of the envelope was way off. — Lomn 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But would that closer approach allow the Moon to much more efficiently strip off the atmosphere? That could have a somewhat negative impact. (takes a deep breath) Franamax (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify that - the moon is not in the atmosphere per se, but it is now sweeping out a zone with a higher density of gas molecules (I mailed my envelope with the water bill, no idea how much higher). Wouldn't moving the swept zone closer to the breathable part of the atmosphere increase the outward diffusion? Or not? Franamax (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to exosphere, the atmosphere ends at about 10,000km above the surface of the Earth, although I'm not sure how that's defined, seems pretty arbitrary to me. That's 16,000km above the centre of the Earth. At 2/3 it's current distance, the Moon would be about 270,000km away. That's a whole order of magnitude bigger, I think we can safely ignore all atmospheric effects. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You might have quite a number of buildings and bridges in the world collapse. Although many structures were built with tolerances that could handle a 25% increase in constant load, many others weren't. Those structures that are already near their maximum safe load would collapse. The nearer moon and increased gravitation would affect the tides, which could affect certain parts of the ecosystem. All creatures would have to develop stronger muscles to support their bodies, and the hearts would have to work overtime, leading to shorter lifespans for most creatures above the size of a large insect. The jumps made by skateboarders, skiers, etc. wouldn't look as impressive as they do now. Actually, just about anything you stop to consider would be affected in some way. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumping from big heights

I have recently seen the Bourne Ultimatum (great film by the way) and was a bit confused by the ending. Bourne supposedly jumps from a ten, I think, storey building into a river and survives. This doesn't strike me as terribly realistic and I'm sure I wouldn't be quite as successful if I tried it. Is this Hollywood bending the laws of reality for its own needs again or is there some military training that can prepare you for jumps like that? Is it actually be possible? Thanks. 92.0.243.212 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside Magazine says "The highest Olympic-level dive distance is ten meters (33 feet), with good reason. Beware of injury at around 15 to 20 feet and know what you're doing above 30 feet. Anything over 50 is pro territory." The Discovery Channel explains "Perhaps the biggest misconception about cliff diving is that the diver is cushioned by the water below—this could not be further from the truth. When leaping from a cliff that is over 70 feet high, a diver hits the water at over 46 mph, regardless of his or her body weight." (70 feet is 21 metres) I do not know the answer to the training part of the question. WikiJedits (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, you would expect him to break his legs on impact (did he at least land feet first? Diving head first from that height would almost certainly kill you!). Other than landing feet first, so your legs take the impact, not your head, I can't see anything you could be trained to do that would help. There is an urban legend about throwing something ahead of you to break the surface of the water so it won't be so hard when you hit it, but as far as I know, that's complete nonsense. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kinda funny you should say that as, if you haven't seen all the Bourne films, in the first one he falls what looks like at least 10m from the top of a stairwell but survives because he was good enough to push some else over first and land on them. But again, could just be Hollywood's attempt at the wow-factor. 92.0.243.212 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You could be trained to execute a parachutist's landing where you hit with feet, then thigh, hip, shoulder, to spread the energy out. Also, according to one of those "Worst-Case Scenario" books, you should clench your buttocks so that a jet of water doesn't tear a hole in your colon. --Sean 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Gate Bridge at 750 feet (220 m) is a popular spot for suicidal jumpers. Despite the extreme height, relatively cold water (50-60 F / 10-15 C), and frequent strong currents, about 2% of jumpers nonetheless survive. So it is certainly possible. A person like Bourne in peak physical health who presumably knows how to enter the water in a controlled way might well have a decent shot of executing a 100 ft dive, though it certainly wouldn't be easy or a sure thing that he would survive. So I'd say it is certainly possible, though I wouldn't recommend it. Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See La Quebrada Cliff Divers, which daily dive off 45m cliffs - this is more than most 10 storey buildings. I assume that they survive ;-). I have dived 10m. If you enter the water optimally (for me that is vertical, feet first, as I'm a craven coward rational person), there is very little impact stress. If you are more than a little off, you get quite a kick. I don't want to experience what happens if you enter the water uncontrolled... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to give this a try but by 'optimally' what do you mean? A pencil dive, feet first? Would your body be tense, to keep you in that pencil shape, or relaxed, so that you don't break your bones on impact? 92.0.243.212 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems you can do it, if you know what you're doing. Shows what I know! --Tango (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but I seem to recall that the water in at least some diving events is aerated. Is this primarily to give the diver a visual reference, or is it intended to provide a degree of cushion on entry? -- Tcncv (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the aeration actually exists, but if it did it would lower the surface tension of the water and lessen the impact force. However, the same amount of work would still need to be done to stop you, and so you'd need a deeper pool to do it.EagleFalconn (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know they have a small spray hitting the surface to make it easier to see where it is (so you know when to stop somersaulting, or whatever). I don't think it has any affect on the landing, though. I'm not sure how significant surface tension is to the impact force, I think it's just the fact that liquids are incompressible that makes them seem so solid (the water can't compress like a crash mat, it has to move out of the way, and that takes time). --Tango (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suspect that the small spray is just to be able to tell where the surface is. To my knowledge and experience, surface tension and viscosity are coupled effects which are the impact force, as they directly relate to the incompressibility of the liquid. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct a misconception: the surface tension is negligible. The relevant dimensionless number is the Weber number which in this case works out to be about 10 million. Given that surface tension effects are only important if We is less than or approximately equal to one, we may safely ignore surface tension. Robinh (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict):

1. Surface tension is one of the variables in the Weber equation, so it is clearly not negligible
2. I've never seen this before, but it looks like it's about fluids in motion so it probably isn't that useful in describing swimming pools.

Feel free to correct me if i misunderstood something here. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Robinh is correct. The Weber number calculation says that forces from surface tension are a factor of 10 million smaller than forces from inertia. That's negligible. The velocity in question is the relative velocity of the body (i.e. the diver) normal to the fluid interface (i.e. hitting the water). JohnAspinall (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cat spray / Territorial marking

This question relates to a "cat pee" question posted by another user above. I'm convinced that the stuff that cats "spray" when marking their territory isn't urine. From having to clean it up, I know that it is oily and extremely musky. I assumed it was some sort of gland secrection, but our articles on cat and territorial marking refer to this stuff as urine. Can anyone clarify whether or not it is urine? ike9898 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is urine, but does include certain gland secretions which give it the distinctive smell (well, distinctive to cats - just smelly to us!) --Tango (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is urine plus anal gland secretions. According to this paper the secretions contain volatile fatty acids (which might constitute the greasy feel), putrescine, cadaverine, and ammonia(which contributes to the unholy smell). The secretion-urine mix also contain lipids and dead cells.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

. . .another cup of tea anybody?! Richard Avery (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ball lightning?

Hi. This morning there was a big thunderstorm where I live (southern Ontario). A friend told me he heard ball lightning. He reported the following:

• Two seconds of hissing, then a loud thunderclap
• It sounded like a Roman Candle (firework)
• The lights went dim noticeably for about 10 minutes, occasionally flickering, then suddenly went back to full power
• He had read a book containing information about ball lightning before the thunderstorm
• Location: less than 500 m from where I was at the time, was indoors

The thunderstorm:

• Can be classified as severe, but no warning was issued
• Lightning every several seconds
• Rainfall rate showing up as dark-red on The Weather Network radar
• Was located near a cold front
• Occured before 8 am EDT, did not weaken overnight
• Was located near central-eastern USA the night before, preceded by a few severe and non-severe thunderstorms in S. Ontario the afternoon and night before
• Severe thunderstorms lasted roughly 15 mins, entire storm roughly 25 mins, rain roughly 30 mins

I noticed:

• Frequent and bright lightning, sometimes within 1 km
• Thunder loud enough to wake me up
• Strong winds and gusts, ~80 km/h
• No noticible disruptions in electricity
• Widespread puddling of rain
• Enough rain to cause a mess indoors if the window is open
• Wind carrying still-falling rain nearing the ground producing waves

So, is it plausible that ball lightning really occured, and are these conditions condusive to ball lightning formation, or are there other plausible explainations? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

God how I miss living in Southern Ontario, in the countryside, and watching those biggg storms come through. Torrential rain, blasting wind, hail - we only get polie thunder where I am now, you're lucky! Franamax (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Without having seen the actual ball lightning, I don't think there's a lot that can be said. We don't know enough about ball lightning to know what conditions are conducive to it; in fact, we barely know that it even exists. Sure, it's plausible. And I'm sure there are other plausible explanations. The only weird part of what your friend describes is the hissing sound. I'm thinking maybe it was a transformer exploding. I don't specifically remember hissing sounds before transformer explosions I've heard, but it sort of rings a bell. Plus that would explain the localized disruption in electrical service. --Allen (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If he didn't see ball lightning, why assume it was ball lightning? Hissing could be electrical arcing followed by the bang of a high voltage fuse fuse opening to clear the fault. Ten minutes later a utility troubleman could have replaced the fuse or closed a normally open switch to restore power. Scientists are somewhat skeptical about ball lightning. I would expect it is some sort of plasma of heated and electrically charged gas. Edison (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Heard but didn't see is somewhat unreliable. I concur that the hearing was likely from the hydro system. In a similar storm in a similar location, I heard a serious ka-boom accompanied by a very clear sizzling sound (which you could also describe as hissing), out towards the road. The next day I had to call in for $400 worth of repairs to the control unit of my Miele washing machine. Draw your own conclusions. Franamax (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the answers above are on the right track; a more mundane electrical problem is always going to be more likely than a rare one - that's just stating the obvious. That being said, I have heard some claims that ball lightning may make a hissing sound. I also enjoyed the lightshow; the wife and I stayed up until 1 AM Tuesday morning to watch the lightning and we noted that the storm was odd in a couple of ways - extreme variations in rainfall (brief bursts of intense downpours, then long intervals with no rain), a great deal of lightning - only a small portion of which was accompanied by significant thunder, even when the flashes were relatively close, and a kind of pseudo-eye where the updraft of the cell had presumably created a large indentation. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that weird electrical phenomena had been seen during the storm; I was quite surprised there weren't any tornadoes (at least confirmed, so far as I know). Matt Deres (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. However, he says he has experienced transformer explosions before, and the lights went fully out but that was in a different country so explosions here might be different. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

About mirrors, and short sightedness

So I'm short sighted. Let's take this scenario: I am looking into a mirror which is six feet away. There is an object behind me which is 60 feet away. Ordinarily, I'd not be able to focus on this object very well, but I'm seeing this object behind me in the mirror. So there are two questions:

1. Will I be able to focus on the object? Am I focusing six feet away, or seventy-two feet (distance to mirror + distance from mirror to object) away?
2. Why?

Apply this scenario to an SLR camera and you'll see why I'm asking. Thanks guys. :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you would. You're trying to focus seventy two feet away, because that's how far the light has to travel. You can focus on the mirror itself, if you want; then you'll see clearly the dust and lint on it, but not the distant objects it reflects. --Allen (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoah. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you need to focus 72 feet away. I'm not sure what an SLR camera has to do with it - a camera contains a lens which focuses the light, rather than a plane mirror which just reflects it. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And what if I took the lens off? (I'd do this right now, but it's dark here...) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually there's more than one lens, so it would depend on which one you removed. Single-lens reflex camera has a nice diagram showing them all. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try a slightly more helpful answer: If you remove all the lenses (which is probably what you mean), the light would not be focused and you would get just a small amount of random light hitting the film/sensor and you wouldn't get a proper image forming. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who owns an SLR, I tried exactly that. The result when I looked through the viewfinder: a uniform light-colored field. The result of taking a picture: a uniform 15% grey image. --Carnildo (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right. What were you pointing it at, and with how much light? --Tango (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My living room, lit by indirect sunlight. Not much color or brightness variation. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In an SLR camera, there's a translucent "focusing screen" between your eye and the mirror. This screen is similar to a piece of frosted glass. The lens forms an image on the focusing screen, which you can see. But since the focusing screen is translucent, not transparent, you can't just look through the viewfinder and see through the camera without a lens to form an image—just as you can't look through the frosted glass on your boss's office door. (As a side note, when a lens is mounted and you see an image in the viewfinder, your eye is focusing on the image that's formed on the focusing screen. But that's only a couple of centimeters from your eye, which is closer than you can usually focus. This is possible because the viewfinder has a little lens, similar to reading glasses, that make the focusing screen "look like" it's far enough away to focus on, typically about 1 meter. Some cameras have an adjustment to this apparent distance, to accommodate different people's vision. Look up "diopter adjustment" in your manual.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, my question has been answered. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Photosystems and Primary electron acceptors

Hello, in high school biology, my master teacher taught me that in photosynthesis, light photons hit the photosystems I and II and causes them to pass their electrons to the primary proton acceptor. The primary proton acceptor then passes them to plastiquinon to go to the cytochrome complex. My question is, where is the primary proton acceptor in relation to the PS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thylakoid_membrane.png according to this diagram, is the primary acceptor INSIDE/PART OF the PS? Applefungus (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Toenails

Why do we still have toenails? Are they just left over from our evoloutinary ancestors? But in that case do chimpanzees need to toenails? (im not even sure if they do!) Or do they actually serve some purpose? Thankyou x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.210.227 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we still have an appendix? ;) Just because they are no longer functional does not mean they will automatically be lost. That's not quite how evolution works. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People can actually die from ingrown toenails, which cause infection (my grandpa died that way, with diabetes, age, and nursing home neglect contibuting to it getting out of control). So, there may be some evolutionary pressure to lose them, if they no longer serve any purpose. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but remember that evolution isn't a conscious entity, it doesn't solve every problem a species has. Just because toenails can be a danger, this doesn't mean that a specific mutation is going to happen in which toenails don't grow and which will pass down to the next generation. Also there is a big debate about whether or not humans can still evolve in that way, considering how we now, for the most part, treat everyone equally regardless of disease. Increasing medical capabilities also make it less likely. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Objects slipping from your hands and objects protruding from the ground are two reasons why toenails serve some function. They might not be the most effective protections if you bang your foot against a root or rock but they did served a purpose in our savanna dwelling ancestor and still do for the barefoot aficionados of today. That they might be disappearing would be an interesting study subject. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a new hypothesis out about the appendix. --Allen (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That they are small or not is genetic. They actually do function to protect and add sensitivity to the tips[3]. Like fingernails, they protect the sensitive nerve endings on the tips of our toes and fingers. Rather than see them as clawing tools, see them as little shields. And you might like this from Nail Anatomy[4] (it's a download document) about function and purpose:

There is also an important role in offence and defence. Proprioception is gained from pressure of the pulp against the hard underside of the semi-rigid nail plate. The nail plates give form and shape to the pulp of the digit and, by attachment to the distal phalanx control and stabilise the pulp. On the foot, the toe nail is most importantly functional in its proprioceptive role, its defence of the digit and in control of the toe pulp.

Julia Rossi (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that just because you can die from something doesn't make it much of an evolutionary pressure. As your very example points out, your grandfather's toenails had no effect on his ability to reproduce, only being a problem late in life and when complicated by other late-in-life illnesses. I doubt they are disappearing—they seem like a pretty basic part of primate anatomy, and without any pressure against them, they're not going to be going anywhere fast. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but younger people can die from them, too, especially if they have diabetes and ignore the problem. I suffered from infected ingrown toenails myself. If I hadn't lanced to abcess and treated the area with hydrogen peroxide I might not be here now. (If you are eating while reading this, you can thank me for helping you with your diet.) :-) StuRat (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you leap up and run to correct your diet, you can thank toenails for giving information to the brain[5] through the pressure incurred that helps keep you upright in your flight and when walking gingerly back to your seat. StuRat this may be the document for you! Julia Rossi (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That doc lists one of the uses of toenails as "assisting in oral maintenance" ... wouldn't that result in picking the seeds from this morning's preserves out of one's teeth only to replace them with toe jam ? :-) StuRat (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you have diabetes, I think you have more serious problems then toe nails. I would venture to guess the evolutionary pressure would be on something else, perhaps what causes diabetes in the first place not on your toe nails. As for the more general problem of ingrown nails, I don't think it would have been a big problem until recently since the biggest causes, are problem ill fitting shoes and poor nail maitence. I don't think shoes until say the past few thousands years were likely to be very tightly fitting and I doubt people cut their nails much at all Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, damage to the feet is one of the main risks for diabetics. I don't know the reasons, but I'm sure Wikipedia has an article on it (try diabetes!). Of course, that's one of the main risks for diabetics today, we've only recently learnt how to manage the condition, so diabetics even just 100 (or maybe even 50) years ago would probably have died long before their feet started having problems, and you can't get much evolution in 4 or 5 generations (except in exceptional circumstances is that tautologous?!). --Tango (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with diabetics and foot injuries is that they have restricted blood flow to their feet, which means that injuries do not heal, since the white blood cells needed to fight infection don't arrive. Thus, even a minor injury to the feet (like an ingrown toenail) can present a high risk to a diabetic. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wierd Subconscious Dream

I have had this on my mind for a very long time. Sometimes, when Im in bed, I experience a sense that my room is a lot more spacious than it actually is, and I am really small compared to my surroundings. I can usually "feel" as if I was aware of all the walls, the format of my room. I am usually not very tired when this happens, and Im wide awake. Also, in conjunction with this, I get a feeling or subconscious image of a small circle rolling tensely on an extremely perfectly smooth surface. Usually, the surface suddenly breaks in this seemingly endless continuity of smoothness, and it starts to get extremely bumpy, and the ball doesnt roll smoothly. This gives me a very desperate and anxious feeling. This "image", however, is purely 1 dimensional, and it is usually in a grey color. When the surface the ball is rolling on becomes chaotically uneven and incontinuous, I get a really anxious, uneasy, desperate feeling. I am pretty sure all of this is subconscious, however it is not a dream, because none of this could happen in real life, like a dream. The image and consequent feeling I get is like a television screen, I mean thats what I see. I want all of you to know I dont suffer from any kind of mental disorder I know of, maybe just a bit of stress. If anyone can identify what this is and its name, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.19.134 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like astral projection, if you're willing to believe in it. There's little scientific evidence (if any) for it, though. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it, it's probably more related to some form of lucid dreaming. These can be exceptionally strange and are more believable scientifically (although there is still very little research for it) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's gnarly. I actually get a similar perception of expansion sometimes as I'm going to sleep as well. When it happens, it's when I'm "half-awake," not quite asleep but certainly on my way to unconciousness, not entirely unaware of my surroundings but also very much inside myself. Unlike your experience, I don't feel as though the whole room is expanding so much as the inside of my head. it's hard to articulate my experience. If there isn't a word for this sort of thing, there should be, but don't think it's that unusual. Your brain does some funny stuff as you drift off to sleep and it's probably a little different for everyone. Also, just thought i'd point out: something isn't "subconscious" if you are actively conscious of it (you perceive it). --Shaggorama (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 11

Does MOND have problems with Newton's third law of motion?

