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

July 21

Is is possible to be a sociopath in a narrow area?

we don't offer medical diagnoses, including psychaiatric
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am certainly not a sociopath in any classical sense, indeed if anything I am fairly sure for various reasons that I have considerably more empathy than most people. However, what I just can't do is get offended by anything. I intellectually understand what offends other people (learned, I think, from trial and error) but have no visceral response at all. What's up with that? Egg Centric 00:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Addition: Sometimes I pretend to be offended just cause I have the sense I should be claiming to be, even though I'm not, and I still can't help but think that that is what everyone else is doing. Also sometimes I get angry with twats and express it as being offended, but only cause that seems to be socially acceptable thing to do, not cause I'm actually offended. Egg Centric 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Can't you get offended by anything, asshole? So, I can crack up a joke about your mommy (that whore) and you would laugh with me? 88.9.110.244 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC) If it was funny Egg Centric 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Nah, you're probably just INFP. Some day, someone will cross a line that you didn't know was there, and you'll be surprised by your own reaction. --Amble (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Apart possibly from introversion, where I am probably an introvert in terms of intrinsic preference (in that I loves me some nerd time) but an extrovert by usual behaviour, I am basically the opposite on that scale, so I doubt it Egg Centric 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Interesting. Shows what you get for taking things like MBTI too seriously (bad guesses). --Amble (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Three unrelated points: A) As far as psychologists are concerned, there is only "sociopath" and "not a sociopath". While indeed you can fit some of the criteria and not others, there is no defined thing as "sociopath for some things but not others". B) That said, I have only known one other person who so adamantly insisted they never could not be offended. I later realized this insistence was a coping mechanism and they actually took offense quite easily, but hid it well; C) Are you sure that nothing offends you, or are you just talking about insults? Being able to be unbothered by someone's attempts to get a rise out of you makes you more enlightened than the average human being, in my opinion. What if it is something more extreme, like being formally and publicly accused of a wrongdoing you are not guilty of? Or something really extreme, like watching someone kill a baby? Truth be told, even if you could honestly say "not offended" to all of those, I would scream that you're a sociopath. Though if you want a formal diagnosis, you'll need to see a psychologist. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC) It may be that we are using different definitions of offended. Of course I would not want to watch someone kill, or even torment a baby. There would certainly be a visceral response. But I couldn't characterise that response as offence, it would be more like horror. I am not unable to be insulted either in principle, but it would just make me angry or irritated. I am talking more about say sexism, racism, or whatever. Egg Centric 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Still wouldn't call you a sociopath. You just sound like you subscribe to "don't give a fuck"ism, whether you know it or not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC) You are not a sociopath. Sociopaths are narcissists, you are not. Check here: Sociopaths#Cleckley_checklist. Maybe you have reached enlightenment. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC) We should not be offering diagnoses of people's psyches. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Effect of Electric or magnetic fields on crystallization

So I was thinking if we have a compound whose molecules have polar covalent bonds (imagine it's a simple one, a diatomic molecule) well,the favorable position for them when the compound is crystallized must be something like:

+ - + - + - + - + -

- + - + - + - + - +

But in the presence of an electric field, the favorable position is:

+ + + + + + + + + +

- - - - - - - - - -

(assuming the field is upward) This made me wonder does presence of electric fields or magnetic fields make the crystallization harder (like in this case, although I'm not sure because although the arrangement is unfavorable for crystallization, at least they're aligned in the same... strike?) or easier? Is it done? How effective/practical is it? Does it have any use? What, if so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrational number (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In an arbitrarily strong electric field, if you manage to get the second structure you show, the crystal has ceased to be a crystal. Although at the necessary field strength you'll also be stripping electrons off the atoms. Anyway, this does actually have applications in the "inverse piezoelectric effect". Basically, by applying an electric field to a crystal, you can cause a physical distortion in the crystal. This effect has been used variously to make buzzers, very-fine-tuned motion control systems, and experimentally in noise-cancellation systems. To find out more you'd best search on Google, as Wikipedia has precious little information on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was that if the compound is initially in liquid phase, how is the kinetics and/or thermodynamics of crystallization affected by the field? could it crystallize at a lower/higher temperature? what about dipoles/ionic compounds in solutions? how are they affected, do they start crystallizing at different concentrations?(I think it will be less effective for ionic compounds I guess, since the separation of charges will be harder of course, but anyway)--Irrational number (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

...anyone?--Irrational number (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this (the Poincaré recurrence theorem) consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?

Widener (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it inconsistent with it? Poincaré recurrence theorem is related to Ergodic hypothesis which basically states that all possible states are equally probable (a priori), while the second law (within statistical mechanics framework) states that the number of available states increases with entropy, making the higher entropy a more likely outcome. Dauto (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not know your example, but the second law a little outdated and has problems.thanks water nosfim . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.91.170 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd law presents some difficulties of interpretation, but that's our problem, not the law's problem. The law itself is considered correct (no problems) and up to date (not outdated). Dauto (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Considered to some people, depending on your points of view,And how you doing statistics , thanks water — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.91.170 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some articles related to that question: H-theorem, Loschmidt's paradox, Fluctuation theorem, Arrow of time. Dauto (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Poincaré theorem applies to a system in equilibrium. The second law only makes meaningful statements about systems that are not in equilibrium. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is only a contradiction within classical thermodynamics where you take the second law as a basic postulate. As Dauto points out, there is no problem with statistical mechanics as the second law is formulated in a probabilistic way there. It can be shown that large fluctuation to lower entropy states are most likely going to happen via a sequence of small steps which under time reversal is just how the system would relax back to the higher entropy state starting from the lower entropy state, see this article. Here they give an example of how a piano will most likely re-appear out of thin air. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting paper, thanks for the link, Count Iblis. A nitpick: the authors assume that "a series of consecutive statistically unlikely events, rather than one instantaneous very unlikely event" is more probable. But, this depends on the specifics of each event - it is not a generally true statement. For any specific case, we'd have to specify what the events are, and calculate their probabilities, in order to determine which case is more unlikely. Nimur (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. In particular, I was interested to know how the Poincaré recurrence theorem was consistent with the heat death of the universe (a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics). Widener (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Homo Erectus (et al) Extinction?

What are the theories as to the disappearance of stable populations of tool using, fire making hominids like H. Erectus, ergaster, etc. And why doesn't it mention those theories on the wikipedia article for them? I'm not sure I buy that H. Sapiens showed up and were just so awesome that they hunted down and out-competed every last pocket of them from the entire planet. Surely there are more cogent theories than that. --68.190.114.51 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For H. ergaster see Homo ergaster#Origin and extinction. Otherwise Neanderthal extinction hypotheses#Interbreeding. These species may also have simply evolved over time into other forms of Homo (before H. sapiens existed). See also human evolution and Human evolutionary genetics. And possibly Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens
• If there are any other encyclopaedic theories, with reliable sources, you (68.190.114.51) are free to add them.
So possibly Interbreeding. They genetically became part of ... us, Homo sapiens (Wikipedia editorailis) (man who edits Wikipidia) ;-). - 220 of ^Borg 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific to H. Neanderthal, climate change may have been a factor: "Climate Change Killed Neandertals, Study Says," National Geographic News, or maybe it was Volcanism? "Volcanoes Killed Off Neanderthals, Study Suggests", again, National Geographic . - 220 of ^Borg 10:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

One species only has to be ever so slightly better suited to it's environment than another to replace it. Consider the introduction of various placental mammals to Australia, which threatened to wipe out the native marsupials, with only massive culling by humans able to prevent this from happening. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case Extinction particularly Species#Causes may make enlightening reading. Unfortunately it only makes passing mention of extinction relating to Homo, and then relating only to Homo sapiens. One interesting point made is "A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance ..." according to A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction.Cornell University.- 220 of ^Borg 07:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this physicist literally want to go back in time to save his dad?

I vaguely remember hearing Ronald Mallett talk to NPR talk show host Terry Gross about what first got him interested in time travel (the death of his father) and from what I remember, despite his intelligence, I got the impression that he actually still harbored the idea of going back in time, finding his dad, and saving him. From our article: "In 2006 Mallett declared that time travel into the past would be possible within the 21st century and possibly within less than a decade."

Can anyone confirm if it's the case that this man literally thinks he will one day engage in some fantastical journey through time to save his dad? Peter Michner (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall that at the end of the interview/story that Mallett concluded that he wouldn't be able to go back to any time prior to the building of the machine? But my understanding was yes, he was invested in the idea of creating a literal time machine. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I heard an interview with the same person (I don't recall the name, but I'm fairly certain it was the same guy) on a certain radio show some time ago. I do recall him stating that the death of his father was what motivated him to research time travel. He also pointed out, though, that (by some complicated physicist reasoning that I don't particularly recall) he believes only time travel to the near future is possible, and that neither he nor anyone else will ever be able to travel backward in time. Citation needed on that one, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How is steam weighed?

The article for New York City steam system says "Roughly 30 billion lbs (just under 13.64 megatons) of steam flow through the system every year". How is steam weighed? Dismas|^(talk) 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By conservation of mass, the amount of steam out is equal to the quantity of water in. You may also find steam quality interesting: for a specific sample of steam, it is possible to derive the percentage that is gaseous water and the percentage that is liquid water in suspension, because that affects thermodynamic and other properties. For a given pressure and temperature, "wet" steam is less energy-dense, and therefore less efficient for engineering purposes (e.g., produces less mechanical work) than dry steam. Nimur (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 15:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

missing sub-topic under either Buprenorphine or Substance Abuse on "Methods of detxiing off of Long Term Buprenophine Maintenance"

This information is going to be more and more needed as the tidlewave of Opiate users are switched from Methadone to High Dose Buprenorphine, not for detox, but years of maintainence. The missing topic is very specific and almost impossible to find anywhere except on Scholorpedia where they have an article on this. The missing information or sub-title is "METHODS OF DETOX FROM YEARS OF HIGH DOSE BUPRENORPHINE USAGE"? Even with 18 years of pharmacology experience I've had, and even the so called "Certified MD's" who prescribe it don't even know. My MD said when I told him that I need to get off as I can no longer afford to take them said, "oh, just take a half every other day" which is ludicrous when your on 16 to 24 mgs a day. I've been on it over 5 years and big money is being made due to the forementioned MD's don't take insurance and the new sublingual filmtabs cost $510.00 US dollars at CVS the number 1 retail Pharmacy in the US for a ONE MONTH SUPPLY ! Also besides that issue, under buprenorphine, the new film tabs that have come out at the aforementioned price needs adding, and also the Patent on 'Subutex" but not Suboxone has expired, and with a coupon I get the generic Subutex for only $182.00 which is a cost savings of 328.00 dollars. If you show your MD the proof, and you've always been clean on your urine tests, a compassionate MD will Prescribe the genric for you which works really well. Just sharing some new info. Utilize, research, or trash whatever you want. Sincerely, A WIKIPEDIA FANATIC (I JUST LOVE THIS SITE SO THATS WHY I'm trying to help.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.99.213 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just move to a country with a civilised (or semi-civilised) health system. 16mg of buprenoprhine a day costs me £21 a quarter, and if I were on benefits or poor then it would be entirely free. Anyway, what's the question? Egg Centric 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you found the info you need, and don't have a Q for us, so I'll mark this resolved. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

When people comment on information they think is missing from our articles, we should direct them to the article's talk page (Talk:Buprenoprphine in this case). Raising a point on the Reference Desk is unlikely to lead to any improvement in the article -- it happens sometimes, but not often. The personal anecdote doesn't have much value for that purpose, but pointing out things that are missing is one of the primary purposes of a talk page. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Micro-stuttering and perceived frame rate