I read carefully the MOND article in Wikipedia, and it seems to me that it would be difficult to reconcile the idea with conservation of momentum, or at least that only some $\mu (x)$ functions would be consistent (and I cannot figure out which).

Consider an isolated star with a single planet like Pluto, small, distant, and in an elliptical orbit. As I understand MOND, the planet will always be in a gravitational field such that $\mu (x)$=1, while the star will be in a field that will be close to $\mu (x)$=1 when the planet is at perehelion, but far from $\mu (x)$=1 at aphelion. Thus at perehelion, the change in momentum of the star will balance that of the planet, but at aphelion, the momentum change in the star will be significantly greater.

This will cause the combined system to accelerate slowly but continually in the direction from the star to the planet at aphelion. This acceleration will continue until the system enters the gravitaional field of a galaxy.

I suppose MOND enthusiasts could even argue that this provides a new mechanism for the growth of galaxies, but the whole thing strikes me as counter-intuitive.

Have I understood this correctly? John Blackwell (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Bekensteins paper, Millgrom's original formulation of MOND does indeed have a problem with conservation laws and some other problems as well. However, Bekenstein goes on to give a Lagrangian/Relativistic formulation that does not (he claims) have these problems. Follow the link in the references section of the article to read more. SpinningSpark 07:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess I'm back where I am with many things - the accurate theories are beyond my understanding (or perhaps I'm just too lazy to put in the work to understand them) - but I can't see past the flaws in the simplified descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnblackwell (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Beavers

I'm trying to find out how long it takes a beaver to fell a tree like an Aspen. The photo with the article refers to cutting a 10 inch tree overnight. I would like to know if there is any more specific information on the time, assuming that 10" overnight would be 10" in 8 hrs? or 10 hrs? or 12 hrs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.187.5 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing a very good nature documentary film on beavers; I think it was by Rein Maran, an Estonian cinematographer, if my memory serves me well (it was some 20 years ago...). If you can find that documentary, you will have the answer to your question. If you find this film on the web, please give a link. All the best, --Dr Dima (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick google search finds a cached article [6] saying 6" in 15 minutes. Scaling that to 10" is three times longer, although the more mature tree would also have more hard wood. Don't know if that helps... Franamax (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the time needed scales with the cube of diameter, not the square, so it would take about six times as long. In order to fell a tree, a beaver chews a wedge-shaped ring, not a cylindrical ring, so the amount of material removed increases as the cube of the diameter. Also, you need to take into account non-linear factors such as fatigue. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the cube. Just for fun, I tried working out the formula for the volume. for a 90° wedge, chewing 3/4 of the diameter, I get .344D³. I can do that geometrically right, I don't need an integral? My math is a little rusty :) Franamax (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Phthalate

Though controversial, phthalates are still being used in a variety of household applications (shower curtains, adhesives, perfume), modern pop-culture electronics and medical applications such as catheters. Notable recent examples include Apple Inc.'s iPhone and iPod, and personal computers. The company has been criticized by environmental supporters claiming that tests on a commercially-purchased iPhone returned "toxic" levels of the chemical, prompting public declarations for change due to its associated hazards.

— ., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

Are iPod nanos included?21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk)

Wow, ophthalmology (and its few derivatives) isn't the only english word with a "phth" in it? – b_jonas 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What difference would it make? That is, what possible path is there by which a (hypothetically) phthalate-loaded iPod could poison you?

Atlant (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about phthalate's estrogenic effects.68.148.164.166 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you grind up your iPod and sniffed all the powder the amount of phthalate exposure from your iPod is negligible, and if you did sniff the powder your biggest concern wouldn't be phthalates either. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem are plastics which are in contact with fat rich food. The people who suffer most are the people needing dialysis, because for a long time the tubing and the memranes in the dialysis machine contained high amount of phtalates doi:10.1002/1097-0274(200101)39:1<100::AID-AJIM10>3.0.CO;2-Q, but for the rest a phthalate rich iphone has no chance to poison you, because the skin is not very permeable.--Stone (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What if you alternately fiddled with your iPod and ate potato crisps/chips all day every day? From my observations some people do exactly that. Some phthalate would dissolve in the fat. You might have to worry more about the oestrogenic/estrogenic effects of the soy/soya oil the chips/crisps were fried in though. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Phthalates are of most concern in the developmental stages, so don't let your baby play with your iPod... Franamax (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So how do you dispose of your old iPod without putting phthalates into the environment? —Pengo 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

custom parts

does any one know a site where i can order custom metal parts? like say i wanted all the parts of a car engine...but i wanted them one third the size,where could i get that for cheap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.124.175 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not really a science question, but it might help to get an answer if you said what country you were in. SpinningSpark 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One magazine I receive includes ads from custom metal fabricators, who can mill or make castings based on electronic CAD (machine drawing) files you email them, with quick turnaround. But unfortunately you said "cheap," which it certainly will not be. Wait a few years and "fabbers" may become as common as computer printers and scanners, and you can create your own miniature car engine via Desktop manufacturing. Edison (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fabbers usually work with low-melting-point materials, and occasionally with sintered metal powders. Neither is very good for making a car engine, which requires high temperature resistance and decent mechanical strength. --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening Boxes of Tablets

There are 2 ends to my boxes of tablets (hayfever, paracetemol, aspirin, whatever). If I open it at one end I can get straight to the tray of tablets. If I open it at the other I have paper folded over the tray which contains warnings/instructions. I never look which end i'm opening so sometimes it will be (if you have the front facing you) the left-side and sometimes the right. Why is it that a good 80% of the time I get the paper-end? I would expect it to be 50/50 (2 ends, 1 end is 'clear' the other isn't) but I virtually always open it what is (to me) the 'wrong' end. I've asked a few other people and they find the same thing.

My guess is that it is down to the additional weight from the folded-paper, but wondered if A) do other people experience this too? and B) Does anybody know 'why' this might be? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's two explanations:

1. The way the box is designed. The manufacturer wants you to look at the warnings, if only to avoid a lawsuit. Therefore, they may design the box so that it subconsciously encourages you to open it at the end with the paper.
2. It really is more like 50-50, you just don't notice it. Have you been keeping a log somehow? If not, there's a good chance that the percentage of the time you open it on the paper end is lower than you think, but you only notice a "pattern" when you open it on that end.

Or maybe you're just psychic. =) « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not kept a log so it could well be that my brain is finding a pattern - i'll start a log (yeah i'm that kind of person) and see. The idea of the design sounds interesting though, I used to read a great blog that was called 'architecture of control' or something (it looked for designs that pushed people to do stuff/had a second purpose that people might not realise was actively intended). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the phenomenon I've observed whereby if a microwave oven has a turntable, and you follow the advice I've given elsewehere and set the food "off-center" on the turntable, when the cooking cycle is done, the turntable always ceases rotation with the food located at the back of the microwave oven. Seriously, I'd also suggest that the weight of the package insert instructions may be cueing you to more-often hold the box one way rather than the other. But I have no explanation for the microwave oven phenomenon except that maybe the peculiarities of the timer and turntable drive motor lead to the turntable always turning n.5 rotations (for those cooking-time values that I routinely use).

Atlant (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How are you orienting the package? Main label side up, text reading left-to-right? That would be your first clue to unconscious positioning. There is also the possibility of the observer preferentially registering adverse events. On an unrelated note, I recall reading about a study which showed the probability that if you dropped your toast, it would land upside-down. so weird things do sometimes happen. Franamax (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Franamax - the toast thing is to do with the average height of work-surfaces/table-tops and only having enough time for it to rotate from butter-side-up to butter-side-down (or at least that's the explanation i've been given and it sounds plausible). ny156uk (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just hazarding a possible guess here....are you right-handed (i.e. do you open the right-hand flap of the box most of the time)? Do you most of the time hold the box upright with text reading left-to-right and the flaps at either side? Zunaid©® 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people will be opening these boxes. Most people will open either end about 50% of the time. However, they will not report it to anyone or even remember it. A small proportion of people will find, purely by chance, that they open one end much less/more than 50%. They may remark on it, as you have done. So you've just been lucky. If this is the true explaination, then reversion to the mean suggests that you probably will open up either end about 50% of the time in the future. 80.2.203.46 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrino oscillation and conservation

Suppose I measure that an electron is an electron neutrino at a given time, and I also measure that it has a certain velocity (subject of course to uncertainty). Now assume that later I measure that it's oscillated into a tau neutrino, with a different velocity. How does this work with conservation of mass/energy and conservation of momentum? I mean, you can make the velocity uncertainty arbitrarily small in both cases, so I don't see how the observer effect could account for this. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an explanation at neutrino oscillation. As far as I understand it, the hypothesised neutrino mass eigenstates have different masses and so propogate at different velocities (because of conservation of momentum). The mass eigensates are, in turn, combinations of flavour eigenstates, and so the mix of flavour eigenstates varies along along the neutrino's path. Therefore the probability of observing a particular flavour eigenstate varies according to whereabouts along the neutrino's path you make your observation. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To put this more directly, flavor and momentum form an uncertainty relation, so if you had made the uncertainty on momentum arbitrarily small then you'd have no way of determining what kind of neutrino it was and vice versa. Dragons flight (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blow job pregnancy

Can I get a girl pregnant if I cum in her mouth when having a blow job, cause it goes into her but does it just get digested or is there a risk it might find its way to her uterous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkly man (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no connection between the digestive system and the uterus. — QuantumEleven 09:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

However there is a risk of the transfer of STDs. There is also a (minor) risk of pregnancy if your semen goes near the vagina somehow. Probably the greatest risk for pregnancy is if you do somehting like kiss your girl after the act and then perform unprotected oral sex on her. All in all, unless you are in a committed relationship and both of you have been checked for STDs since you entered into that relationship, any form of unprotected sex is simply a bad idea. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Angela Ermakova got pregnt from Boris Becker after transfering semen from a blow job, so it is possible if somebody wants it to happen. [7]--Stone (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So did JD's girlfriend in Scrubs. Quipquip (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, that wasn't a blow job, it was a poorly aimed premature ejaculation. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I probably should have said, unless you are in a committed relationship, have both been checked for STDs and are both ready to and have talked about how you will deal with an unexpected pregnancy Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really qualified to answer this, but I think I once read somewhere (I forget where) that a girl in Lesotho who was unable to reproduce and gave a BJ, then her boyfriend got angry and stabbed her in the stomach thus allowing seminal fluid to seep into her uterus and she became pregnant. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds unlikely. If the knife pierced the uterus, it would probably be unable to support a fetus. The semen may get in and fertilise an egg, but it wouldn't be able to go to term. I suppose the knife could have hit a fallopian tube, and the semen got in that way, and the uterus was left unharmed, but that still seems unlikely. Also, if she was unable to reproduce, the semen getting in via a knife wound is very unlikely to make any difference. She probably got pregnant the old fashioned way and then got stabbed, and the whole infertility thing was just incorrect and has made for an interesting, but erroneous, story. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical Questions about Gravity and the Sun

Question 1: What exactly would happen if the sun moved 500 miles away from earth?

Question 2: What exactly would happen if the earth slowed its rotation speed by, say, 20 miles?

Please note that I am a 35 year old man and these are not homework questions. I would like to know exactly what I would experience when these phenomonas happen. --Vincebosma (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't notice a 500 mile change in the orbit of the Earth. The variation in distance caused by the orbit not being a perfect circle is about 5 million kilometres, so 800km would be insignificant. Question 2 doesn't make sense, do you mean 20 miles per hour? And by rotation speed do you mean the Earth rotating on its axis, or orbiting the Sun? --Tango (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On its axis. And 20 mph. Also what would I experience if it slowed down say 200 mph? Forgive me for my serious lack of science knowledge. Just trying to answer questions my nephew is asking me. He's only 6. --Vincebosma (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the speed at the equator (which is the fastest - the poles don't move at all), the actual speed is about 1040 mph. Slowing that down would result in a longer day. 20mph is about 2%, so the day would be nearly half an hour longer, 200mph is 20%, corresponding a day nearly 5 hours longer. Lengthening the day would have all kinds of effects. Most would be fairly minor for just 30 mins longer, although some animals and plants may be confused. 5 hours would confuse pretty much everything. It could also affect the climate. One of the causes of prevailing winds is the Earth's rotation, so slowing that rotation could result in slower wind speeds. It would also result in a slight increase in gravity due to reduced centrifugal force (which acts to cancel out part of the gravitational force), but that would be negligible (it would just reduce the difference between the poles and the equator). --Tango (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) This is a good opportunity to introduce your nephew to orders of magnitude. The circumference of the Earth is roughly 25,000 miles. So a point on the equator travels a distance of 25,000 miles every 24 hours due to the Earth's rotation on its axis. This is a speed of about 1,000 mph - the speed of a supersonic jet. If you were flying in a supersonic jet which slowed down by 20mph, would you notice the difference ? If every hour was 61 minutes instead of 60 minutes, would you notice the difference ? The Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun. Compared to this distance, 500 miles is about 5 parts in a million. A millionth of a mile is about 1/16 of an inch. If you had to walk a mile, and then someone increased the distance by 5/16 of an inch, would you notice the difference ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations, for trying to answer his questions. Too many parents/uncles/aunts give the "Because God said so." or "Because it is, stop asking." To help you explain the answers by Tango and Gandalf, it may be helpful (and instructive, and get you two some valuable play time, and get you outside) to perform this exercise. Go outside with a basketball and a marble (or, if you're not that commited to scale, which isn't quite as important at his age a golf ball or ping pong ball will do). Have him put the basketball down where he wants the sun to be. Then, hand him the Earth ball (the smaller one) and tell him to put it where the Earth is. It should be 534 feet away, assuming the basketball is the size of the sun (Note that at this scale, the earth is 1/4 of an inch in radius). You may need to go about a block away...its not quite a backyard exercise. Now, to answer his question of what would happen if the Sun moved 500 miles. Have him move the basketball 1 inch, or have him roll the ball once around or whatever. (The actual amount of movement would be .03 inches, but thats not particularly visual for a 6 year old). Ask him if he thinks its made a big difference. EagleFalconn (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As for question 1, the distance of the Earth from the Sun is determined by the orbital speed. If you moved them apart by 500 miles without increasing the orbital speed, this would result in the Earth "falling" back those 500 miles, in about 3 months, and then another 500 miles closer to the Sun, in the next 3 months, then it would turn around and go back out to the original point in the next 6 months. So, if you had started with a circular orbit, this would make it slightly elliptical. However, since the orbit of the Earth is already more elliptical than that, this would either increase or decrease the eccentricity of the orbit, depending on whether the 500 extra miles were added when the Earth was closest or farthest from the Sun. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To really screw with his head, explain the Milankovitch cycles which dictate that we're all gonna die even if the Earth stays in its current orbit. Ice age! EagleFalconn, thanks for your excellent outline of a practical, understandable demonstration. I'll be able to use that in another 4 years or so :) Franamax (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, as for the sun moving 500 miles away, that depends on which way it moves. If it moves horizonal and along Earth's orbital plane, it would be 500 miles closer than normal 6 months later. If it moved verticly (north-south), it might not be exactly 500 miles as from the Earth. However, distance from the sun can affect the climate. For example, currently the Earth is closer to the sun in the southern hemisphere summer than in the northern hemisphere, so the southern hemisphere gets more summer sun intensity. I'm not sure, but if the opposite were true, as can happen with cycles lasting tens of thousands of years, the Sahara might green, for example, but things like Global warming may disrupt these cycles. However, if the centre of the Earth were only 500 miles from the sun, then part of the Earth would be in the sun, and if the surface of the Earth were that far, we'd be in the sun's atmosphere and be past its Roche limit, and fall into the sun. The speed of our orbit around the sun is determined by several factors, which I'm not too familiar with, but is most likely dictated by distance from the sun. However, if our orbit speeded up dramaticly for whatever reason, the Earth would fly away from the sun due to centrifugal force, then slow down because the sun's gravity there is weaker. If you need articles that are written in Simple English which might be easier to explain, you can check the languages box in the article to see if there is one. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As a clarification, yes, distance certainly as an absolute value has an effect on the amount of energy recieved by the earth. However, at the distance the earth is currently at, the amount of time and the directness of the striking of the sun's rays on the earth's surface as measured by the angle of insolation are much more significant factors.EagleFalconn (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rancid meat

Why can't you eat rancid meat if it is cooked? Surely if it is cooked really, really well then the heat will kill any bacteria, viruses or other germs that would make you sick. Pob The Plumber (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooking the meat may sterilise it. But some toxins that were produced by the putrifactive bacteria survive the cooking process. Escherichia coli produces one such heat stable toxin. So dont eat last years, raw,forgotten Christmas Turkey now, cooked or not :-) Fribbler (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Maybe my mother-in-law would like a turkey sandwich..... Pob The Plumber (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, rancid and putrid are not the same thing. One is oxidative decomposition, which makes things smell bad (rancid butter, rancid tuna), the other is a bacterial process. Nevertheless, if it's meat and it smells bad, throw it away. Franamax (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons why various cuisines developed highly-flavored/highly-scented/piquant sauces, of course, is...

Atlant (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't all English gourmets and hunters die in centuries past from eating "high game" as discussed by Dickens [8] or in this 1889 book [9] or this recent publication [10] "The pheasant was not as well hung as the staff had told us and lacked the real oomph of high game." Apparently some gourmets still seek a "well hung" pheasant. Note: I strongly discourage eating rotten meat. Edison (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yumm, hare soup and make sure every drop of blood goes in it! Many meats are hung, for instance beef carcasses for 2-3 weeks, to allow the existing enzymes to partially "digest" the meat and soften it. Bacteria will grow only on surfaces, so the toxin load would not be high, and washing or boiling would handle it anyway (contrast with contaminated ground beef). Plus you need the right unlucky combination of toxin-producing bacteria and conditions under which the bacteria will be producing the toxin. I'm thinking that not all, but quite a few gourmets of ages past actually did die from eating spoiled food, they probably called it dropsy or something back then, before they figured out what was causing it. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some mycotoxins in particular are nasty stuff. While they don't tend to be much of a problem on meat (well other then by meat from animals feed contaminated grains), they are a problem on grains and also fruit. Aflatoxin is one good example. As with bacterial enterotoxins and endotoxins, cooking does not destroy them so if you come across fruit or grains that look like they are moldy, throw them out. Particularly for anything soft as often what you see is only a small percentage of what is there. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we have 4 seasons every 27 days?

Hello giant minds! The Earth's 23.5 degree inclination pushes points on its hemispheres a few thousand miles either closer/farther from the sun causing seasons throughout the year. Shouldn't the Earth's massive "wobble" as it holds the Moon spinning around it cause the same effect? Earth orbits every 27 days or so (just like the Moon) around the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, located thousands of miles from Earth's apparent center. Why am I not expecting snowstorms followed by beach weather every few weeks? Sappysap (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The seasons happen because of tilt - the angle of the sun's rays to the Earth - not the distance. Those few thousand miles are insignificant for seasonal purposes. — Lomn 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason is multi-fold. To address a common misconception you mention: The distance between the sun and the earth has almost no effect on the seasons. Between summer and winter, the change in the distance is about 3.1 million miles. However, the northern hemisphere's winter occurs when the Earth is closest to the sun. See [[11]] for more.

The first is the angle of insolation, which is the angle at which the sun's rays, directly striking the Earth's surface, strike the earth. The greater the angle, the less energy is transferred to the surface of the earth and its atmosphere. That is why summer occurs when the hemisphere you occupy is tilted toward the sun.

However, the Earth does not 'wobble' as the Moon revolves around it. The direction of the gravitational force between the moon and the earth does cause a center of rotation between the two of them, but that does not change the angle of insolation. There is no angle of insolation change due to the barycenter, though there is a slight distance change. However, if 3.1 million miles isn't making a difference, this certainly won't. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For effects that are significant over the period of a month, see tide. --Prestidigitator (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweating

A little background: I went for a bike ride the other day, it was about 15 degrees out, so I wore a t-shirt and some shorts to keep cool. During the bike ride, as is normal for me, I started sweating. This isn't much of a problem, but then this guy pulls up next to me on his bike wearing jeans, a sweater and a vest, and he's not sweating a bit. This blew my mind, as we were doing the same work--riding down the same street for essentially the same ammount of time, he on a mountain bike and me on a road bike, so I was actually doing a little less. What gives? Why was I sweating like a pig, and he not even uncomfortable? 142.33.70.60 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he wasn't sweating doesn't mean he was comfortable. Some people just don't sweat much, which can make them overheat more easily. Also, weight makes a huge diff, as extra fat both provides thermal insulation and extra mass to move, requiring the burning of more calories. Cardiovascular fitness also makes a diff, as some people will be seriously stressed by that level of exercise while others "won't even break a sweat". StuRat (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you meant it was 15°C, or 59°F, that seems cool enough that most people wouldn't sweat noticeably during a relaxing bike ride. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe he hadn't been riding for as long as you? It takes a while after you start exercising for the body to produce enough excess heat to trigger sweating. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you were truly sweating "like a pig" you wouldn't be sweating at all, since they don't. Matt Deres (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cameras in rough times

Why do cameras often temporarliy show just noise when subject to violent vibrations? Example at 0:35. —Bromskloss (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres a slight difference here between digital and film cameras, but the explanation is essentially the same. On a digital camera, when you press the button a sensor is triggered which takes a time average of (essentially) what color light is hitting the sensor at that particular pixel. If the camera is shaking, the average is going to be over a range of colors, usually resulting in a gray or other odd color, what you might call noise. On a film camera, its the same effect except instead of a detector you've got chemicals on a piece of film. The chemicals, being exposed to several different colors of light, will report all of them, which we typically see as white. EagleFalconn 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Like motion blur, you mean? I don't think that's it. What I'm talking about looks more like the camera is about to fail completely, like if a signal cable is not properly plugged in, but spuriously loses contact. Mabye that's it – the signal cable losing contact? —Bromskloss (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The sort of noise you see there is caused by a bad connection being vibrated so it isn't always transmitting a signal. --Carnildo (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How come radio waves aren't stopped by walls and such?

You gotta ask to learn! If, for instance, AM waves have a wavelength of 100m to 1km (from Radio frequency), how come they can pass through walls and such? The way I see it is obviously wrong, so I'd be thankful for a few pointers, although I think that I've looked through the main articles. -- Aeluwas (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The quantum mechanical view on it would be that for (1) photon to interact with an atom, that atom/molecule/whatever needs to have a valid energy transition available to it at the same energy as the photon or (2) the possibility for a Stokes collision.

For case (1), if the energy levels in the atom do not correspond to the energy of the photon, no interaction is allowed because no electron is available for promotion to a higher energy level. This rarely (I'm prepared to say never) happens with radio waves because the photons are of such low energy (a quantity which is inversely related to wavelength) that there are no electronic transitions available. Nuclear energy state transitions do occur in those areas, however those transitions are very difficult to achieve by inputting electromagnetic radiation and is better done with a magnet, as in NMR.

Case (2) There is a probability that an electron will 'collide' with a photon and remit the photon at the same wavelength or a different one. See Stokes shift. This is a very difficult effect to observe with radio waves, more so than with other types of light. In general, these collisions are very improbable and any experimentation with them has to be done with a laser to generate sufficient intensity so as to be able to collect data. EagleFalconn (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give a very general, non-technical answer. Because the walls aren't dense enough. Now if the walls were made of thick lead, then they would stop the radio waves. If you are in the center of a large building with lots of walls, or underground they would stop the radio waves too. ScienceApe (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the above. There are two ways, both correct, to think of radio waves: either as oscillating electromagnetic (EM) fields or as photons. At the long wavelengths that you are talking about, the photon view is not helpful, and it is better to think of EM fields. An EM field is partly electric and partly magnetic, hence its name. In order to stop an EM wave, you need either an electrical or a magnetic barrier, or both. An electrical barrier needs to be an electrical conductor, like a sheet of copper or aluminium. A magnetic barrier is harder to achieve, but a layer of soft iron would work as both an electric and a magnetic barrier for low-frequency waves. Walls are generally made of neither electrical conductors nor magnetic materials, so they don't stop radio waves at the frequencies you are talking about.

Higher-energy radio waves (shorter wavelengths, like microwaves) behave more like light and are stopped by walls, but that's another subject. --Heron (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that is entirely true. Or at least saying I'm wrong isn't true. Putting a sufficient amount of matter in between you and the radio waves will stop them. If you were surrounded by say a kilometer of ice on all sides, it would block any EM radiation from getting in. ScienceApe (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the shorter the wavelength is, the more like visible light the radio wave will behave, since the only difference between visible light and radio waves is that radio waves have a longer wavelength. I'm not sure microwaves are completely blocked by walls, though - if memory serves, the frequencies used by Wi-Fi are in the microwave range, and they certainly can go through walls, although the signal is noticeably weakened. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Going off what Tango said, I can confirm that microwave is not always stopped by walls since cell phones are run off of microwaves (hence the whole cancer/cooking your brain scare). However, using a material of a sufficient density/thickness is simply taking advantage of the Stokes collision effect I mentioned above. It works better with shorter wavelengths because shorter wavelengths tend to exhibit more particle like behavior (hence why walls are not transparent). Another more satisfying way to think about it (for me at least) is that shorter wavelengths are more likely to be in the correct range of energy states to be able to interact with the wave function defining the translational motion of the nucleus/electron cloud of the atom. EagleFalconn (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the absorption scale for radio waves in ice is many tens of km. For example, radar reflections are used to measure the shape of the bedrock under the ice at Antarctica. Also, in line with Heron, the limiting factor is still conductive impurities (mainly sulfates and H+ ions) and not bulk matter per se. Dragons flight (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More like 5 KM actually. Nope, it really is bulk matter. You can take any matter and if you surround yourself with enough of it, it will block EM radiation. Denser material is better at stopping EM radiation than less dense material. ScienceApe (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking denser is better, but free electrons (e.g. metals and ions) have a much, much greater effect on absorption/scattering than density. Dragons flight (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A thin layer of iron, steel. or even iron hardware cloth will interrupt most AM or FM radio broacdasts by acting as a Faraday cage. By thickness, ferrous metal provides far better radio shielding than brick, rock, or concrete. Edison (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't the thin layer of this stuff have to be somewhat enclosed? You can't really have no charge on the inside if there is no "inside". --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does need to be enclosed. EagleFalconn (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You might enjoy our article about TEMPEST, a U.S. military standard that is deeply involved with exactly how well walls stop radio emissions.

Atlant (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, if it is not a closed surface it is not a Faraday cage. But a large sheet of metal could provide some directional degree of shielding, as could a metal surface with some holes in it, or a curved metal surface. A metal surface or rod could also increase the field strength, if it happened to be where it was a director or reflector, depending on the location of the transmitter and receiver, like in antenna design. Edison (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Radius of the Earth

Is it possible to calculate the radius of the earth simply by measuring the time between two sunsets, one observed by lying down and the other observed by standing up just after the sun (apparently) goes down while we were lying down?? If so, how?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.226.115 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried drawing a picture of the scenario? -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For an observer standing on the surface of the earth, his line of vision in both cases are tangents to the earth's surface. The sun covers 360 degrees in 24 hours, so supposing the time interval between the two sunsets is x seconds, we can calculate the angle covered by the sun in that time. But does that really help? I'm completely lost as to what to do after this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.226.115 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This webpage explains the experiment: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teaching/ASTR110/lectures/lecture10/slide05.html . The experiment can be performed either at sunrise or sunset. If you measure the height of the standing person, denoted h (cm), and the time between the sunsets, denoted ΔT (s), then the radius of the Earth, denoted R (cm), can be found by the equation:

$R=h\cdot {\frac {\cos(\triangle T/240)}{1-\cos(\triangle T/240)}}$.

Convert R to more sensible units of meters or kilometers by dividing your answer by 100 or 100,000 respectively. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you should do this only where you have a true horizon (like watching the sun set over the ocean). Mountains, trees, or other large and relatively close obstacles are going to mess up the experiement completely. --Prestidigitator (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that atmospheric diffraction distorts the apparent positions of the Sun and the horizon. I don't know if this will have a noticable effect on the experiment, but when dealing with things as small as the timing differences involved here, it's worth thinking about. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean atmospheric refraction, not diffraction. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I get it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.178 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'd expect the margin of error to be absolutely huge, so consider yourself lucky if you get the answer within an order of magnitude. Also, you'd need to consider that the time between two consecutive sunsets isn't exactly 24 hours anyway, depending on whether the days are getting longer or shorter. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point -- so it's better to observe the same sunset twice. Lie down, watch it set and start your stopwatch, then quickly stand up and do it again. If you do it at sunrise you can quickly drop to the ground instead of quickly standing up. Or have two people do it together, one in each position. --Anonymous, sitting down, 05:45 UTC, June 13, 2008.

Yeah, it's probably impractical with a height of 6 feet or so, but it's really cool from an airplane. I once watched the sun set while were taxiing, then we took off and I watched the sun come back up over the horizon, then it set again. It's like that old ad (for Life Savers?) with the kid saying, "Do it again, Dad!" -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And even cooler, if you are in a plane going West fast enough, you can apparently make time go backwards and make the Sun rise in the West and set in East. This would require supersonic speeds at the Equator (over 1040 MPH), but much less at the Arctic or Antarctic circles. StuRat (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hottest time period in Earth's history

What was it? I have heard it may have been the Middle Cretaceous or the early Eocene, (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum), but from climate graphs of the earth, it is hard to tell because many periods are warm and I can't seem to find an exact answer. Thanks 142.150.72.199 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I'm not sure, but I think it may have been sometime around the Hadean eon in the Precambrian, when the earth just recently formed, the crust was not yet solid, and the Earth was experiencing the Great Bombardment. However, if you include the future, there may be periods hotter than some mentioned above. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was more so asking about the climate a time period so far where there was life and ecosystems, particularly, animal life. 192.30.202.21 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Does this this graph help? It graphs temperatures throught the time periods but with the present at the left and the far past at the right. Also note that it goes to the beginning of the Cambrian 542 million years ago. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that just when the Earth was formed, and was still molten magma all over would have been a pretty hot time. —Pengo 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Planet orbit question and the formation of our solar system

Are all the planet in our solar system revolving around the sun in the same direction? Are they all rotating/spinning in the same direction? If not, how is this possible? During the formation of our solar system, shouldn't they be revolving and rotating in the same direction due to the conservation of angular momentum? ScienceApe (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the planets revolve the sun in the same direction: from the north pole of the sun, counter-clockwise. All the planets except for Venus also rotate counter-clockwise (again looking from the sun's north pole). See solar system, Venus, and formation and evolution of the solar system for more details. Jkasd 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to angular momentum and the formation of the solar system, how or why is Venus spinning clockwise? ScienceApe (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, it seems like an impact event caused it. ScienceApe (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Uranus's axis is inclined at 98 degrees. And also see retrograde and direct motion. Jkasd 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps yours is, butt not mine ... StuRat (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've often wondered why they would say the axis is rotated 98° and it's rotating in the normal direction, instead of saying it's axis is rotated 82° and it's rotating backwards. StuRat (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would guess it's because chances are it started rotating in the normal direction and then got knocked over by more than 90 degrees, rather than it reversing its direction. --Tango (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is surely how it happened, but it doesn't explain why people use that way of describing it. Really it's just an arbitrary choice. --Anon, 22:15 UTC, June 13, 2008.

Yeah, so depending on how you look at it, Uranus can have retrograde motion or not. Jkasd 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely counts; it's just a question of how you describe it. By the way, Pluto also has retrograde rotation; although of course some people don't think it's a planet any more. --Anonymous, 00:54 UTC, June 15, 2008.

Weight of human hair

How much does one's head hair weigh? More precisely, is there a formula that can be used to estimate the weight of head hair based on length(and accounting for differences in hairline, bald spots, and such)? 69.111.189.55 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always shave it off and put it on a scale. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ask a hairdresser very nicely and say it's for a science project to give it cred, they will let you collect the day's hair takings. Wear surgical gloves and bag it neatly to impress, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that given the differences you've already mentioned (in hairline etc) combined with other differences (like in thickness of the hair), any general formula will be pretty useless Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flammable cleaning products

(No, I'm not a vandal.) Hello. What are the most flammable cleaning (or otherwise) products that a janitor could use in his work? (No, I'm not a janitor either.) Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Toluene would rank right up there, or any other solvent the janitor might be using for some purpose. Most chemicals and commercial products have a safety data sheet, googling the name plus "msds" will usually get you some good data. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Toluene has a very low flash point, but alcohols such as ethanol or isopropanol have much lower autoignition temperatures. However, the most flammable, common solvent is probably diethyl ether. Not sure if this would be found in many janitor closets, though. --Russoc4 (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that among the more dangerous solvents a janitor might try to use would be plain old gasoline. In addition to being rather toxic, it's acutely flammable and its vapors are easily ignited by spark or open flame. Other flammable chemicals likely to be found in a janitor's closet might include various solvents used as paint thinners: acetone, turpentine, xylene.