According to this Tom's Hardware article, the effect of micro-stuttering on the perceived frame rate is more severe at lower nominal frame rates -- that is, the perceived frame rate goes down faster than in inverse proportion to the longest delays between successive frames. Is there anything in the psychological literature that confirms and quantifies such an effect? NeonMerlin 22:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If the frame rate is slower to begin with, then you are more likely to notice discontinuities in it. http://jn.physiology.org/content/103/1/230.long maybe? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Will-o'-the-wisp

Is there a scientific explanation for why will-o'-the-wisp marsh gas lights move away as the observer approaches? I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to walk right up to the marshlight and watch it burning from close by. 174.88.8.149 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that even true? Can you point to a reputable source that says so? Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is what it says in the article here. I am asking you for sources. If I could find them on my own I wouldn't have to ask here. 174.88.8.149 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article says specifically that the will-o'-the-wisp "is said to recede if approached". I'm guessing that it's "said" to do this in the same way Bloody Mary is "said to appear in a mirror when her name is called multiple times". In other words, such claims are nonsense. I don't blame you for inquiring further, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Will-o'-the-wisps are anecdotal and thus are not always the same phenomena. And actually they have been observed up close. There's a very interesting article by the late 19th century British scientist Charles Tomlinson regarding them (see Charles Tomlinson (1893). A. Cowper Ranyard (ed.). "On Certain Low-Lying Meteors" (PDF). Knowledge: An Illustrated Magazine of Science. Simply Worded—Exactly Described. 16 (New Series, Vol. III). Witherby & Co.: 46–48., note: "meteor" is an archaic scientific term for atmospheric phenomena). In the article, he recounts a Major Blesson from Berlin who made observations on ignes fatui in marshlands in a forest in Neumark, Germany. By day the water in the marshland was visibly bubbling with gases rising to the surface. By night, bluish-purple flames are seen at the surface. Here's an account of a closer inspection of the flames:

On visiting the spot at night, the sensitive flames retired as the major advanced; but on standing quite still, they returned, and he tried to light a piece of paper at them, but the current of air produced by his breath kept them at too great a distance. On turning away his head, and screening his breath, he succeeded in setting fire to the paper. He was also able to extinguish the flame by driving it before him to a part of the ground where no gas was produced; then applying a flame to the place whence the gas issued, a kind of explosion was heard over eight or nine square feet of the marsh; a red light was seen, which faded to a blue flame about three feet high, and this continued to burn with an unsteady motion. As the morning dawned the flames became pale, and they seemed to approach nearer and nearer to the earth, until at last they faded from sight.

So one explanation (if it is swamp gas) is that the gas disperses easily on nearby movement. Blesson apparently repeated similar experiments in other marshlands. Succeeding in actually creating ignes fatui on a couple of occasions by firing rockets over marshlands. Here's another account by a reader's letter from a certain Charles Nielsen of Hartlepool of a similar phenomenon again caused by ignited methane:

Three miles north of here there is a small deep dam, which serves as a reservoir to supply the railway company with water for their locomotives, and on which I, with a few friends have skated, whenever it has been sufficiently strongly covered with ice, for many winters past. It has been our custom to take a borer with us and make a small hole on the centre of the ice, through which a stream of CH₄ issues and which we ignite by applying a lighted match, when a pale blue flame, rising occasionally to a height of three feet, appears; in bright sunshine this becomes practically invisible, but it is undeniably very hot.

Modern science of course explains it now as phosphine igniting on contact with oxygen and touching off nearby methane gases (see Roels, 2001). But to underline the fact that ignes fatui are usually various phenomena, here's a starkly different recounting by a certain Richard Taylor (also from reader's letters in reply to Tomlinson), while out camping on a rainy night in New Zealand:

No sooner, however, had the men fallen asleep, and the fires began to die away, than a light was observed, like the moon shining through a chink. There was no moon, and the night was very dark. On a closer examination the object appeared as a globe of pale light attached to the point of a palm leaf which hung from the roof. Another ball of light was now seen, attached to the wet sleeve of a shirt hung up to dry. "The air appeared to be charged with these luminous vapours, for while regarding the two in the shed a series of them floated past at an elevation of about a yard from the ground." These and similar phenomena, which are evidently electrical, the author endeavours to trace to the remains of the highly resinous Kauri pines which abound in the place.

His account, in contrast, seem to be the far more mysterious phenomenon known as ball lightning. And that in contrast seem to have no problems being approached, as evidenced by accounts where people or animals are actually injured or killed on contact with them.

And lastly ignes fatui, like UFO sightings, can be anything from legitimate unknown natural phenomena (see F. St-Laurent, 2000 for example of a description of strange lights after the 1988-1989 earthquakes in Saguenay, Quebec), hoaxes, hallucinations, or caused by other more mundane things. A swarm of fireflies mistaken for an ignis fatuus will fly away when approached. Or more hilariously, it may simply be other people carrying lanterns or torches through fog, who upon seeing each others' lights promptly flee from each other in terror. :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm partial to the fireflies. Excellent answer! The article needs a {{cn}} tag on the statement in question. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can expand the article with the above (at least Tomlinson's account). I'll try to insert it under the Scientific explanation section.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I linkified the title. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The type which moves as approached suggests some form of optical illusion to me, like a rainbow or mirage, which also move or disappear as approached. The gas explanation could work, too, though, especially since many flammable gases can only ignite within a narrow range of percentages of gas and oxygen, and any nearby movement would tend to change that. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've significantly expanded the scientific explanations section of the Will-o'-the-wisp article, including earlier experiments by Volta, Priestley, Saint-Lazare, and Blesson. Feel free to copyedit (or expand further) if necessary. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I also found an online copy of Blesson's original paper. It's definitely worth a read.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow!! That is the best answer I have ever received here and that you fixed the article is amazing. Thank you!! 174.88.8.149 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

yw :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the Altair spacecraft been cancelled?

So I was reading the article on the article of the Altair lander. It is stated that Project Constellation was cancelled, except for the Orion spacecraft and the Altair lander. While Orion is still in development, the tense used in the Altair article implies it was cancelled, despite the article stating that it hasn't. Also, I saw other articles saying that Altair is indeed cancelled. Once and for all, has it been cancelled or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Orion is still going, but isn't actually projected to be sent to the moon. Thus, Altair would become slightly superfluous to the project. It's probably cancelled, but I'm not sure I can find a source that supports that. It's really amazing how little coverage Orion is getting nowadays; the whole project is probably NASA's best kept secret. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Space.com specifically talks of Altair in the past perfect tense ("would have" gone to the moon, etc.). However, I haven't been able to find any specific sources on its cancellation. It probably was scrapped at the same time as Ares and the rest of Constellation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current US government manned spaceflight plans are to take the Orion CEV to asteroids. There's nothing even vaguely useful on the Moon or any other planet or moon short of Titan. In contrast, at least 5% of asteroids are expected to be rich in ice and dry ice cores, along with metals in similar proportion to those in the Earth's crust. Asteroids are also the only cost effective source of radiation shielding needed for viable manned space stations beyond Low Earth Orbit. Those asteroid resources are much more accessible for space utilization than anything in Earth's gravity well or on the Moon or any other planet or moon (not counting skimming hydrocarbons from Titan, which isn't really practical until the asteroids are harnessed, and isn't really necessary until deployment of a fleet of replenishable-propellant construction robots which may be likely to skim from Titan if asteroid fluids aren't practical.) 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is water on the Moon, which is helpful if you're interested in producing oxygen via electrolysis, either for breathing or for fuel purposes. Producing these things in a low-G environment is extremely useful for reducing fuel costs during lift-off. Helium is also present in significant quantities and has a few more uses than just birthday parties. The Moon is also rich in silicon dioxide and numerous other materials that would be quite useful for establishing a permanent presence in space. It's also only three days away, whereas the asteroids take a significantly longer period of time and a greater amount of fuel to access. To sum it up, there are all kinds of reasons that the Moon is a better target for space exploration than the asteroids at present, including a few that I didn't mention. Titanian hydrocarbons are promising, of course, but are a long way off right now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that asteroid water is orders of magnitude more accessible than lunar water, both on a time and energy basis per liter. Of course there are a lot of unknowns, but just going by mean estimates, many of the asteroids are old comets likely still composed of more than 20% water under a rocky crust, if comet 103P/Hartley is typical. There is only one way to find out. I'm not a fan of lunar or martian colonies for their own sake, and would much rather have a shielded space station to establish a permanent presence in deep space because of the extent to which it would show how interstellar sleeper ships might be feasible. I am in favor of terraforming Mars, but prior to establishing a colony there, and that is likely to take many hundreds of years. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you on the interstellar stuff and on terraforming, and I sort of look at lunar colonies as a means to those ends. The problem with Apollo was that once it was finished, it was over and the US had no real incentive to go back. Once you begin actually colonizing the moon and exploiting its natural resources, you do have an incentive to be present on a continual basis. Starting strong in the local neighborhood and branching out from there seems to be the best path possible to me. The asteroids can and should be part of that, of course, but lunar colonisation is more conducive to deep space travel than most people realize, simply because you can manufacture things there and launch them at a far lower cost than you ever could on Earth. Lagrange point space stations, for example. You may be right about asteroid water, though. I'd have to do more reading to be certain on that point. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for Moon colonization. You can protect yourself from radiation by building underground, and the light gravity on the Moon makes work easier than the near zero gravity on an asteroid, where tools float away etc. You could also get enough exercise to stay healthy on the Moon, say while moving objects 6 times heavier than those you could move on Earth. This wouldn't work on an asteroid, as the inertial mass would be too much to handle. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gold and non-gold pendants together?

I've been wanting to buy a pendant from Shapeways, but I'm unsure of which material to select. I normally wear a necklace with five other charms. The charms and necklace are gold, but I can't say what percentage gold they are. I've worn this necklace nearly every day for five years, and I haven't noticed any wearing down of material / corrosion / what have you. The current state is durable for the foreseeable future.

It's adding another, dissimilar pendant that has me a little worried. Would adding a steel or silver pendant adversely affect the other pendants? What if the new pendant is only gold-plated? Will the gold plating last under such conditions? These are the materials that Shapeways offers, though the only ones available to use on the pendant are the top row, steel (with its finishes), and silver. The last thing I would want is for anything to damage anything else. Thanks for your help.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What type of damage do you mean ? If you mean scratching the gold, then you want to avoid anything much harder than gold. Silver isn't too hard, compared with the most common gold alloys, but steel is, so I'd avoid that. You should also space the charms far enough apart that they don't strike each other while you wear it (but of course they still can when you take it off). If you meant damage due to galvanic action, I don't think that would be a concern with any of these materials, I'd be more worried with copper, brass, bronze, and aluminum.

As far as gold plating goes, yes, it will wear off eventually, starting at the corners. How long it lasts depends on thickness and usage. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The charms are constantly in contact with each other; there isn't really any spacing between them. I wouldn't want to replace or discard worn-down gold plating. Add to that I don't really want a mismatched charm on the necklace... it looks like I won't be purchasing that pendant, at least with my current plans in mind. :( Thanks for the info!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 04:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Can't you get new charms made the same way as the old ones ? A jeweler can tell you what percentage of gold is in your current charms. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt I could get this new charm made like the old ones. The closest I could get from Shapeways, the manufacturer, is steel plated with gold. Can you take any old charm to a jeweler and have a similar one made in a new material? Unlike some products from Shapeways, this charm isn't terribly complex...--The Ninth Bright Shiner 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Custom made jewelery is likely to be prohibitively expensive. Steel plated with gold will eliminate the scratching problem (at least until the steel wears off). If you do get such a charm, try to find one without sharp corners, so it will wear more evenly (that wounded heart one isn't bad, but will wear a bit more at the point on the bottom and on the band-aids/plasters). StuRat (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Production of chemical fertilisers