If you're writing a story and need ideas, you might just walk down to your local hardware store—find the products with the scariest warning labels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right on the money. Thanks for the tips! Kreachure (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 12

Succession in Commmunities

What happens to the number of kinds of plants as the years pass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.191.161 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of species of plants on Earth has increased from zero to many millions. A more specific answer will require a more specific question. --Sean 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

automatic sphygmomanometer

How does the machine measure the diastolic reading ? In manual readings it is when the sound of the pulse dissipates.Thommo123 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Paul

See Korotkoff sounds. If the machine pumps the cuff pressure up sufficiently high and then slowly releases it, the point will come when Korotkoff whooshing sounds are heard at the brachial artery, at the pressure when the systolic pressure is sufficient to force blood through the restriction caused by the cuff. The K sounds continue with each heartbeat as the pressure drops until the diastolic pressure is reached, at which point the K sounds stop. Blood pressure machines I have dealt with just record the sound from the microphone and the pressure, and sends these two pressures to the readout. A comparator or trigger circuit can monitor the microphone sounds to decide when the K sounds are being produced. Edison (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the ones that give continuous blood pressure readings? Surgeons on TV are always saying "BP's dropping", and they aren't constantly pressurising and unpressurising a cuff, as far as I can tell. --Tango (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BP measured as described, by a trained human, with a mercury manometer, is be considered to be very accurate. It can also be a flawed measurement, if apprehension about the test causes an increase in BP. A continuous measurement at least avoids that stres, but may be more of an approximation, with computerized corrections, per Blood pressure, based on an external pressure transducer. Edison (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Berembang tree

What is a berembang tree? I know it is in Malaysia. I also know that fireflies thrive on it and twinkle among the berembang trees like lights on Christmas trees. But that is all that i know. Any help......

TCGKennedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCGKennedy (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Berembang tree also known as the Crabapple Mangrove is botanically called Sonneratia caseolaris. You can find mor information about it at this link. [12]and some photos here [13]

Richard Avery (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe these are common in Kuala Selangor which is well known for its firefly park [14] [15]. It sounds a bit like what you're referring to Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Modeling a Body Moving in a Fluid

I am not a Physics expert so I can only say that this is a Fluid Dynamics question but I don't even know where to look for this specific equation or what is it called. Basically, we already know that the faster a car moves (in air of course), the lower its MPG becomes because it takes more energy. This is the same as if I filled a bathtub with water and tried to move my hand through it. If I move slowly, it is easy. The faster I try to move, the harder it becomes. So my question is, is there a page on wikipedia (or in one of the books) or even somewhere else online, which talks about the general form of this equation (preferably with the constants gives)? I just want to know what exactly happens to my MPG as I increase my speed on the highway. I can guess that it decreases exponentially but how rapidly. If I double my speed, how does my MPG change? Thanks!69.232.109.213 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Drag (physics)#Drag at high velocity is probably what you want, along with Fuel economy in automobiles#Physics background. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for.68.126.127.207 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Robotic spacecraft maintains air pressure?

Does Robotic spacecraft maintain air pressure inside? If yes, what are benefits of air inside? I can think of using circulating air to control temperature inside. If air escapes in space, will there be any problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranemanoj (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally no, but this may vary by design (though I can't think of any such designs offhand). Maintaining pressure means adding weight, something all spacecraft avoid where possible. Additionally, air is actually a rather lousy means of transferring heat -- metal conducting or radiating heat is preferable. Air unexpectedly escaping into space would result in unexpected thrust, which would have to be countered with fuel expenditure. — Lomn 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If air is not desired, before launch, is it pumped out thereby creating vacuum inside spacecraft? Can is be designed such that, before take off from earth, spacecraft contains air, but as it goes up in low pressure air or space, air goes out gradually without creating thrust? Are there any instruments which are sensitive to pressure which may malfunction due to loss of air? 203.129.237.147 (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, Sputnik 1 was pressurised. I don't know of any other unmanned (and unanimaled!) space craft with internal pressure. All you need to do is make sure it isn't air tight, and the air can escape as it launches - the trust would be insignificant if it happens during launch when you have air resistance and rocket motors producing far more force. Also, if it escapes evenly from all sides, the trust will cancel out. They might pump the air out just to be on the safe side, I don't know, but I wouldn't think it was essential. --Tango (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The laser diodes of some spacecrafts are sealed and contain dry air, because optical sufaces are sensitive to the change of atmosphere. Normally all Instruments on a satelite have to proofe that they are capable to vent the atmosphere within during launch. Stable compartments which can hold vacuum or normal eart atmosphere are a lot of mass and are avoided.--Stone (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Martian North Pole

Just a quick question...When it is said that the Phoenix probe is on the north pole of Mars, I assume they mean relative to Earth's north pole? (Which is really the south magnetic pole...) I've also heard 'the north pole of the sun', this has the same meaning?--Shniken1 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good question. Seriously. Wiki has a detailed article discussing the various definitions of the poles of astronomical bodies, which answers your question very nicely. In brief, yes, the standard definition is as you say, but it is not the only one possible. Best regards, --Dr Dima (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Earth's North pole is the Earth's magnetic North pole as well. The pole of the magnet that gets attracted to the Earth's North pole is named as the magnet's North pole. In fact, the North pole of the Earth is the pole in which all magnetic lines of force converge. So a magnet's North pole point's to the Earth's North pole. In case of a magnet, the North pole is the pole from which the magnetic lines of force diverge. 117.194.226.11 (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you consider the Earth as a magnet (it functions much like a bar magnet, if you don't look too closely), the Earth's magnetic north pole would be the magnet's south pole. This is due, I believe, to lazy people changing the English language - what we call the "north pole" of a magnet was originally called the "north seeking pole", which makes much more sense. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Except...Mars doesnt have a planet-wide magnetic field, so it has no "magnetic north pole". The only pole on Mars is the rotational pole, and as you say, it is only North because it is in roughly the same direction as our own magnetic north pole.

I wonder in the future, when we first visit another solar system, which way will be consider "north"? -RunningOnBrains 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same way we do in this solar system - the direction closest to Earth's north. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One could also use the angular momentum vector of the planet to unambiguously define a north and south pole. Outstairs (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The north magnetic pole is located near Ellef Ringnes Island in Nunavut. That's below 80N. The south magnetic pole is located near 65N so how are these exactly at the poles? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone claim the magnetic poles were exactly at the geographic poles? If they did, they were completely incorrect, but I can't see anyone claiming that. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the answers from Tango, Dr Dima and Outstairs, my reply to a related question at Talk:Phoenix (spacecraft)#Northern hemisphere followed the definition from poles of astronomical bodies and does not depend on magnetism:

See Poles of astronomical bodies, which has "The north pole is that pole of rotation that lies on the north side of the invariable plane of the solar system". The north side is that determined by the Earth's geographic north "side". So looking at the solar system from "above" (think of a spaceship launched from Earth's north pole straight up), looking "down" one sees all the planets' rotational North poles.

In turn, the Earth's geographic north pole does not need to depend on magnetism either, but is just defined historically (by Northern Hemisphere dwellers).-84user (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all the talk about magnetism was just an aside. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball

Hello. A pitcher throws a ball at 28 m/s [S] toward a batter. The ball contacts the bat for 2.0 ms and leaves the bat at 46 m/s [N]. What is the displacement of the ball when contacting the bat? The answer key multiplied the average velocity by time. Why? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why what? --Dr Dima (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Mayfare's asking why "the answer key multiplied the average velocity by time". But what I don't get is what is the question in the first place, as in, what do we have to calculate here? 117.194.226.11 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If the answer did indeed multiply the average velocity by a time then it would have produced a distance, and it is not at all clear how this could be a physcially meaningful quantity in this scenario. I suspect there may be a numerical coincidence here somewhere. It would help to know the units in which the answer was given (as well, of course, as knowing the full question, as pointed out above). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a misapprehension of the calculation. The average acceleration of the ball is Δv/t = (28 + 46)/2ms. The average of the speeds is (28+46)/2.

What was the question on the paper? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The speed averaged over what? You need to know how long it's travelling at each speed. Also, the question said average *velocity*, so you need to throw a minus sign in there somewhere. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not averaged over anything. The point was that a naïve misinterpretation of the answer could be the reason for confusion. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you said "average of the speeds", not "average speed", my bad. It's a fairly meaningless number, though. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is asking how far the ball traveled while it was still in contact with the bat. The average velocity it traveled at while on the bat is (46 - 28)/2 (assuming contant acceleration for simplicity) the dispalcement is then the average velocity multiplied by time. -- Mad031683 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So if it left the bat at the same speed that it arrived (say 28 m/s in both cases), you'd have an average velocity of (28-28)/2 = 0 m/s, and you would calculate a distance of 0 m no matter how long it was in contact. I'm still not seeing the physical significance of this calculation. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The physical significance is the distance between where the bat starts and where it finishes. In your example, the bat would move backwards as it slows the ball down, and then forwards as it speeds it up in the other direction, ending up at the same place it started, hence the 0. In the case given by the OP, the bat would end up further forward than where it started. This is all assuming constant acceleration, though, which seems very unlikely to be even approximately true. In my experience of hitting balls, the bat moves forward far more than it moves back, regardless of the difference in speeds, this is probably because the bat is already moving before it contacts the ball. Keeping the bat still until the ball hits is more the ball bouncing off the bat than you hitting the ball with the bat. --Tango (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple answer: all basic physics problems can by answered by looking at units. displacement is meters, velocity is meters/second. Therefore, velocity (m/s) x time (s) = displacement (m). dig it? --Shaggorama (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Covalent Bond

I am a little confuse at the definition of covalent bond,it is the bond formed due to the sharing of electron,i say how is it possible becoz electron has the same charge they should repel each other how atom share orbitals (electron) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.78 (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Covalent bonds do indeed share electrons and this is because electrons are actually more happy to be in pairs than they are on their own. I don't really know how this works out, I too would have thought they'd repel each other but i'll leave that to someone else. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 06:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Electrons certainly seem like they should repel each other because they have the same charge, but electrons in orbitals can be more stable when paired. Crazy, eh? Electrons have a quantum property called "spin" that can be either of two values, and an orbital can hold one of each: a spin-paired set is often more stable than a single electron in an orbital. The idea of two electrons (of opposite spins) per orbital isn't limitted to covalent bonds, by the way: consider how you do electron configuration for individual atoms, with two s electrons, etc. DMacks (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrons do indeed repel one another! Please keep in mind, however, that for a covalent bond to be formed, you must also have at least two atomic nuclei in the neighborhood. And while these nuclei are electrically repelling one another, they are also electrically attracting all the electrons in the neighborhood! So things settle down into this nice snuggly, er, that is low potential energy arrangement we call a covalent bond. It's only when people ask questions about why the arrangement isn't even snugglier than we observe that you need to invoke things like the Pauli exclusion principle. --arkuat (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The most powerful earthquakes...

...occur on Destructive Plate boundaries. Am I right? Thanks 79.78.3.4 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (Moved from Humanities) 79.72.162.214 (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the most powerful earthquakes, though rare, occur in the middle of current plates. See New Madrid Seismic Zone as an example. This particular zone is on an ancient "failed rift" that never evolved into a plate boundary. -Arch dude (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All the most powerful earthquakes, M_w 9.0 or greater, since 1900 have occurred on destructive plate boundaries, see our article Megathrust earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Science do not solve all of man's problems

I was aked to state my opinion on whether or not I agree with the above mentioned statement 'science do not solve all of man's problems.

i simply said, "issues in today's society or environmentally/ globally even!!!always seems to have some sort of scientific reasoning behind it.How ironic that as a people we are put together to work colaboratively, but wait if there is too much friction, we do have a solution its called proven speculation namely science..what happened to reasoning"

Now I am required to elaborate on this statement.

My question to you is 1. help me to elaborate and give facts to my statement. 2. Give and enlighten me on your opinion and what you would of said (provide). 3. A answer with an opinion that differs from mine.

Thank you in advance

Regards

Miss Inquisitive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.47.178 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Although this post seems like homework, do research whether the level of knowledge regarding the conception and birth of a human child has any effect on people's views on abortion. That would be a case where people can know the relevant scientific facts and yet still disagree on an issue.--droptone (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you think about what science is not. For instance I would say that science cannot solve ethical problems. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That there are problems that science cannot solve is [1] obvious, and [2] unremarkable. A more interesting question would be, "Are there problems which are solved better by something other than science?". It would be fun to argue that everything that is not science is equally ineffective as science at "solving" ethical problems. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first step there is to define "solve". --Tango (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just some general essay writing advice (since it sounds to me from the prompt that you're writing an argumentative essay): to elaborate on your own opinion, first start by picking apart the question and clarifying it to yourself to help understand what an answer to it should even look like. Is science supposed to solve problems? says who? what kind of problems does science solve, or is it supposed to? What does it mean for one of these problems to be "solved"? How would the world be different if science solved all of man's problems? Once you've figured out what the question is asking and how you want to approach it, try to think of a specific example (or 2 or 3)that illustrates your point. Then try to imagine if someone disagreed with you what arguments they'd raise, and address each in turn. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

blood

who invented the blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandh heart (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody. We've always had blood. There's no individual who discovered blood either, as people have been injuring themselves and others since prehistory. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as AlmostReadytoFly pointed out, blood cannot be invented, moreover, just because of the injuries, even animals that came to existence before humans must have noted it. —KetanPanchal^taLK 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You could take a look at intelligent design, if you really want to. --Tango (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you are actually asking who discovered the circulation of blood, see Ibn al-Nafis, Michael Servetus and William Harvey. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some new artificial blood. Wasn't a single person who created them though. ScienceApe (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

S/he's not actually asking anything. This 'question' was posted on the Entertainment desk at the same time. You shouldn't waste time with this one, but I'm not the boss of you. -.-; Kreachure (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We are obviously very literal here at WP:RD/S. The responses to this question at WP:RD/E are more ... umm ... creative. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did. Those who don't believe me will be condemned to my torture chamber. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exponential equation, solve for I0?

I have been struggling for some time (like 2 years pretty much!) to solve the equation given below for $I_{0}$:

$I=I_{0}\cdot e^{I_{0}\cdot t}$

I have tried to use Lambert's W function to find $I_{0}$, however the solution does not converge at the high values of $I$ that I am using. The equation is used to correct the measured signal intensity $I$ for a given detector deadtime $t$.

How can I solve this equation without using Lambert's W function (Which doesn't work). I'm sure (and really hope) that there is a much more simple way of solving this. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that can be solved without using Lambert's W function. Lambert W function#Evaluation algorithm gives some ways to calculate its value outside the disc of convergence of its Taylor series, does that help at all? --Tango (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, since the evaluation algorithm section links to the desy webpage, there is a good chance that they developed it to try and solve a similar deadtime problem. Thanks, Jdrewitt (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you aren't going to get a better closed-form solution than with W, why not just solve the equation numerically? I'm assuming that all your variables are positive (since you talked about I being "large"): then the function on the right is strictly increasing with $I_{0}$, and you should be able to apply something trivial like bisection search to it. (Since you're starting with the unbounded interval $[0,\infty )$, you'll have to start with some sort of interval-widening until you bracket the solution: evaluate the sign of $I-I_{0}e^{I_{0}t}$ at 1, 2, 4, 8, ..., until it changes (to negative) and then do the bisection search on $[2^{n},2^{n+1}]$.) Of course, other approaches like Newton's method might work better, but Newton's method in particular seems to converge very slowly for this function (18674 iterations with $t=3,\,I=5\times 10^{5},\,\varepsilon =10^{-6}$ like I tried). --Tardis (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several numerical methods implemented as computer programs like Newton Raphson which are used for solving large matrix equations like tohse describing a power system which do not have a determinate solution. You may wind up with a small error term if you are successful. There are ways of determining whether you have found a good solution, and tricks for approaching that solution. I greatly admire those who are comfortable with such mathematics. I just use it. Edison (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic monopoles and turning matter into energy

It seems that magnetic monopoles potentially can turn matter into energy. Is this process 100% efficient? Can it perform 100% conversion like antimatter? Will any of the energy be released as harmless neutrinos like in antimatter-matter reactions? ScienceApe (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the existence of magnetic monopoles remains conjuncture and speculation, much less their actual behavior, no answer can be given. — Lomn 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even theoretical predictions? If we assume proton decay takes place? ScienceApe (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Various grand unified theories do predict that magnetic monopoles will catalyze nucleon decay. I think the decay modes are the same as without the monopole, e.g. $M+p\rightarrow M+e^{+}+\pi ^{0}\,$ where M is the monopole (see proton decay). Whether this could be turned into a safe energy source I can't say. It's not "100% efficient", but neither is matter-antimatter annihilation—not all of the energy comes out as photons and you can't turn the photons into useful work with 100% efficiency anyway. -- BenRG (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will it turn a given piece of matter into its energy equivilant. And will any of that energy be in the form of neutrinos? ScienceApe (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One hypothesis I read years ago stated that just one monopole was possible in this universe. Good luck finding it. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eye myopia

I just recently got glasses for my myopia. I heard that the more you wear your glasses/contacts, the "lazier" the eye muscles get, making them more dependent on the corrective agents, thus making your vision worse. Is this true? I want to wear my glasses, but not at the expense of my eyesight. DISCLAIMER: NOT MEDICAL ADVICE (AND ALL THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH)...JUST WANT TO KNOW THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT. Thanks for your help. --71.98.22.225 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the opposite... I believe that, in some cases, wearing correct lenses can help your eyesight improve. I'm not sure what those cases are, though. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike eyeglasses, contact lenses can mold the shape of the cornea, at least temporarily.Scray (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What you heard doesn't sound well-informed. Are you thinking vision therapy? Applies to some conditions... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When I first got glasses, I could watch T.V without them, but now, even though my power hasn't increased one bit, I find it more difficult to do things without my glasses. So, in a way, I've grown more dependent on them than I was in the beginning. My dad says that it's your perspective that changes, i.e, you get to know what perfectly clear vision is like, so you feel uncomfortable with anything less than perfect. Hope I have helped you. Have a nice day! 117.194.227.13 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Help in Finding an article previously found in Wikipedia

Wikipedia has an article that I recently read about an unusual mental condition in which a person can see spoken words, musical notes etc. in the air. And sometimes in colors. And in some individuals the colors are different depending on whether the other person speaking the words has a change in his/her emotions.