This question was asked at talk:fertilizer, so I've moved it here. SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This article lacks information on how chemical fertilzers are made. It would be nice if someone knowledgable on the subject would elaborate this subject. I have heard that chemcical ferilizers are derived from crude oil. If that is the case I can not see that using it would violate organic principles since crude oil is the waste of feces of ancient animals. 2602:306:C518:62C0:290F:5E4E:7E60:2AD6 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as a reasonable comment to have on an article's talk page, given that it directly relates to the content of the article. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a wide variety. Some are synthetic, but most such as potash or fixed nitrogen, potassium, and nutrient compounds are merely refined from minerals, animal waste and byproducts, or sewage. Ammonium nitrate is mostly synthetic these days. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually oil isn't the feces of organisms, it's the bodies of various once-living organisms (mainly plankton and algae): see Petroleum#Formation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 22

Short-term memory fading

If someone demonstrates bad short-term memory recall are there ways of improving their memory or is it a case of once its gone its gone? -- role^player 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of a confused question. The term "short-term memory" actually comprises a number of different types of memory, with different properties. For some of them, there are ways of improving memory. However, improving memory doesn't generally mean gaining the ability to bring it back after it's gone, it means developing the ability to keep it from going away. Looie496 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked the question after reading the article short-term memory. There is nothing there about improving memory, which is why I asked. Sorry it's confusing, I thought it was a fairly simple question. -- role^player 01:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychology books and my experience show that "rehearsal," or repetition of the entities in short term memory, aid in preserving therm far better than passively "trying to remember" them. .Show the subject a long telephone number or license plate. If the subject thinks about nothing, then the briefly presented information fades from memory in a few seconds. If the subject is given an interfering task ("Count backward by threes from 97") the fading is much faster. Now let the subject keep repeating the license plate or 10 digit number until permitted to write it , type it, or say it. The recall is amazingly better. Beyond that, there are special mnemonic techniques which would allow a person to absorb and recall masses of information. Edison (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, I've never looked at that article. The ideas it covers are actually a bit antiquated, dating back to cognitive psychology of the 1960s and 1970s. As I understand it, most people who study memory nowadays don't think that a distinct "short term memory" in that sense really exists. Anyway, the article does briefly mention the two things that are most useful in improving that sort of memory: chunking (meaning forming high-level concepts for complex clusters of information), and rehearsal (meaning focusing attention on the material you want to remember, and repeating it to yourself. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty funny to read about "antiquated cognitve psychology of the 1970's" and that "short term memory doesn't exist." One memory technique is to learn a rhyme: "One is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree, four is is a door, five is a hive, six is sticks, seven is heaven, eight is a gate, nine is a lion, ten is a hen." It should take only a couple of repetitions and repetition trials to learn this perfectly. Then if one has to memorize ten concrete objects in order, each can be quickly associated with the noun at that position in the rhyme, by forming a vivid image of the key and the thing to be remembered. If the second thing is "honey," it is easy to remember a shoe full of honey. I. A teacher I knew had 26 such mnemonic links, one for each letter of the alphabet: "A is ape, b is bee, c is cat..." etc and could hear and recall 26 arbitrarily chosen things in a room in order. If numbers are to be remembered, there is a system for substituting consonants for digits, then remembering a concrete object for each number. One mnemonist could hear and recall 500 arbitrary three digit numbers thus. Edison (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that there is no such thing as short term memory, just that the properties discussed in that article do not distinguish one particular type of memory that can be clearly separated from other types of memory. Looie496 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol and various psychotropic drugs like valium and ambien as well as marijuana and narcotics like oxycontin interfere with short term memory. Not taking them will help if taking them is a problem. One of the major benefits of marijuana is that every time you watch a movie high is the first time. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Context is important to this question. Specifically the age of the person. If the individual is younger and previously fit with a good short term memory then there will be a range of causes that will different from those of a person aged, say 70+years. Whether the ability to recall recent events can be improved will depend to some extent on the cause. Some kinds of organic brain disease will cause this phenomenon, and although it may be delayed a little by therapeutic intervention its progress will be inevitable. Short term memory impairment caused by vascular shortcomings in the brain may require different therapeutic strategies and the outcome will be varied, depending on the medical abilty to resolve the circulatory problems. Some forms of new growth in certain parts of the brain may cause short term memory problems and again the ability of the medical intervention will have much influence on the final resolution of the memory difficulty. Taking psychotropic drugs can impair concentration and thus short term memory, in this group can be included many illegal mind-altering substances. If the memory is unrecallable after a short time it is possible in some circumstances to prompt a recall with clues but generally the further back an unrecalled memory slips the more difficult it will be to permanently 'imprint' it and recall it. Richard Avery (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have something of short term memory problem. Sometimes when people ask me what I did that morning, I have to say I can't remember, but ask me in ten years time, as my long term memory is excellent. Myles325a (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have found marijuana only effects my memory about a fortnight to a month after stopping taking it, if I have taken a reasonably sizeable amount. Get a lot of "tip of my tongue" type stuff for a week or two. Egg Centric 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Surprised to learn taking marijuana effects one's memory. Although there may be a difference between elephants and aardvarks. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd order gas phase reactions - pressure limit

In elementary 3rd order reactions of the type A + B + M → AB + M and A + A + M → A₂ + M, where M is some other low affinity or inert atom or molecule, it appears from various chemistry texts that the reaction rate for any given concentration/partial pressure of A & B, increases in linear proportion to the concentration of M, up to a certain limit (the pseudo 2nd order region), which is independent of what M is. Below this limit, the rate is proportional to [A]²[M] or [A][B][M] and depends on what M is. In other words, if you plot the reaction rate against [M] for various M, you get a family of curves with more or less parallel upward slopes merging into a common horizontal line after a certain concentration [M].