The Wikipedia article went on to give a fairly long list of famous people, both past and present, with this condition. George Gershwin was mentioned. Possibly Leonard Bernstein, other artists and composers.

I would greatly appreciate your advising the name of this mental condition.

BMany thanks,Bob Christman at <email removed - see page header> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.109.109 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess you were looking at Synesthesia, or the associated article List of people with synesthesia. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 13

Any ideas on how to create a concrete sign?

Sorry I wasn't sure where to place this, but I thought science would be good because of physics/construction. So, I'm trying to create a concrete sign for a community organization. This is the type of signs I mean: http://www.centurygrp.com/precast_detail.asp?id=1

It doesn't need to be as "showy" as some of the ones on there, but still it's going to be a decent sized concrete sign. Problem is, I'm not really great at this stuff, and I'm not sure how to get started. I already have a location to construct this on (the base is present). I'm figuring I'd need to use bricks to create the frame around the sign. Would I need metal supports or something in the inside? Also, I have no idea on how to create the sign itself. Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

These signs look highly developed. Without knowing what you expect to do (such as lettering in the concrete or external to it, colouring the concrete with pigments before mixing, the dimensions etc), there are companies via google that sell many styles of molds from precast stone and timber onwards (search precast concrete molds); you can even talk to them via email to research your project, and we have a tiny article Precast concrete for background. If yours is a tight budget and a rustic finish is acceptable, you can form by cutting a shape into earth and pouring directly or avoid casting by making a brick structure that you are happy to render. You can make a form box the size and shape you want, pour cement into it and presto – use an angle grinder and coarse metal file for finishing touches. Pigment colours are mixed dry before adding water etc. Your local hardware store could help with questions too. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And let me add, if it isn't already obvious, that the face of the sign would be in the bottom of the mold or form. The cheapest way to create a form would be to carve it out of Styrofoam, but this might not hold up to the weight of a thick concrete sign. You could put liquid or powdered pigments in the bottom of the letters in the form to get the desired results. And yes, there should be metal inside the concrete. It's called rebar (reinforcement bar) and should be in the form of a three dimensional grid (or two dimensional, for a thin sign). You might also want some heavy duty hooks, attached to the rebar, sticking out of the back of the sign, for easy handling. You will likely need to let it set for several rain-free days (cover it with a tarp, being sure to keep the tarp from touching the concrete, if rain is expected). If you are new to this, I'd expect to take several tries to get it right. (Although, if only the coloring is bad, you could opt to paint it to cover the imperfections. Beware that the paint won't last as long, though, requiring a repaint every few years.) StuRat (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple other comments. Don't use water-based pigments and avoid concrete mixes which have loose chunks of metal in them. The pigments will run and the iron will rust and look horrid. In case you don't already know this: you need to pour the concrete right after mixing, so be ready to do so. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure the sign is stable (not top heavy) so that if the base settles unevenly, or if someone pushes it it cannot fall over and crush someone. Children have been killed by old tombstones falling over. If you mold it flat, calculate how much it will weign and plan to have a way of lifting it. It could wind up being very heavy. Concrete often leaves voids when poured: sometimes a vibrating device it used to get it to fill in all the areas. Concrete mix (with gravel) is generally stronger, but sand mix would be needed to fill in fine details. The form has to be lubricated. Edison (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And practice several times on smaller scales before going for the final job. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Black hole confusion

I'm a little confused about what happens to you when you fall into a black hole. My understanding is that an outside observer sees a object take an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon as the time dilation goes to infinity. An observer falling into the black hole sees itself take a finite amount of time to reach the singularity. My questions are: Does this effect apply to photons, and other objects without rest mass? If an outside observer never sees anything cross the event horizon, how can the black hole ever gain mass? On a related note, what happens when two black holes have overlapping event horizons? Does a region of "safe" space form between them? Outstairs (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your understand is correct. Photons falling into the black hole can't be observed from outside it, since the photons have to hit your eye for you to see them, photons emitted from an object falling into the black hole will be redshifted, and the redshift will tend towards infinity as the object approaches the event horizon (in the same way time dilation tends to infinity). To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the time dilation thing fits with the black hole gain mass - I suspect that, from the point of view of the outside observer, the black hole's mass is whatever it was when it formed, but the mass of the accretion disk increases, so the mass of the whole thing is what it ought to be. From the point of view of the person falling into the black hole, it's all perfectly normal. The way two black holes interact (especially when merging) is an area of active research, and I know very little about it. Even if there was a region that wasn't causally disconnected from the rest of the universe (ie. you can leave it), the tidal forces would be enormous, so it still wouldn't be "safe". --Tango (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of things stopping a person from even getting close to the event horizon. The event horizon is surrounded by a very hot accretion disk. These disks are usually much hotter than the sun. The size of the accretion disk also tends to dwarf the event horizon, even if the event horizon is enormous as is the case with super massive black holes, the accretion disk is still much bigger. There's also a tremendous amount of radiation. So the heat, combined with the radiation make it impossible for a guy in a spacesuit to ever come close to an event horizon unless he's invincible. Both of these come into effect before tidal forces are present btw. ScienceApe (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The accretion disk is, as the name suggests, pretty flat, so if you approached the black hole from one of the "poles", you would stand a better chance (unless there's a jet coming out of the pole, of course, which I believe there is in cases). If you pick an old enough (isolated) black hole that has already sucked in its accretion disk so that it's all extremely close to the event horizon (from the perspective of an outside observer), all the radiation from it will be redshifted to harmless levels. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, there would still be polar jets. I don't think we know of any black holes without accretion disks. The accretion disk is primarily how we detect them in the first place. It is actually possible to orbit a black hole indefinitely, without ever being sucked in. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to some of the matter in an accretion disk, especially considering the size of the disk, which can extend very far out. I should really emphasize the size of these accretion disks. If you were to look at a black hole from a safe distance, you probably wouldn't even see the event horizon, because it would be dwarfed by the much larger accretion disk. It's THAT big. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of the matter in the disk, it will get sucked in eventually, from the point of view of an external observer, it won't, since nothing can. I'm not sure what your point was, though... As far as I know, you can have black holes without accretion disks, we just can't detect them. You put a large star in an isolated region of space, let it go supernova and the core collapse into a black hole, that black hole will then pull all the rest of the matter star (except for anything that escapes) in towards it and eventually there will be none left that is far enough from the event horizon to be observable from the outside universe (it will still be there, just extremely redshifted). --Tango (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically I guess there can be black holes without accretion disks. Thing is, as long as the matter around a black hole sustains orbital speed, it won't fall in. It will revolve around the black hole indefinitely. So in practice, there will always be an accretion disk around the black hole. ScienceApe (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's not falling in, it will be cold, so there's no need to worry about it. If it's radiating heat, then it's losing energy and falling in. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, the accretion disk is hot because of friction. The matter is colliding with each other. It can still be hot and maintaining orbit. ScienceApe (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The energy has to come from somewhere. When the bits of the disk rub together, their kinetic energy is turned into heat energy and then radiated as photons. If it's emitting radiation, it must be losing energy, and therefore spiralling down. (Obviously, it can radiate energy because of heat it had before it entered the disk, but that's a negligible consideration.) --Tango (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But like I said before, if the black hole has an accretion disk, then you can't approach the event horizon without dying. ScienceApe (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been asked many times on the reference desk before. One of the best answers is in this thread. SpinningSpark 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

earth's magnetism

does earth have null points[since it behaves like a magnet]? if so where are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.248.129 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly "imperfections" in Earth's magnetic field, but I'm not sure your "null points" terminology is in standard use. The simplest model is a dipole or offset dipole (i.e. assuming the earth's magnetic field is a "bar magnet" centered at either the exact center of the planet or somewhere else to better fit measured data). Beyond this, you may want to read on the International Geomagnetic Reference Field model: here's a page from NOAA describing it in detail. You may also be interested in the South Atlantic Anomaly; theories to explain this geomagnetic feature vary wildly. Nimur (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Earth's magnetic field. There is a measurable magnetic field everywhere, though there are low strength fields around the south Atlantic. -- kainaw™ 11:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Earth's magnetic field isn't constant. When it's about to invert it becomes quite sporadic, with null points and points with the reverse of the expected field all over the place. StuRat (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I know if a telephone is also touch tone?

Are all cell phones also touch tones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that term really applies, since they likely don't send the phone number as an audio signal at all (either as tones or clicks), but as a digital code, instead. However, after you connect to your party, I'd expect to be able to send audio touch tones so you can navigate phone message systems. For example: "Your call is important to us, although obviously not important enough to actually answer ... Press 1 if, for some strange reason, you speak English". StuRat (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Press 1 if, unlike us, you speak English." :-) --Anon, 22:20 UTC, June 13, 2008.

(Edit conflict) Cell phones transmit their dialing information to the network digitally. But once a call is established, they'll generally emulate a Touch Tone phone and transmit the correct audio boops and beeps so that automated call response systems work as you'd expect. So yes, in the way that you probably care about this, they are all "Touch Tone".

Atlant (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in many cases, cell phones work better with automated systems that are expecting analogue DTMF tones. A lot of modern POTS (analogue phones) output the DTMF tone for a short burst of predetermined duration. This can cause problems, especially on noisy lines, because the server at the other end had insufficient time to decode the tone. This is not generally such a problem with older models which will carry on outputting the tone for as long as you hold your finger on the button; so the human can compensate for the bad connection by putting out longer bursts. Cell phones also (most models anyway) tend to follow the old scheme of "tone while button down". Not sure why this is, possibly because cell phones by there nature have greater problems maintaining a good connection and the sesigners are trying to compensate. SpinningSpark 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

raccoons

I live in an area near a river where raccoons come into the neighborhood looking for dog and cat food or kittens or whatever else they can find to eat. Whenever someone leaves a bucket or other container out and it fills with rain water they make a habit of pooping in it. What might be the reason for this behavior? -- Taxa (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Raccoons are not dumb. They know that standing feces can cause a lot of health problems. So, the defecate in water to keep it away from where they may step. If no water is available, all raccoons in a group will tend to defecate in the same spot to keep it localized. This is not unique to raccoons. Non-domesticated animals try to be clean. Even my hedgehogs will go in a litter box to keep their area clean. This came up on Futurama:

Fry: Psst! Leela! You've got to get me out of here! It's horrible! Eating scraps; letting my waste drop wherever it falls, like an animal in a zoo!

Leela: Animals go in the corner.

Fry: The corner! Why didn't I think of that?

-- kainaw™ 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now. Just because an animal is "not dumb" doesn't mean it has sufficient capability for abstract thought to know that some practice "can cause a lot of health problems". Much more likely we are talking about instinctive behavior, or behavior taught in infancy, resulting from natural selection. (I use the term broadly here, not limited to genetically determined traits as that article applies. In other words, it could be that raccoons that learned to do this live longer and have children that observe them doing it and copy it.) --Anonymous, 22:28 UTC, June 13, 2008.

I don't think that what you're are seeing in the water is their "poop." Normally raccoons have communal defecation sites (latrines), often at the base of trees or on flat elevated surfaces. It is true that containers of water accessible to raccoons look as if they have been defecated into. However, what you are most likely seeing is the dirt and other foreign materials that result from their habit of "washing" or "dousing" their food in water. They do not always put their food in water before eating it, and there seems to be no concensus as to the function of this behavior. Take a look at these links with regard to where racoon "latrines" are located.[16] [17]--Eriastrum (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shovel-Shaped Incisors

Why do Asians (mongoloids) have shovel-shaped incisors? A friend of mine says it is because they evolved to subsist on a diet that contained less meat and more vegetables.

Are there any other modern animal species, besides humans, that have shovel-shaped incisors? 71.231.122.22 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your friend has the cause and effect of evolution backwards. Animals do not evolve to serve a purpose. They purposely attempt to fill a niche in the environment and evolve to better fill that niche. So, your friend is actually claiming that the Asians found more vegetables than meat and attempted to fill the primarily vegetarian niche in their area and, as a result, evolved shovel-shaped incisors to better fill that niche. A quick scan of medical studies on this topic shows that it was suggested that this evolutionary trait was a result of a vegetarian diet. However, most studies refute that claim and leave the trait to a pure chance mutation. Otherwise, it would be reasonable that more vegetarian-based cultures would develop the same trait. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See genetic drift. ScienceApe (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, quite a large number of Asians are not mongoloids Nil Einne (talk)`

Big red ant!

I just flushed a large red ant from my apartment. I've been having an ant problem, but, so far, they've all been the usual small black ants. This is the only one I've (ever) seen like this. It was nearly an inch long and a light/bright red color all over. It had no wings (thankfully). When I first saw it, it was so large, I didn't expect it to be an ant, but up close that's certainly what it seemed to be. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures to show.

Naturally, I was wondering if anyone here might know what it was. I live just outside Washington, DC, in a heavily wooded area (Takoma Park, MD). Or, maybe someone could point me to a list of local species?

Thanks! — 68.49.3.251 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's swarming time and you probably encountered a queen who has shed her wings.

Atlant (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a Mutillidae? (Although not an ant, they do appear as one.) Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Dorylus fulvus found in the US (as an invasive species, that is)? The males a.k.a. drones a.k.a. "sausage flies" are by far the largest ants I've ever seen. They are up to an inch long and brownish-red, definitely matching what you say. They have wings when they fly, but AFAIK the workers chew the males' wings off as soon as the males land nearby. There are pics of Dorylus drones on the net. Is that close to what you saw?! I've never heard of Dorylus in the US, but if it is one, I'd be concerned. --Dr Dima (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

fruit contamination

Is it possible for bacteria to enter intact fruit through the root system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1022wcharles (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Biology isn't my area, but Plant disease#Bacteria might give you some useful information while you wait for an expert. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be possible, but unlikely. Bacteria entering through intact roots would be like bacteria entering your body through intact skin. It's possible, but first the bacteria would have to set up a colony on the surface and sufficiently damage the surface so that it could gain entry. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

water pressure

If I had a column of water 1 millimeter in diameter and 1 mile tall, would the pressure at the bottom of the column be the same as the pressure at the bottom of a column 1 mile in diameter and 1 mile tall? Nadando (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. The volume of water in the container isn't what creates pressure at any point inside the volume; it's the height of the volume above the measurement point that matters. Imagine dipping a 1-mile hollow tube, open at both ends vertically into the ocean. The pressure inside the bottom end of the tube will still be the same as the pressure outside the bottom end of the tube.

However, when you get down to a really small-diameter container (less than the 1mm in your example), friction and capillary action are the dominant forces, not gravity. Make the diameter small enough, and water can simply stick to the sides, completely filling the container, no matter how tall it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that means there is significantly less pressure in a capillary? So the answer to

the OPs question would then be no, its different? SpinningSpark 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Amatulic said a capillary was narrowing than 1mm, which would mean in the OP's case, they would be equal. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not exactly an on/off effect. It just diminishes with increasing diameter according to inverse R which you can see in the article. So there is still a noticeable effect (the article says 0.5mm will lift 2.8mm of water) at 1mm. The effect on pressure is going to be small but it must happen surely?, otherwise the water would not rise. SpinningSpark 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On June 29, 1973, in Philadelphia, a task for liquefied natural gas was under construction. Its main structure was 85 feet high (25 m) and consisted of a 5/16 inch (8 mm) steel liner surrounded by an 8-inch (20 cm) prestressed concrete wall. The space between the steel and the concrete,as built, was only 1/100 inch (0.25 mm) thick -- but when water accidentally got into it, the pressure at the bottom was enough to push the concrete out of position. Of course, this then widened the gap and more water got in and the concrete continued to shift. (Source: Design and Construction Failures: Lessons from Forensic Investigations by Dov Kaminetzky, published 1991 by McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-033565-6. More precisely, my source is notes taken when I had that book out of the library.) --Anonymous, edited 22:49 UTC, June 13, 2008.

Addicted to you

Hello smart wikipeoples. Could all psychological addictions (i.e. those lacking the presence of psychoactive substances) be considered addictions to dopamine (and certain endorphins)? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong? Too dumb? Too hard? Makes no sense? Please, say something about it! (This is the only unanswered question right now in the desk, and it's been so for almost a day!) Kreachure (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue, right? I don't really know much about the topic but for example say if you were addicted to sex then the only thing involved in 'how you feel' is endorphins, so yes, it could be assumed that the addiction was to endorphins as that provides the feeling. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 20:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for addiction states in the first line: "Addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning". Considering that all humans and many other species are reliant on dopamine/endorphins you could say they are all addicted.

What I'm guessing instead is that your argument has spawned from something like: "Bob has sex a lot. Bob says he is addicted to endorphins". Apart from the issue that sex doesn't just involve endorphin release (i.e. oxytocin), you have to realise that animals strive for homeostasis, and behaviour such as addictions can be seen as decisions made as a result of calculations by the brain, in order to maintain homeostasis. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd rather consider addictions of any kind to be behavior against homeostasis, since your body goes out of control all over from an excessive yearning for substances it doesn't really need... which could lead to a total system imbalance and breakdown, in fact. Kreachure (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If an individual has a dependency on a substance, then their body seeks that substance for balance in a fairly literal sense. Homeostasis is really a physiologic term that describes the internal chemistry of an organism, so it isn't well used in a discussion about psychological dependency. A good example of the evidence for homeostasis in physical dependency is withdrawal, which is the collection of symptoms that result from an addict not receiving their fix. Withdrawal can kill. But back to the original question, I don't think all psychological addictions can be classified under any umbrella cause. You are barking up the wrong tree to begin with by assuming that all similar psychological states can be rooted back to the same neurological cause. Although dopamine and endorphins have been linked to neuroligical reward mechanisms, the fact is that sometimes psychology is just way to complicated to be boiled down to simple brain chemistry alone, such as indicting one chemical or another. For example, psychological dependency is often characterized behavioristically, as a "habit" (hence warnings that some drugs may be habit-forming). --Shaggorama (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I made the mistake of reducing psychological states to simple physiological and neurological dynamics, when it's definitely not that 'simple'. Kreachure (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 14

Flood stage and topographic maps:Cedar Falls,Iowa: A question touching on the sciences of mapping and hydrology.

In the recent flood news in Iowa, I am left confused by the lack of relation between the river being "so many feet above flood stage" and how that relates to topographic maps showing only how many feet above sea level various parts of a town are."Flood stage" is an arbitrarily river level at which it "starts to do damage" and cannot readily be determined from a toporaphic map. For instance, in Cedar Falls, Iowa, how many feet above sea level is "flood stage?" A USGS topo map, 7.5 minute, downloadable at [18] shows the river normally at about 841 feet above sea level, and the first contour lines shown near the riverbank are 850 feet, but how is one to know if the water getting there "starts to do damage" or just makes some mud a bit wetter? On the other hand some structures seem to be below the 850 contour, basically at the normal river level. Where is a tabulation of "flood stages" for various cities in relation to elevation above sea level? Where are maps showing the 100 year and 500 year flood plains for that city?(or other cities in general)? Also, some news stories give the river level in "gauge" relative to some arbitrary historic measurement point. Where is a listing of "gauge" levels relative to actual elevation? Edison (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I finally tracked dow a site [19]relating "gage" and "flood stage" to topographic map elevation for this town, but I still would like a general source for 100 year/500 year flood maps for various U.S. locations. Thanks. Edison (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ants native to the South Pole

Are there any ants native to the South Pole? 122.107.192.10 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no life native to the South Pole. Antarctica, couldn't say. ~~ N (t/c) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure that there are no ants at either of the poles, it's simply too cold. If you mean the southern hemisphere, i'm sure someone can help you. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 07:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on ants, ants are native to all continents in the world except Antarctica. (see subsection here). So, the short answer would be no, there are no ants native to the South Pole or Antarctica. Eric (EWS23) 08:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ants, being insects, are cold-blooded. All cold blooded insects need a warm enough environment to keep them from freezing solid. Some insects do have the ability to freeze and then thaw when the temp warms up, but the temp never warms up enough to thaw an ant at the South Pole. Also, there would be nothing for the ants to eat at the South Pole, as nothing else (plants or animals) can live at those temps for long. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No ants in antarctica? Edison (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was too cold for them so they all "said uncle", and left. StuRat (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Um... there is no life native to Antarctica? What about Emporer penguins, Arctic Terns, ice mites, plankton, fish, moss, and tundra plants? I've read about mites being able to survive the -80C temperatures, could that be it? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no life at the South Pole. That's different from there being no life on the entire continent. As for mites surviving at such low temperatures - if it's true, they would do so by becoming dormant, so they couldn't spend their entire life at those temperatures. --Tango (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Followup: According to Antarctica#Fauna, there are mites in Antarctica that can survive very low temperatures because of "antifreeze" (glycerol) in their bodily fluids, but it says they can survive down to -34C, not -80C. I don't think any life can spend a significant amount of time at -80C without being dormant. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not ants, but there are the extremophiles Obligate psychrophiles... Julia Rossi (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biology

Please Suggest some topics for class 12 to do a project on biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.70.235 (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume that you are not the teacher and this is homework, which you should do yourself. But to help you out, take a look at Portal:Biology, taht might give you a few ideas. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on atomic structure

Hi! I'm a grade 10 high school student and this has been a doubt that has been persisting for long...... In Bohr's model of the atom, he says that the electron doesn't lose energy as long as it's revolving in the same orbit. But why?? why doesn't it lose energy? I've had people explaining it as, because of centrifugal force, but in one of my textbooks, I read that Rutherford proposed the same thing in his model of the atom; but he was later proved wrong, as "according to electrodynamics", to quote from the book, "a charged particle revolving around an oppositely charged particle should lose energy and its radius should decrease, ultimately causing the electron to collapse into the nucleus. As this does not happen in the case of an atom, Rutherford's model failed to explain the stability of the atom". I know Bohr made a major advance, where models of atoms are concerned, with the quantization of energy concept,but I still don't understand how the electron could keep accelerating(by change of direction) along a circular path without losing energy...........can anyone tell me how he explained it? none of the books I have gave a satisfactory explanation on that part. Surely he must have had a good explanation for that statement?? 116.68.76.47 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)A 15-year old

The Bohr model is actually a very primitive model and not representative of the real situation. You are probably taught this model in school because it is easy to explain and understand, however it is a very simple view and is fundamentally incorrect. In reality, the electron does not actually orbit the nucleus at all, in the way described by the Bohr model. We move onto the more complex valence shell model of the atom. In this model, the electron is not considered a particle and instead exhibits wavelike behaviour, see Wave–particle duality. The electron may exist in a particular region, or spatial distribution, around the nucleus. The shape of this region is dependant upon the particular quantum state of the electron. This region is called an orbital but this may be mis-leading, since due to the wierdness of quantum mechanics, the electron may exist in all regions of the orbital simultaneously. I hope this helps in your understanding and I commend you for asking such a question, it only goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you are taught in school. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the electron is moving in a path of constant electric field potential (ie in a spherical shell at constant distance (radius) from the proton(s) ) ... and E(total) = E(kinetic) + E(potential).. E(total) cannot change.. so...87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, any charged particle undergoing a circular trajectory will emit electromagnetic radiation, see cyclotron radiation. So the Bohr model, although nicely introducing quantised energy states etc, doesn't get around the fact that the electron will eventually lose its kinetic energy and the electron will fall into the nucleus. The only way to overcome this problem is to introduce the electronic probabilty distribution valence shell model as described by quantum mechanics. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of the nucleus ie proton - the electron isn't moving.. Only from the point of view of an external observer is a changing dipole observed - consider that.87.102.86.73 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bohr feigned no hypothesis regarding the reason for the fixed orbitals. His only justification was that it led to correct predictions, which was also Newton's only justification for his inverse-square law of gravity. But Bohr's model, unlike Newton's, turned out to be wrong in almost every respect. In a real (unexcited) hydrogen atom, the electron essentially does fall into the nucleus. See my comment in this thread. Of course, my explanation appeals to the uncertainty principle, about which we also feign no hypothesis. -- BenRG (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nonsense to say that we "feign no hypothesis" on the origin of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is rigorously derived from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. -- Tim Starling (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We are being taught the quantum mechanical model of the atom and the wave- particle duality of electrons at school, and I've learnt that Bohr's model is incorrect, but I thought he would have an explanation for his ideas anyway, that's why I asked. So is it just a hypothesis then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.76.47 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Schrödinger ("valence shell") model of the atom doesn't really explain why the electrons don't radiate. It still has accelerating electrons, so if you applied classical electrodynamics to it, you would find that there is still radiation. I believe quantum electrodynamics has a more satisfactory answer to this problem, but I haven't studied it myself. Note that in the Schrödinger model, electrons can't spiral into the centre of the atom as in the purely classical models that preceded it. So perhaps it's more a question of "how" the radiation is suppressed, rather than "why". -- Tim Starling (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eutanasia

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for medical advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided). Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the deleted question that's a request for medical advice. The question asks for names of hospitals that provide certain services in a certain locale. This is the type of information that a dentist referral service would provide. --71.162.233.228 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Doesn't look like medical advice to me. I'll talk to Cyclonemim on his/her talk page. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, i'm not really sure, I kind of saw euthanasia and a request and, wrongly, assumed. Feel free to restore it. Apologies! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 16:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was:

In what hospitals of Belgium the procedure of eutanasia is made for woman`s been ill for some years. She in the terminal state. No :treatment is of help.

Help,please !

///,,,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.47.113.132 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the answer? --Tango (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From this it sounds as though euthanasia is pretty tightly regulated in Belgium. Given tight regulation and a progressive health-care system like Belgium's, it would seem reasonable for the patient to make the request of her physician, in accord with the regulation referred to in the article I cited. Sounds as though they'd have to assess appropriateness (the law apparently requires "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain" among other things) and then if appropriate either assist or refer to the proper specialist. Sorry I don't have a more direct answer. Scray (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on the personal willingness of the physician, and in practice many catholic hospitals are unwilling to allow euthanasia requests. So if you would like to get euthanised in Belgium, and do fulfil all the criteria, your best best would be a large, publicly run or university hospital. The full law (in Dutch) can be found here Random Nonsense (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ununoctium

Can anyone tell me why, according to it's article, Ununoctium is expected to have a tetrahedral shape in a molecule with fluorine, whereas the other noble gases have planar shaped molecules? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article tells you (read the "Properties" and "Compounds and uses" sections of the Ununoctium article) and provides cites to explain further the principles and the actual full details of the calculations leading to this conclusion. DMacks (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

bread mold causing dancing

i heard a rumor that sounds fake (i would be shocked if it were true)
its that there was a town during the medieval period that danced for hours and it was due to a mold in their bread that was caused by them not cleaning their grain and apparently (this is where the story goes from bad to worse) the type of mold refered to is used in the production of the drug "acid"
so am i wrong?
is this true?

See the article Ergotism. Ergotamine, the principal alkaloid produced by the ergot fungus, is, in fact, closely related to LSD. Deor (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Growth rings versus Wood grain

The question here: [20]: what is the distinction (if there is one) between Growth rings and Wood grain. Answers on Talk:Wood grain please. Thank you. --VanBurenen (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Growth rings are the circles seen in a cross-section of a log. Grain is the pattern seen running longitudinaly down the length of a sawn log. SpinningSpark 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right, they are really growth cylinders. If you cut them across, you get circles, if you cut them lengthwise, you get lines. If you cut them at an angle, you can even get growth ellipses. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the descriptions of growth rings, but isn't grain whatever pattern one sees in a cut surface of wood (cross-sectional or longitudinal)? Scray (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the grain does come from the growth rings. There are variations in the rings where branches join the trunk, where there is a knot, or damage from insects, disease, storms, or human activity. All this will also affect the grain produced when the wood is cut in the opposite direction. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my understanding... The rings are visibly separate from the grain. A tree can be seen as a bunch of very tiny tubes that carry water from the roots to the limbs. When a tree is turned into a long plank of wood, it is rarely done by cutting across the tree rings (cutting a disk out of the trunk). You cut the trunk lengthwise. So, the rings end up as lines in the wood running from one end of the plank to the other. Because many trees are not perfect cylinders, you get some nice looking curves from the tree rings. As for the grain, it runs from one end of the plank to the other. Depending on the type of tree and how close to the center the cut was made, you can get a plank with very nice grain or a plank with grain at an angle that easily splinters off. -- kainaw™ 02:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(answering Scray) Well grain is a woodworking term and woodwork isn't exactly full of scientific rigour. However, there is a definite implication in the terminology that "grain" runs along the length of the wood. For example, there are the terms "end-grain" and "against the grain". StuRat, growth ellipses, for goodness sake. If you really want to be geometrically precise then they are neither perfect circles nor ellipses, but the homotopic group of the circle. SpinningSpark 11:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As Scray, it seems parallel fibres are "grain" or texture wherever the wood is cut. It's a cross section determiner for what you get by cutting lengthwise or crosswise. There's a nice sketch to show the different grain achieved from cutting a log's different areas in the wood grain article. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the other bit, but it's been answered, that growth rings are older areas of the tree in a central position and the living area is between that and the bark which as the tree ages, adds to the centre. It functions differently but isn't really different in structure. It's all grain, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyphenylethene residues

I recently dissolved a large quantity of expanded polystyrene in propanone. As I understand it, this involves the structure of the polyphenylethene changing so that the polymer molecules are more densely packed.

However, after the reaction, there was left a beige residue. I removed this from the vessel and it was extremely sticky, like melting plastic. From the articles on polystyrene and propanone, I can't work out what this was: phenylethene is a liquid at room temperature and polyphenylethene a brittle solid. Perhaps this is an oxide?

Hopefully I am missing something obvious. Thanks very much in advance for your help!

86.149.177.103 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reaction as such - the propanone simply dissolves the polymer. What was left behind was almost certainly undissolved polystyrene possibly in a gel like state with propanone - A lot like polystyrene cement see Glue#Drying_adhesives87.102.86.73 (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to make sense - it is slowly solidifying. Thanks! 86.149.177.103 (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 15

Allergy medicine

What allergy medicine is the most common?

What allergy medicine is typically most effective?

What type (pill, nasal spray, drop, etc) is typically most effective? Maddie ^talk 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See your doctor. We cannot answer medical questions, as every case will be different, but our article on allergy has some information that you might find helpful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your first two questions is likely diphenhydramine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably dispute that and say cetirizine hydrochloride. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on many factors. Antihistamines like the ones already mentioned are popular and pretty effective, but not generally considered to be the "most effective". Most effective for immediate relief is probably epinephrine (adrenaline) - e.g. for severe reactions. Most effective for greater duration, but taking longer to kick in, are systemic corticosteroids like prednisone but the side effects preclude common use for this purpose. Topical (inhaled) corticosteroids strike a good balance in the right setting, but they can be absorbed and can also interact with other medications. Leukotriene antagonists are also highly effective in certain settings, and the list goes on... Scray (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Physics-- Force, Mass and Acceleration

Hello everyone! This is in reference to the question with the same heading posted a few days back. I was asked to get details of the book, but since it wasn't mine to begin with, it took me some time to get my hands on it. The book's called "Elements of Physics" by the authors D.Datta, B.Pal and B.Chaudhury. For some unknown reason, the back of the book was black, i.e, it didn't have a bar code or the ISBN number printed in the place where most books have them. A thorough search revealed that the book hadn't given an ISBN number at all ! I know that's strange and positively fishy, but this is really the best I can do. Thanks for all your help.
@Spinning Spark-- Please look up the book on the net now and let me know what you think about that odd question. 117.194.227.13 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That title and author do not show up in a search of Library of Congress, Google Books, British Library, European Library or a general web search. I also tried a number of major bookshops. I have also waded through the list of every book of that title (you would not believe how many people thought that title was original) just to make sure the spelling of Indian names was not an issue. The book does not seem to have any real provenance. I can only suggest that you treat its claims with suspicion.

here is a link to the archived discussion if anyone wants to have another attempt. SpinningSpark 12:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look very hard but did come across this [21]. I suspect the book is an ultra low cost Indian text book hence the lack of ISBN and difficulty finding much information about it. I agree that its claims should be treated with suspicion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you sure know how to make a person look stupid! Unfortunately we are still no closer to seeing what is in it as that does not include a preview facility. SpinningSpark 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple Inorganic Reaction

Calcium chloride, when added to sodium carbonate, causes calcium carbonate to precipitate. CaCl₂ + Na₂CO₃ -> CaCO₃ + 2NaCl. I should know the answer to this being a chemistry major, but I can't remember back to my gen chem class. What causes this exchange of ions to occur? Is it because of the insolubility of calcium carbonate? Or is there more to it that this? Thanks. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's insolubility. If you want to get more technical, the chemical equilibrium for Ca²⁺(aq) + CO₃^2-(aq) -> CaCO₃(s) lies much more strongly on the right than any other combination of those ions, so while all possible combinations go in and out of solution, calcium carbonate is the only one that suddenly finds it too hard to keep dissociating and hence precipitates out. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. My inorganic chem is beginning to come back to me. Thanks for your help. --Russoc4 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercury

Is there mercury on Mercury? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.166 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, though one is not named after one of the others. Both the planet and the element are named after the same Roman deity. The articles contain more information. I'm not sure about the presence of the element on the planet, but I do know that is not a very abundant element on earth. I do believe the planet Mercury has a high abundance of iron, though. --Russoc4 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Similarly, compare Uranus with Uranium, Neptune with Neptunium, and Pluto with Plutonium. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And tellurium with Earth and Selenium witb Moon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think it likely, as small planets, like Mercury, tend to concentrate heavier elements, like mercury, so they are far more abundant than in the solar system in general. In order for there not to be any mercury present one would have to imagine a way for it to leave. I could imagine it all boiling into a gas, and then being blown away by the strong solar wind at that distance. I'll check out some numbers and see if that seems possible... StuRat (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the max surface temp is listed as 700°K, which is higher than the 630°K boiling point of the element, so some mercury vapor should be produced. However, as the average temps are far less than the boiling temp, I'd expect underground mercury to remain closer to the average temps, remain liquid, and thus remain on the planet. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So assuming it were abundant enough, it could actually rain mercury on Mercury? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a nice day for Terminator 2. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure reaches atmospheric pressure. Are you using the atmospheric pressure of Earth, or the atmospheric pressure of Mercury? — DanielLC 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The atmospheric pressure on Mercury is effectively zero, so any liquids would boil away. Any elemental mercury on the surface would be liquid at those temperatures (it's liquid at room temperature, after all!), so would boil. Mercury beneath the surface might remain liquid because of the pressure of the surrounding rock, I don't know enough about the subject to make an accurate prediction there. Of course, mercury could be present in compounds with higher melting points which would exist in solid form. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercury rain on Mercury sounds as unlikely as Venereal disease on Venus. Edison (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

polyatomic and monoatomic ions.