What, in simple words, determines this limit? The textbooks I have don't say. The only thing I could think of is that it occurs where the concentration [M] is so high that the probability of an A+B+M or A+A+M collision is about the same as an A+A or A+B collision. But that does not seem likely, and in any case increasing the concentration of A and B would then re-eastablish a 3rd order relationship - so that cannot be it.

Second question: What happens if the concentration of A or B is increased to the same [M]-limit value, with low [M]? Does the reaction rate become 2nd order involving the concentration of M, ie [A][M] or [B][M]?

Ratbone124.182.180.91 (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Effective power of a satellite dish turned into a solar cooker

Greetings,

If a satellite dish identical to this one is covered in standard Aluminium foil and placed in a region where the mean insolation is about 200 W/m², what would be the effective power of the resulting solar cooker? I've calculated the theoretical power expected myself, but I'm sure there are more practical bounds on the resulting power than I've taken into account. I would also be happy to hear estimates about the time it would take to boil about five litres of water with such a solar cooker, assuming that their initial temperature is about 30°C. Many thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The dish appears to be about 4 m in diamter. Therefore the area = Πr² = 12 m² approx. So the collecting power is 12 x 200 = 2400 W = 2400 J/s. The thermal capcity of water is 4182 J/l.K and the latent heat of vaporisation at 1 Bar is 2260 kJ/l. So the required heat is [4182 x (100-30) + 2260,000] x 5 = 2,552,740 J. So the converted dish could in theory boil 5 l of water in 2,552,740/2400 seconds = 1064 seconds, ie about 18 minutes. This should be multiplied by the reflection factor of the aluminium, which can be very high, nearly unity, or very low, <<1, depnding on how well it is pollished. Your figure for insolation is very low. Most locations will be closer to 1kW/m2 if the dish is pointed correctly. On the other hand, the performance may be degraded if the dish is not made to track the sun as it moves across the sky. This problem can be largley eliminated if the hated surface is made wide enough so that the focussed hot spot allways falls on part of it. Ratbone120.145.152.248 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The "hated surface" ? StuRat (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Stu, if you keep squawking about my typing, I'm gonna crawl right up your internet connection and heat you with an oxy torch. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not complaining, I just can't tell what you meant. (You had 7 other typos, which I didn't mention, since I can figure those out on my own.) StuRat (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that this 18 minute figure doesn't consider that the water will be radiating heat back out and cooling due to evaporation. The hotter it gets, the more cooling there will be. So, it will take longer to boil than that, or may only boil once much of it evaporates so the heat is concentrated on a smaller volume, or may never boil at all. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two other problems with the calculation. First, there is the factor of 5 between the 200W/m² and the more realistic 1000W/m² around noon time. Secondly, I would interpret "to boil 5l of water" as "to bring 5l of water to a boil", not "to boil it away". So the latent heat of vaporisation does not really come in. With these assumption, an ideal 4m dish can bring 5l of water to a boil in about 25 seconds under optimal conditions - much more plausible, given how fast e.g. a 2kW electric kettle will bring 2l to a boil. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, he will have meant "bring to boil" - my error. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that aluminum foil will reflect in all directions, so you won't get anywhere near 100% pointing at the water. Also note that you'd need to rig a system to suspend the water where the cone of the satellite dish was, and hold it there, without spilling, as the dish is moved to track the Sun. You also need a way to add and retrieve the water, since, at that radius, you won't be able to reach it directly. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily Stu. You can polish aluminium to a mirror finish, and it will then act as a mirror for infra-red as well. You don't need to have the dish moving to track the sun. As the cook time is only minutes, it is sufficient to make the heat surface large enough so that the focused heat always falls on it even as it moves across, as I said. This trick is sometimes done in radio communications - or the actual antenna nominally at the focal point is moved instead of moving the whole dish. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Polished aluminum would be much better, yes, but we are talking about aluminum foil here, wrinkles and all. I recommended against trying to track the Sun further down. However, to have it work at a wide range of positions of the Sun, like at the Arecibo Observatory, you need a spherical reflector, not the parabolic reflector of a satellite dish. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We should also ask why you want to boil the water. Is this to sterilize it ? If so, I suggest a continuous distillation system where water flows in, boils, the steam condenses, and the condensate runs off as sterile water. Ideally you would add dye to the water to make it absorb the light, but, if you don't want to do this, a dark bottomed, clear topped container will work, although not quite as well. You will need to periodically dump the water left in the container, as it will build up salt and other minerals otherwise. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The application is, basically, cooking in a remote village with no regular electricity. Clean water are generally available, but a clean energy source for cooking could be of use. Let's say that an Aluminum foil reflects about 80% of the incoming radiation back to the focal point. To what extent will this figure drop due to the fact that it is not applied tightly to the surface of the dish? That is, there will surely be some wrinkles that will scatter light away to other directions, rather than to the focal point. How significant will the effect of these wrinkles be, assuming that we're just manually gluing the aluminum foil to the dish? ליאור • Lior (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not be too concerned about conforming exactly to the parabolic shape - reasonable care will be fine, as you don't need (nor is it desirable) to bring the focussed energy to a pin point. You only need a rougfh focus that brings nearly all the refelcted energy to the surface area of the container to be heated. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, this figure suggests that an average insolation of ~200 W/m² is rather typical at ground level. Is it wrong? ליאור • Lior (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is averaged over 24 hours. Your cooker will not cook anything at night, but will be much better at noon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I take it by "cooking" you mean food which requires cooking to be made safe to eat, like meat. I assume such food would be opaque to light, so a clear glass container, with lid, should work. I think you'll do better to cut it into small pieces first, so the heat will penetrate better. Try to minimize the amount of added water, as that will require more heat. As a practical matter, repositioning such a satellite dish as the Sun moves might be quite difficult, so you might do best to position it pointing straight up (or aimed a bit to the south, if north of the tropics, or a bit north, if south of the tropics). Cook most the food when the Sun is highest in the sky. You could possibly cook reduced quantities in the morning and afternoon, so long as no shadows fall on the satellite dish. The satellite dish will need a drain hole at the bottom.