I need to know the difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.5.173 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen our articles on polyatomic ions and monoatomic ions? As their name suggests. Polyatomic ions consist of many atoms covalently bound with a net charge not equal to 0. Monoatomic ions are single atoms that have more or fewer electrons than they normally have. Both are involved in ionic compounds. --Russoc4 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass/Weight of a Pokemon in a Pokeball

OK so we all know how it goes, Pokemon magically appear from their pokeballs and fight it out, but when they re-enter Pokemon trainers seem to have no trouble lifting the balls up (I mean some Pokemon are pretty heavy; Charizard for example is a right burger biffer). So where does the weight, and therefore mass, of the Pokemon go? In search for an answe myself and an equally socially challenged friend have come up with two possible theories, which continue a longstanding tradition of debate and hate towards each other:

1. Inside the pokeball is void of Higgs Bosons, therefore the Pokemon does not experience mass as it has no interaction with the Higgs Field. I'm assuming the pokemon turns into a strange radiative state which is regenerated on expulsion from its resting place.

2. (In what is quite franky a rediculious explanation..) The Pokeball acts as a gateway to a different dimension which stores the Pokemon until needed (I know, down right retarded).

So, Wikipedians, Discuss. -Benbread (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a theory: pokemon aren't real, so they go to the place in your brain other cartoons go when you suspend your disblief. Try our cartoon physics article on for size. --Shaggorama (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question invokes a discussion on an idea that has appeared in video games for years. See magic satchel. I don't think anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for such things.--Russoc4 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From Poké Ball - "In the Pokémon world, scientists have been using various, highly developed techniques of converting matter into energy and back for years." "The conversion of a Pokémon into energy when inside a Poké Ball explains how some Pokémon can be many times the Trainer's height and weight, yet still fit in a Poké Ball and not make it any heavier." Digger3000 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is great in fiction, but in the real world even when you "convert" matter into energy if you measure it you'll still find it has the same mass. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shhhh... --Tango (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget Pokemon. I now want to use Poke balls for energy storage. If it can really store an entire animal converted to energy as energy, then it could power every electrical device I'll ever own in my entire life. If extracting this energy requires a one-time sacrafice of a pokemon then that's a price I can live with. APL (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Two dimensional objects do not possess any mass. It is a non (or poker none) question. SpinningSpark 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer space, of course. Rmhermen (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this space governed by Hammer time?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How about if each Pokeball has miniaturized shrink ray technology, something akin to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids? The process would then be reversed when the Pokeball is opened. Compared to other theories presented (with the exception of the alternate dimension theory), this one has the advantage of allowing said Pokemon to retain previous training, since the subjects in said movie had no memory loss; the same might not be true if you converted matter into energy and back again. Eric (EWS23) 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This problem goes even further when you realize that may Pokémon can create many times their weight in whatever they can shoot out. For example, a Poké ball the size of a tennis ball holds a Blastoize the size of a van, which can shoot out enough water to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a few seconds. Maybe we should just assume that Pokémon takes place in another universe, and things we take for granted in our own, such as the law of conservation of energy, simply don't apply. — DanielLC 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Gumby pokey.JPG

Gumby and Pokey

I wasn't able to determine the mass of Pokey balls, and couldn't even spot them in pics like this:

StuRat (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the first time I burst out laughing at something on the reference desk in months. Kudos! --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

June 16

Course of the moon in the sky

From the chair I habitually sit in to watch tv, I can sometimes see the moon in the small area of sky visible through an uncurtained window in the room. I've noticed, when visible, that night after night it moves across the sky in the same direction, but each night it gets lower (or higher, I forget which). And when I see it, it always seems to be a full moon. My questions please 1) Is there a diagram anywhere that shows how the moon moves across the sky, and how this changes night after night? 2) Does the full moon tend to go through the same part of the sky each month? Or can it be anywhere? Thanks 80.0.111.219 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Most star charts should show the course of the moon - I find http://www.heavens-above.com/ very good, it shows the location of the moon at any date and time you give it (although I don't think it can give comparisons between different times on one chart - you should be able to find a chart that will, though). It will go along pretty much the same course each month, relative to the background stars (there are a few very small changes, but probably nothing noticeable to the human eye over the scale of quite a few years). --Tango (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stellarium is an excellent sky chart program. Also, YourSky may be a little more user-friendly. --Russoc4 (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second part of the question, the moon roughly follows the path of the sun (the ecliptic) as do the planets. However, the ecliptic moves around relative to the observer because of the rotation of the earth. The result is that the moon is lower in the sky in the summer and higher in the winter (unlike the sun), but of course it always rises in the east, culminates in the south (if you live in the northern hemisphere) and sets in the west. The full moon is always opposite the sun, so it will always rise at sunset and appear in the eastern sky in the evening.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So the moon keeps revolving over the same part of the sky, apart from the seasonal tilt, if its full or not? I expect the raising or lowering of the track of the moon must be due to its gradually changing position each night as it revolves around the earth every lunar month. Or have I got it wrong - it a lunar month the time the moon takes to go arounsd the earth, or just the time between full moons, or are these the same? Are there any parts of the sky the moon will never appear in, such as near the star Polaris? 80.2.203.46 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See Lunar month - there are different definitions. The time it takes to go around the Earth with respect to the background stars is the "sidereal" month, the time between consecutive full moons is "synodic" month, and is just over 2 days longer, due to the Earth orbiting the Sun. The course of the moon relative to the background stars is pretty constant (what phase it will have at each point varies depending on the time of year), and it will always be near the ecliptic. So, it will never go anywhere near Polaris, you're correct. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's amplify the bit about "the course of the moon relative to the background stars is pretty constant". The plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun is called the ecliptic. The Moon orbits the Earth in a plane that is inclined by just over 5° relative to the ecliptic, but the direction of this 5° inclination changes, rotating in a cycle 18.6 years long. This change is a type of precession. So if on a certain date the Moon passes in front of a certain star, then if you wait for that date 9 years later and wait for the Moon to get to the same part of its orbit, it may miss that star by as much as 10°. Within a person's lifetime this cycle will happen several times and so the Moon may be seen anywhere within a band of sky 10° wide, relative to the stars, centered on the ecliptic plane.

(The ecliptic is itself inclined at about 23.5° relative to the Earth's equator, and this inclination also precesses on a much slower cycle of about 26,000 years. This motion changes which star is the North Star, for instance. So over thousands of years, the Sun may be seen anywhere in a band about 47° wide and the Moon anywhere in a band about 57° wide, both bands centered on the plane of the Earth's equator.)

One more thing. The intersections of the Moon's orbital plane and the ecliptic determine when solar and lunar eclipses happen. If the Moon happens to be full when it's near the intersection of its orbit with the ecliptic plane, then there is a lunar eclipse. If it's new, there is a solar eclipse. In each case if it's very near the point of intersection, the eclipse is total or annular; if not so near, it's partial. Thus there are "eclipse seasons" about twice a year when a lunar and solar eclipse may happen two weeks apart, and the rest of the year no eclipses are possible. For example, according to Fred Espenak's excellent eclipse web site, the eclipses for 2008 are:

• 2008 Feb 07: Annular Solar Eclipse
• 2008 Feb 21: Total Lunar Eclipse
• 2008 Aug 01: Total Solar Eclipse
• 2008 Aug 16: Partial Lunar Eclipse

The precessional changes in the Moon's orbit mean that the eclipse seasons shift a bit earlier each year. By 2010 they will be in December/January and June/July. After 9 years they will have cycled halfway around and will be in February and August again.

--Anonymous, 22:06 and 22:15 UTC, June 16, 2008.

Hi. Also, the moon tends to rise and set an hour later one day than the last. The full moon will tend to be highest at around midnight, with cresent moons closer in apparent position to the sun. If the moon's cresent forms a C or backwards D, the cresent is becoming smaller ("croaking" or waning), and usually appears in the morning. If the cresent is a D or backwards C, it is growing and usually appears in the evening. If the moon is appearing late at night, usually it will generally be higher in the winter than in the summer, and vice versa if it appears in daytime. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Using very short people as astronauts

If people half average height and one eighth average weight (assuming all dimensions halved) were used as astronauts, could the size of space rockets be reduced proprtionately, so you'd only need a rocket an eighth the usual size? Hence saving a lot of money. 80.0.111.219 (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You could probably make some savings, but nowhere near 7/8. Most of the (non-fuel) weight of the rocket is the engines, structure, whatever is needed for the mission, life support systems, etc. The astronauts are a minute portion of the total mass and you can't just scale down everything else. Making something smaller generally costs a lot more, more than you would save on fuel. It may not even be possible to make some things smaller - they have to be a certain size to do their job. --Tango (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. If the stated assumption was correct, that you could have astronauts that weighed 1/8th as much, then you could possibly make a rocket to launch them that would weigh 1/8th (or very close to 1/8th) as much. Let's discuss each of the items Tango listed:

1) Life support systems: I'd expect a person with 1/8th the mass to use around 1/8th the amount of oxygen, produce around 1/8th the amount of carbon dioxide to scrub, urine to process, and feces. It would be reasonable, then, to say that the equipment needed to process these reduced quantities could be reduced accordingly.

2) Structure: The structure can be reduced in proportion to the contents.

3) Engines: They can also be reduced in proportion to the mass they need to lift.

4) "Whatever is needed for the mission": This gets a bit tricky. Some items can't be reduced at all, like the Hubble Telescope, as reducing the diameter of a telescope reduces it's light gathering power. So, if launching the Hubble was the mission, you're out of luck here. However, if the mission was to observe the changes that occur in astronauts in space, then all the equipment, like the treadmill and blood pressure cuff, could also be reduced accordingly. It would depend entirely on the mission whether the items could be scaled down.

Sure, all those things can be reduced, but can they be reduced proportionally? I doubt it. At least, not without a massive increase in cost. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does a model train cost massively more than a full-sized train ? Only when you reach a certain threshhold of "smallness" does cost go up. Half scale wouldn't normally hit that threshold, with the exception of some electronics that are difficult to reduce further in scale as they are already at the minimum size possible using current technology. Also note that many half-scale items already exist, designed for children, like clothes and chairs, so could be purchased "off-the-shelf" for little money. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that a person half as tall isn't really going to weigh 1/8th as much, since they wouldn't be 1/2 as wide and 1/2 as thick. Dwarves always look "stout" precisely because the reduction in height is not matched by a corresponding reduction in other dimensions. Their heads, for example, tend to be very close to the size of average-sized people's heads. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The second-ever satellite had a dog in it, which would not have weighed much compared with a human. I do not know what the rocket size was compared to the first astronauts, although the dog-rocket may have been designed with the capacity to lift humans in mind. 80.2.203.46 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the infancy of the space age, pre-astronauts and cosmonauts, right after Sputnik, Hugh Walters wrote Blast Off at Woomera (1957), ("Blast off at 0300" in the U.S.) about a moon rocket launched by the "United Nations Exploration Agency" which carried 17 year old Chris Godfrey, an English boy who was only 4 feet 10 1/2 inches tall, making the whole spacecraft able to launch with less booster power than for a 6 foot test pilot. Woomera Australia was the launch site. Walters was a member of the British Interplanetary Society and tried to keep the science accurate. Pretty good juvie sci-fi. Edison (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So how big a rocket would you need to launch a hamster, ant, or bacteria into space? 80.2.207.210 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue skin on a Budgerigar's nose

By what process does the skin on the nose of a male budgerigar become blue? Does it involve an accumulation of copper compounds beneath the surface? I always wondered about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.157.1 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

want to know how to figure out isotope half life

using diagnostic or therapeutic methods of a very old dead like mummy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.104.170 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC) only info i have is c14 for isotope and a half life of 5730yrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.104.170 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article on radiometric dating? It explains the general concepts, including Carbon-14 dating. — Lomn 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural sleeping position

I've heard that in the late Middle Ages it became the custom to sleep sitting up. Could it be that how we sleep is determined by culture? 217.168.0.72 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that in a castle for example, most people did not have bedrooms or beds but slept in the great hall with lots of other people. Hence the sitting up, perhaps because it was crowded and the floor not very nice to lie on (old food, dog-do, spit, vermin etc). Nobody recorded what the peasants did. Monks seemed to have their own beds as far as I am aware. 80.2.203.46 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

special relativity

shanu 09:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Suppose two twins A, B are on a platform near earth. C is another person of same age but his platform is near mars. B travels from earth to mars. When B starts his journey, all the persons start their clock. when B reaches on platform of C, C should expect that B should measure less time(due to time dilation)then him. But if we see the situation from B^,s reference frame, A and C have done journey. Therefore he expects C measures less time. But B and C both cannot measure less time! How can we resolve this contradiction?

Have you read the Twins paradox article ? SpinningSpark 09:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know abot twin paradox. But in that excuse is given that one person is 'accelarating'. but in this all are in inertial frames(non-accelarating). Thus we cannot apply this excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit max (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

B and C do both observe the other to have measured less time. There's no contradiction unless B actually slows down to be in C's frame at the end, in which case he's been accelerating and the symmetry breaks. Algebraist 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no objective "now" in special relativity. The result depends on which point of reference A and C where using to synchronize their clocks. If everyone starts their clocks at the same time from A and C's perspective, then when B gets to C, C's clock will be ahead, but from B's perspective, that's just because C started his too early. Get it? — DanielLC 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How does a canon work?

hai friends, can u please tell me as to how a canon, which were being used in wars in olden days, works? And what was/is there inside the iron ball? Bye. Kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.100.105 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at our cannon article. Early cannons did not have any explosive inside the ball. It was solid iron, or even stone in some very old ones. They did damage purely through their kinetic energy. The explosive (gunpowder) is packed into the cannon barrel and propels the cannonball forward under the high pressure caused by the restricted space. It was many centuries after they were invented before the ammunition started to be packed with explosives, compare shrapnel shell with case-shot and canister shot. Don't try this at home. SpinningSpark 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There was also hot shot, where a solid cannon ball was heated first, so it would start a fire when it hit the target. The earliest cannons were fired by holding a torch against a small hole in the end so the gunpowder would detonate. There was also the precursor to the handgun, the hand cannon, which was a small, portable cannon. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course, from the hand cannons came muskets. Or something. But they're the same concept, more or less. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble Gases

Can noble gases form compounds under extreme conditions of temprature and pressure? If yes how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit max (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas compound 193.190.253.149 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Notably, Xenon hexafluoride and Xenon trioxide.

Atlant (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Autism

Does autism affect the age that one lives to? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not much and not directly. It can affect how one lives their life and make certain causes of death more likely because of their choices but as a disease it will not kill you. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Autism absolutely effects the age one lives to. As CycloneNimrod has pointed out, autism does not kill directly, but life expectancy is significantly decreased for autistics [22]. Significant death factors include high susceptibility to accidents, respiratory distress and seizures [23] indicating that in a way the condition does often cause the demise of the individual.

Moreoever, I disagree with the claim that autism is a disease; it is better described as a condition, or disorder: autism is a developmental problem that appears to be genetic[24], it is generally not believed to be caused by external vectors except in the case of factors that increase the chances of birth defects[25]. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, autism is certainly a disease. Reading the article 'disease' will give you a good reason why. Mental disorders are classed as diseases and although autism is congenital, that does not stop it being a disease. It's a common misconception that diseases have to be contagious, that is not the case. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people would disagree with classifying autism as a disease, or even as a disorder. Condition tends to be more accepted. Of course, there are all sorts of things that some people consider 'mental disorders' and hence diseases which other people consider at most a 'condition' if not normal variation. To say it is 'certainly a disease' is to pick a side in an often contentious debate. 79.66.60.129 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A disease is defined as "The term 'disease' refers to any abnormal condition of an organism that impairs function." according to Wikipedia, or for other sources try this one: "A condition of the body in which there is incorrect function due to heredity, infection, diet, or environment." or this one "a general term describing a morbid condition which can be defined by objective, physical signs (e.g. hypertension), subjective symptoms or mental phobias, disorder of function (e.g. biochemical abnormality), or disorders of structure (anatomic or pathological change).". Autism is certainly a disease, whether you wish to class it as something as as well is your choice, but it honestly does fit the criteria since autism is an impairment of human functioning. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, but I seem to recall that the term "disease" used to only apply to conditions caused by an external organism (ie. bacteria, virus, etc.). That was a much cleaner distinction. The definitions cited above make anything short of physical injury a disease. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking anything which impairs human function (whether it be a congenital condition, by virus, bacteria etc) is a disease. Condition refers to a state of being, disease means that something is wrong. Look at any dictionary definition you like (assuming its credible) and you'll come up with the same findings. Google 'Define:disease'. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about opening up a can of worms! Well, after poking around a little at the medline plus dictionary maintained by the US National Library of Medicine, it looks like the problem we've uncovered here is that there isn't any clear distinction between the terms "condition," "disorder," and "disease," although there seems to be a pseudo-consensus here on their meanings relative to each other. For posterity sake, here are the Library of Medicine definitions:

• Disease: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors
• Disorder: an abnormal physical or mental condition
• Condition: a usually defective state of health <a serious heart condition>

By these definitions, it appears to me that autism satisfies the conditions for all three of these. Really I don't think there's a clear difference between these terms, at least not as they are formally defined, although there are more articulated differences in their use. --Shaggorama (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question I'm really asking is "who is the oldest autistic person ever and how old did they live to?". Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best answer is 'no one knows'. I don't know if anyone even keeps track of these sort of things and someone's medical conditions is usually consider private. Plus there are obviously many many autistic people who were never identified as being autistic. See for example, people speculated to have been autistic. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying cancer and heart disease and diabetes and sickle cell anaemia and rickets and gout are not diseases? Because all our articles describe these as diseases as I suspect would most doctors... Nil Einne (talk)

My point exactly :) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into this, as it's an ongoing political debate between various parties, but which word you use to describe various 'conditions', such as being on the autistic spectrum or showing a sexual preference for people of your own gender, is not as straightforward as some have suggested above. Assuming that it is is likely to cause problems if you find yourself discussing these issues with anyone they apply to. If you read the various definitions above, you will notice that some assumptions are necessary to apply these definitions to the situations. I'm not trying to change the mind of anyone who has made theirs up, and I'm not going to discuss this further as I don't think it will be productive or what the desk is for, but I felt I needed to put this here to help people avoid putting their foot in it in certain situations. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I understand why some people dislike the characterisation of autism as a disease, the fact remains, disease are clearly not only things caused by an infective agent, at least I suspect in the eyes of the vast majority of the worlds population Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was suggesting they are; I think you have missed the point :) 79.66.45.237 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> "I am not a doctor, but I seem to recall that the term "disease" used to only apply to conditions caused by an external organism (ie. bacteria, virus, etc.)." That is exactly what somebody was suggesting. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to go back and edit my last comment because some people do seem to have said that. Sorry about that. None-the-less, my last comment was merely meant to suggest that that is not at all the point when it comes to labelling something like being on the autistic spectrum as a disease. But there we go. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Except it is entirely the point! It is an impairment of human mental function, this means it is a disease whether you like how that comes across or not. You can call it a disorder, that fits too, or a condition, that also works, but it is a disease. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that since it fits the very definition of disease. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. 'Impairment', 'defective', and you don't see the issue? Never mind. Change is slow and there are many people in the world. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my job to censor the truth. Autism is a defect and causes impairment, there is absolutely no denying that. You can be more sensitive if you wish and call it a disorder or condition, but anything you use will still imply that an autistic person has something different from the norm. I hope to be a doctor and I have no intention of telling anyone that they can't live up to be as good as anyone else but it is the truth that autism is a disease. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Different from the norm is not the same as defective or diseased or impaired. A gay person is someone different from the norm, and when they live in a society that treats it as a disease it reduces their quality of life. That doesn't make it a disease. Having an exceptionally high IQ is different from the norm, and can reduce someone's chances of 'success' in life. It can impair their ability to interact with others. Doesn't make it a disease. Having an exceptionally low IQ is different from the norm and can make someone's life harder and shorter. Doesn't make it a disease. Certainly you would not expect to see 'high IQ' and 'low IQ' listed as diseases. Being a long way along the autistic spectrum certainly is a disadvantage in terms of achieving success in life and interacting with others, and different from the norm, but it doesn't make autism a disease. Given you are fairly smart, and particularly if you are hoping to be a doctor, I would have expected this to be blindingly obvious. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ants in my Car

There are ants in my car and I see them every single time I get in my car, near the dash and near the passenger and driver side doors. I assure you there are no food or traces thereof in my car. Nor water. My car is clean and I don't eat in it. How in the heck are they surviving? What could they possibly be eating in order to survive. It's creeping me out! --Anthonygiroux (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They could be eating paper, glue, insulation, etc. This could be quite dangerous as they could distract you while driving and cause an accident. I suggest a bug bomb, which should work well in such an enclosed area. Let the car air out and drive with the windows down after use. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Driving Ms Smokesalot

Yesterday I was driving with my cousin who is quite a serious smoker. He was in the front passenger seat and I was driving - nobody in the back. What would be the best way to ensure that I breath as less smoke as possible? It was too cold to open the windows more than three quarters of the way up. But I did notice that when my window was slightly less opened than his, there was a significant difference. Does that make sense? When my window was closed and his open it was - as expected - really bad. Surprisingly, the fan on plus the back windows open didn't make much of a difference. We were travelling at about 110km/h and it wasn't very windy outside. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the easiest way to breathe the least smoke is to ask your cousin to butt out in your car. If you're too ashamed of your selfish interest in clean lungs, then you can make an appeal to greed—tell her that you don't allow smoking in the car because you're trying to preserve its resale value.

If you're not comfortable with being honest and sticking up for yourself – or your cousin isn't polite enough to delay her smoke – then you're just going to have to fiddle with the windows and vents until you find something tolerable. Airflow inside a moving car is probably a chaotic system that will be sensitively dependent on the position of the windows and vent blowers, as well as on vehicle speed and the presence of any crosswinds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ToAT's first point. Also presuming it was your car, I suggest you reconsider in the future whether he is allowed to travel in it or at least extract a promise before you take him in the future not to smoke. I understand this can be difficult in a family situation but remember it is your car, and your health! Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds to me as if this is a demonstration of Bernoulli's principle. The air moving relative to the car causes low pressure outside. So smoke tends to get sucked out the window. But if your window is open slightly less, the vacuum on your cousin's side is greater than on your side allowing a smooth flow of air away from you. On the other hand, closing your window or opening it fully is likely to cause turbulence inside. By the way, you refer to your cousin as "he" but the title of the question is "Ms". Is your cousin confused? SpinningSpark 14:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol - he's not. The title was a (lame) "play" on Driving Miss Daisy. Thanks for the answers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "Driving Over Miss Daisy"? Maybe you should see the movie "My Cousin Smokey". I think the easiest way to keep the cousin from making everybody's life miserable is to lock him up in the car's trunk. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Second what Spark said. Make sure your window is open less than your cousin's so that airflow will tend away from you, if your cousin's is open less than the smoke will blow toward you and confound your efforts. Another method that may work is turning on the fan of your air conditioner (the air conditioner itself does not need to be on) and cracking your windows (perhaps 1 inch or so). This will create a positive pressure situation inside your car that may force the air out directly without creating much of a cross breeze. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would NEVER allow anyone to smoke in my car. I'd even make them go air the smoke out of their stinky clothes before allowing them in my vehicle. However, if you insist on tolerating this assault on your health and senses, I suggest you crank up the heat to allow you to open the windows further. Either that or get an antique car with a rumble seat for Mr Stinky. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always negotiate pit stops for him to smoke, but personally, even when I was a smoker, I never smoked in the car, and didn't let anyone else either. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As a current smoker (not proud of it), I would abide by any rules set down by the driver. Family or otherwise. If they said "no smoking" then grand, I wouldn't find it offensive at all to be asked to refrain. So I think you should just ask him; smokers are very accomodating people :-) I would never smoke in anyone's car unless they invited me to (window open, naturally) do so. (but if somebody asked me to air out my clothes before getting into the car, then I'd reconsider my travelling company; sorry StuRat ;-) ). Fribbler (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculative probe

Given our current knowledge and allowing for the development of not too hard to reach technology (say in the next 10 or 20 years), how long would it take for an unmanned probe to reach a star 50 light years away? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A hell of a lot longer than 50 years, that's all I can say. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine spaceships with linear particle accelerator drives and nuclear reactors for power that could approach the speed of light, maybe in the 20 year time frame. Those would take a bit over 50 years to make the trip there, and over 100 to send back pics and data. However, I don't expect the desire for short-term return on investments to disappear by then, so I doubt if anyone would pay for a mission with no benefits during their lifetime. A visit to a closer star, say Proxima Centauri, might be more realistic in that time frame, though, with pics and data coming back in a dozen or so years. I agree that such ships would be unmanned. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit? Surely taken the fact that approaching the speed of light is still likely to be quite far off (otherwise relativity is going to come into play, no?) suggests it's more then a bit? 70 years seems more realistic to me. And where did you get the 100 to send pics and data? Surely the probe is not going to wait for a signal from earth before it sends data? Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he was saying that it would take over 50 years to get there and it would take over another 50 years for the data to get back. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreamer. To get a 50 lb (22 kg) mass to half the speed of light requires the energy equivalent of the entire output of 1 GW reactor summed over 15 years. For scale, 1 GW is about the electricity consumption of a little less than 1 million households. No matter what you are imagining, there is no way that foreseeable technology will be able to compress power generation enough to allow near light speed travel for useful masses. Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The fastest spacecraft ever launched reached 0.02% of the speed of light ... by diving straight at the sun. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try a little thought experiment. Let's assume for the sake of argument we can launch a probe now (2008) that can reach 10% lightspeed. This means it will take 500 years (2508) to reach it's destination. But in fifty years time we might well have increased that speed to 20% lightspeed - which means a probe launched fifty years later (2058) will arrive before the first (2308) and so on and so forth. Add in the fact that the rate of technological process is accerlerating I'm sure you can see the problem. It's only worth sending such a probe if it can reach the destination faster than we can supercede the speed of it with the next generation of probes. It's the same paradox that renders a generation ship useless. Exxolon (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That assumes a 100% chance a faster technology will be developed. You can't wait 50 years because something better may come along, because then you'd just end up not going. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that precisely the problem? No one is going to spend billion or trillions developing a rocket to go somewhere when they resonably expect someone else in 50 years time will develop a rocket that will beat them to the punch. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic formulae are in the article Relativistic rocket. With ²³⁵U fission fragments the I_sp is 0.04 c (and if you stop the fragments and convert the energy to light or use it for accelerating particles to higher speeds, things will get worse). For a single-staged 0.5 c spaceship you need a mass ratio of 920483, which is of course not realistic. Icek (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Theory of disease

As I understand germ theory is the basis on which the modern medicinal treatment is done. What are the theories which form the basis of other systems of health care for example Unani, Ayurvedic, homeopathy etc. Thanks--Shahab (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to argue that in modern medical practice, the guiding principles are those of evidence-based medicine, rather than simply the germ theory. While many ailments are caused by germs (bacteria and viruses, mostly), modern medicine also includes treatments for diseases and conditions not brought on by pathogenic organisms. (Cancer, for instance, is the result of genetic mutation, which in turn may be caused by environmental factors, lifestyle choices, infectious disease, or bad luck. Alzheimer's disease is linked to the accumulation of naturally-occuring proteins in the brain. A number of autoimmune diseases drive the body's immune system to attack healthy tissues and organs.)

Evidence-based medicine employs the scientific method to develop and evaluate medical treatments. The germ theory of disease in an important part of evidence-based medicine's foundation, as specific germs have been identified through controlled scientific experiments as the causative agents for a number of diseases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the articles on Chiropractic, homeopathy, ayurvedic, Traditional Chinese medicine and others listed at Category:Alternative medical systems to gain an understanding of how their followers believe they work. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

HIV+ People who don't develop the AIDS Virus

I think I read some story somewhere that a large group of women in Southern Africa who were HIV+ for decades but never developed AIDS. They also did not take any medicines or any of the sort to treat the HIV status. It was speculated that these women are either naturally immune to this virus or they contracted a type of HIV virus that can't do any damage. Has anyone heard of this story and where can I find it? --Anthonygiroux (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If the the above is true, could that mean that some people are naturally (meaning born with) an immunity to some viral diseases? --Anthonygiroux (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are people with a natural genetic resistance to the AIDS virus. To be overly simplistic, the virus plugs into certain cells in the body to replicate itself. In a minority of people, the socket on those cells is slightly different, but not enough to inhibit the normal function of those cells. That slight difference in the socket means that the virus isn't able to plug into them and cannot replicate. Because this is genetic, the chance of spreading this from parents to children is much higher than a child sporadically forming the mutation. Therefore, finding a group of genetically related people with the same mutation is not abnormal. As for your specific question, the women were from Nairobi. So, googling for "Nairobi women hiv aids" should turn up the articles you want. -- kainaw™ 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, HIV *is* the AIDS virus. AIDS is a syndrome, not one disease. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, those with an immunity to bubonic plague also have partial immunity to AIDS. Since Europe was decimated by the Plague over centuries, many of those Europeans who survived passed on at least a partial immunity. This might be one factor to explain why AIDS is so widespread in Africa, but not in Europe. Based on the large portion of people dying in Africa, I'd expect to see an increased level of immunity soon among the survivors, just like in Europe. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how the "partial" immunity would work. I may have misunderstood Kainaw but if the socket is different then it's different. How could one be partially immune? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a group of people who appear to be natural carriers of HIV: they can get infected with the virus, but even after 20+ years, it hasn't developed into AIDS. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx / dromaeosaur scaly muzzle?

I've been wondering about this for a while. Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurs in general are depicted with scaly muzzles. 90% of the time their muzzles are described as scaly, and the other 10% of the time they are described as having horny beaks, which is incorrect. Fossils like Archaeopteryx and Sinornithosaurus show that at least part of the muzzle was featherless, and the skulls show anchor points for some kind of lips, but is there a specific reason for assuming that these lips were scaly in particular, as opposed to smooth skin or something else? I know one could look at the taxonomic relationships and logically assume that since Archaeopteryx/dromaeosaurs were intermediate between theropods and birds, and did not have beaks yet, they probably still had scaly theropod lips, but is there any reason other than that? Have they found skin impressions, or is there some feature of the bones in the snout that implies scaly skin in particular? 70.212.190.196 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

dogs and cats

Why do dogs (and cats) tend to sleep with their butts near your (and each others) head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hot humid wet vs. Dry desert climate, overheating which more dangerous on the human body

Once, I was taught in high school biology that for a human, a hot climate but with high humidity (ie. tropical wet climate) is more dangerous than a similarly dry one, because humans can't sweat and overheat more easily, while, in the dry climate, the water can evaporate, cooling you off. But I argued that always thought that it would be the contrary, the desert clime makes you lose water faster, and its sun is stronger. With all health affects considered, which is more dangerous for a human being, especially for travelling long distances or strenous exercise, risk collapsing and death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in a hot and humid place and I think the humidity problem is more of an irritant (it makes you feel greasy and uncomfortably warm) rather than a problem.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in hot-dry (Twentynine Palms, CA) and hot-humid (Charleston, SC). I haven't heard of many deaths from overheating in the hot-humid environment, but I heard of many deaths in the hot-dry environment. This could easily be because of population. If you overheat in a hot-humid city, someone will notice. If you overheat in the desert, you could be there for weeks before you are found. -- kainaw™ 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Lenticel. With a hot & humid place, you very easily feel uncomfortable. The difficulty your body has in sweating can also make an equivalent temperature seem hotter. 'More dangerous' seems unnecessarily broad and will surely depend on your situation. If you have lots of electrolytically balanced water then a humid place is likely to be more of a problem on the whole. If you have little water then a dry place is more likely to be a problem. Both of these are presuming we are talking about similar temperatures and that you know what you are doing, i.e. you don't take too much water. Clearly a 30C humid place is rather different from a 45C dry place. In any case, if you are smart enough to pace yourself properly, don't overexert yourself and ensure you have sufficient practice for whatever you are attempting, I suspect the likelihood of death is low. For references, see Craig Barrett (athlete) who for some strange reason was seen as a hero in NZ after he collapsed during the 1998 Commonwealth Games (in Kuala Lumpur, therefore a hot and humid place), although IMHO he was really just an idiot. I've seen various suggestions he was close to death, I don't know how true it is but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Obviously the chance of him dying given that he was taking part in the Commonwealth Games and would have had access to excellent medical care is very low but I think it does emphasise what happens when you are stupid and push yourself too hard (he was 6 minutes ahead of the person behind him when he collapsed, so it's not as if he had to go that hard) in a situation you presumuably haven't practice enough for; and potentially do other stupid things (the article suggests the was drinking pure water and probably suffered from water intoxication). Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're in a hot place (low or high humidity), you're going to sweat a lot. It's what your body does to try to cool you down. If you don't have copious amounts of fresh water to drink, you're going to get dehydrated, which can lead to health problems real quick. If you're exercising, it's worse, because you're generating that much more metabolic heat that you have to get rid of.

If the humidity is high, your sweat doesn't evaporate as well, so doesn't cool you as well, so it's easier to overheat, and that can lead to health problems, too. Plus, of course, the stickiness makes you way uncomfortable.

If the humidity is high and you don't have any water, you're going to be sticky and uncomfortable on top of being seriously overheated on top of being dehydrated. Triply bad news.

Me, I'd much rather be in a hot, dry place than a hot, humid place. Your sweat cools you very well when it's dry. If you've got water, you won't get dehydrated. If you've got sun protection, you won't get sunburned.

(I fondly remember summers at my grandparents' house in Palm Springs, which is where my dad grew up after they moved from, as it happens, Twentynine Palms. So I know what Kainaw's talking about. I've also lived in St. Louis, and I absolutely hated it.)

When I hear about people dying in heat waves, my impression (contrary to Kainaw's above) is that it tends to be in humid, inland, non-desert climates. You hear about the old and the infirm being relocated to public places where there's good air conditioning, because that can be the only way to survive under hot and humid conditions. When there's a heat wave in (say) Phoenix, Arizona, on the other hand, I suspect that what's most important is just to stay in the shade, drink lots of water, avoid exerting yourself, and maybe fan yourself gently to goose the evaporative process that little bit further. I don't think people are nearly as prone to heat-related death in the absence of air conditioning in Phoenix as they are in Chicago or St. Louis. So I'm inclined to think that, everything else being equal, humid heat is more dangerous than dry heat.

If a desert climate is more "dangerous" overall I think it's because there's less likely to be water, and there's less likely to be shade. But I wouldn't say it's dangerous because of losing water faster there, because as I said, you sweat just as much when it's humid. (The difference is that when it's dry, your sweat evaporates immediately and cools you as it's supposed to. In the desert, you hardly realize you're sweating profusely -- which can, it's true, make it easier to forget to drink enough water to rehydrate yourself. Oh, and you can remember your name, 'cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain. :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it depends on your situation and thus to compare the two one must eliminate other variables. In a typical house with no air conditioning in a city with plenty of water a person would be at more risk of heat stroke in a humid climate as the body will over heat more. In the same situation but without water I am unsure of the relative rates of water loss, more evaporation does not necessary mean more sweat. It would be impossible to comment on whether it is 'safer' to be lost in the wilderness in dry climate vs a humid one without going into specifics such as; avaliablity of water (you can't claim there is more potable water in humid climates); shade; actual temperature; actual humidity etc--Shniken1 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)