Placing and retrieving the dish will still be difficult. You'll need something like a pizza paddle, and the grill on which the dish is placed will need a backstop to prevent the paddle from pushing the container off the grill. The weight of the food and container will be critical here, as the torque created by trying to lift a heavy load at the end of the paddle could cause you to drop it. It might also be necessary to cut an access point into the edge of the satellite dish, to enable you to get closer to the center when placing and retrieving the food.

Also note that children must be warned not to play inside the dish, when the Sun is up, as they could be burnt or blinded. Something else you should consider is that aluminum foil isn't very durable, and will likely be torn to shreds in a storm, and the expense of replacing it after every storm might be considerable. Some type of cover, or just flipping the satellite dish over when a storm approaches, might prevent such damage.

How to support the grill is another concern. Setting it on the inside of a rounded satellite dish would make it rather unsteady. You would either need to cut holes in the satellite dish for the legs to poke through to the ground, or have a system where there's a frame which extends beyond the edges of the satellite dish and down to the ground, but this might be rather heavy, making it difficult to flip the satellite dish prior to a storm.

To minimize wrinkles, the aluminum foil should be cut into thin strips, as they will more closely conform to the parabolic shape than wide sheets. I'd expect that placing the strips circularly would require less overlap than placing them radially. Also, have you considered just painting the inside of the dish with a reflective coating ? Or perhaps it's already reflective enough ? Try placing a thermometer at the focal point to see how hot it gets when pointed at the Sun. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the above calculations, you can afford quite some wrinkles. Check solar cooker to see some examples of practical designs. If you live in an area with plausible weather conditions, the average size of the collecting area is more like 1-2m². With 12m², you should be able to do with some reduced efficiency for added convenience and ease of construction. There is, e.g. no need to point the dish exactly at the sun - you can keep it at an angle that will result in the focal point not being over the dish, making access to the pot much easier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to mention that a disk that shape focuses the reflected beams on the antenna propped up in front of the it, not on the surface of the dish or any water it would actually hold, due to its (it's if you are StuRat) shape, were it tilted against gravity? I mean, really, folks. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When I was at school in the 1960's, we were taught that it's is the correct form when saying something like "It's going to rain today" - the apostophe signifies the missing letter from it is. The other valid form is its' - the correct form for writing "The dog wants to go for a walk and has fetched its' leash." - here the apostrophe signifies belonging - the leash belongs to the dog (similar use to "The handbag is Susan's.") The apostrophe is placed after the s in its' to distinguish it from it is. We were taught that there is no correct use of its (no aprostrophe) - however it has crept into wide use as school teaching is not to the standard it once was. Ratbone124.182.2.119 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an almost identical anecdote, except I was taught that its' is never a word and the correct form of the possessive pronoun is its (no apostrophe). I guess the standard of school teaching was never really that great to begin with. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You geolocate to the same country as I (Australia), so it can't be regional differences. But you didn't give the decade you were at school. In a number of ways standards have slipped over the years. I noticed that when I went to uni 11 years after finishing school at Year 9 - kids in the same classes who had just finished Year 12 didn't know things that I did know. Ratbone124.182.2.119 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No two people will have exactly the same experience during their school lives and will learn different things, but there seems to be a wide spread belief that kids are learning less and less as time goes on and I just don't see it. I went to school in the 1990's in north Queensland. My older brothers went to school there in the 1980's and they didn't learn things that I did e.g. computer skills, nutrition, sex ed, Chinese mandarin. Priorities change with time, so when I went to school there was a greater focus on those things and since it all still has to fit into a 6 hour day, there had to be less time spent on calligraphy and French. When they brought in the Australian citizenship test and there was an A Current Affair segment about how immigrants shouldn't need to know, among other things, who the first prime minister was. They challenged the watchers to name him during the ad break. My girlfriend's parents, who went to school in the 1970's, my girlfriend (1990's), her younger sister (2000's) couldn't name Sir Edmund Barton. Over the years the school system has managed to fail us all equally. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, when I said "note that you'd need to rig a system to suspend the water where the cone of the satellite dish was". StuRat (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that thingy indeed called a cone? μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The official name seems to be a "feed horn", but I don't think that's in common use outside the industry. StuRat (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I relieze I'm a little late on this, but I thought I'd mention this. Rob Cockerham actually built one of these with mirror tiles. I give you The Light Sharpener. I believe there's video of him using it to boil water (and burn lots of other stuff). Jerk182 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the videos are on youtube, but here's an interesting quote: "The Light Sharpener brought a quart of water to a rolling boil without a problem, in about four minutes." Jerk182 (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this link! It covers many of the efficiency and safety issues that have been bothering me. ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Water

Has anybody ever attempted to estimate how many cubic metres of water are on the earth? For instance, if the earth's crust fragmented and all of the water poured into the mantle, would it affect the internal temperature of the earth?

The mantle is already saturated with water, dissolved in the rock. What we see on the surface is merely the excess. The crust is already fractured all over the place. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia article on water, the collective mass of water found on, under, and over the surface of Earth is approximately 1,338,000,000 km3 (321,000,000 mi3). This is a mass of 1.34 x 10¹⁸ kg. Since the mass of the Earth in total is estimated at 5.97 x 10²⁴ kg, water accounts for only 0.000 02% of the total, and thus can be assumed, if it were to be somehow absorbed, to make no significant effect of the Earth's internal temperature on a thermal capacity basis. However water has a big effect on surface temperature by moderating climate and by evaporation into clouds, providing a greenhouse effect. Ratbone120.145.152.248 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As Looie wrote, most of the water on Earth is dissolved in the magma in the Earth's interior anyway. When the solar system just formed, there were many proto planets that collided with each other to form the present day planets. Water at the distance we are from the Sun is not stable, it will evaporate. The problem is then to explain where the water on Earth could have come from. It is now believed that some of the proto-planets that gave rise to Earth came from the outer solar system. Jupiter formed quite rapidly and it caused perturbations in the orbits of the proto planets. Some proto plantes from the outer solar system containing a lot of ice moved to the inner solar system.

The water from the proto planets ended up in the interior of the planets. This water is dissolved in the magma. Slowly this water percolated to the surface giving rise to oceans. The vast majority of all the water on Earth may thus still be in the Earth's interior. If all the water in all the Earth's oceans were removed, the oceans would slowly refill with water from the Earth's interior. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion on proportional sign

I am unable to understand meaning of proportion in physics. One says x ∝ y and then writes x = ky, where k is the constant of proportionality. But what does this 'constant of proportionality' means. As in case of force, we write F ∝ ma, then we write F = kma and putting value of k = 1; we write for another time that F = ma. I am confused what is the reason behind using k. I could not understand what is the use of writing '∝'. In gravitation, we write F ∝ m₁m₂/r². Then, we write F = Gm₁m₂/r², where 'G' is constant. In the case of force, 'k' was removed but in this case 'G' itself became a part of the equation. Why is this so? What does ∝ sign mean? I am a student of 9th standard, so, don't use high level language. Please, explain me in easy language with suitable example. --Sunny Singh 16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs)

The convention is to write ∝ to signify that we suspect its proportional (ie varies in step), but we don't know, or haven't yet proved, what the multipying constant is.

As you have realised, the constant is not always 1 (unity). Usually in physics, we use logical reasoning to first prove the required result is directly proportional to something, proportional to the square root of something, or whatever, and then reason out or measure what the actual constant is. For example, we might suspect that the longer we heat water the hotter it will get, and the greater the heat the hotter it will get. We would state it as T ∝ Q x T / m where T is the temperature (K), Q is the heat (W/s), m is the mass (kg) and T is the time duration (seconds). We could then conduct a series of experiments, measuring these four quantities accurately. We would then find that dividing the quantity on the left, T, byt the bit on the right, Q x T / m, always gives 0.2391, i.e., our data will fit T = 0.2391 Q T / m. So now we know the constant of proportionality is in this case 0.2391, and is ALWAYS 0.2391, so we can write T = k Q T / M (where k = 0.2391).

We could suspect that water flowing in a pipe is F ∝ AP/L where L is length, F is flow rate (L/s), P is pressure (Pa), and A is the cross section area of the pipe (cm2). We could then do some experiemntal measurements. If we did, we would find the flow does indeed increase with pressure, but the multiplying factor is not constant, it varies. So, in this case we can't write F = kAP/L. We would then need to ponder it further - perhaps try a square root or an exponent somewhere.

In the SI (System Internationale), the common standard of measuring units, the units (meters, kilograms, etc) have been chosen so that the constant is in fact equal to 1 as much as possible, or if not a simple integer or pi, but often it isn't either.

Ratbone120.145.152.248 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see "F ∝ ma"? I think it makes no sense, for the reason you gave. -- BenRG (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It makes more sense to say, "F ∝ a" where the constant of proportionality is the mass m. This equation is valid for most conventional non-relativistic problems. Nimur (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that proportionality valid for relativistic problems also? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But I assume Nimur was implicitly referring to rest mass, which, for non-relativistic problems is (very nearly) equal to total mass. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And that is how Newton originally stated it in his second law. I don't know if he knew that the constant of proportionality was mass (he must have had a general idea that it was - it's fairly obvious from every day experience) but he didn't mention it in his statement of the law. He just stated the proportionality. --Tango (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

F = kma where k = 1 and is dimensionless is just as valid. In a different system of units (not SI), k might not be equal to 1, though an arkward system of unit it may be. However, in SI, other formulae of similar form k is not 1, but a numeric value with dimensions, as with the water heating example I gave. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why has this kid got fecal matter in his or her armpit?

If you review the article at Constipation then the very first image (i.e. in the info box) at least according to the caption has fecal matter more or less in the armpit of the child. Now presumably the caption is wrong so I plan to change it but thought I should check here, after all I'm not exactly used to X rays and may be making a stupid mistake, so... Egg Centric 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not in the armpits - notice it is at the position of the lowest ribs. Small children have comparitively small chests relative to their abdomen. So the poo has accumulated at the top corner of the large intestine (ie where it does a right angle turn). Ratbone120.145.152.248 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this child have a freakishly tall abdomen? Egg Centric 21:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No. You seem to be reading the X-ray wrong. Their shoulders are well off the top and the bottom of their ribs are right where they should be. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've found a few x-rays of complete skeletons and counted the verterbrae. It's very peculiar to me though how small the hip turns out to be. Just on the offchance is this likely an example of systematic "delusion" or is it something idiosyncratic to how I perceived the body? Egg Centric 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What you probably mean is how small the hip bones are. The actual hips are larger, since they have muscle, fat, and skin on top. Skeletons, by their nature, always seem "skinny". StuRat (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Working of rockets

Can you explain me on which principle rockets work and how? --Sunny Singh 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs)

See rocket. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If that article doesn't answer all your questions, please ask us specific questions about the propellants, aerodynamics, guidance systems, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rocket flight *in vacuum* is often quoted as an example of Newton's third law, which is a consequence of conservation of momentum. Low mass propellant goes in one direction at high speed; more massive rocket goes in the opposite direction at lower speed. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What do butterflies eat?

butterfly is herbivorous or carnivorous i like to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.13.34 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Herbivorous, if they eat at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Most adult butterflies sip flower nectar, but other imbibe fluids from sap flowers on trees, rotting fruits, bird droppings, or animal dung. OsmanRF34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not all exclusively herbivorous at all stages of their life cycle. For example, see Lycaenidae and particularly Miletinae. - Karenjc 19:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Karenjc mentions, some lepidopterans are not herbivorous as larvae, some are predators, parasites, and scavengers. But these are very few in number - only about 200 species of lepidopterans are exclusively predatory or parasitic. Aside from the lycaenids, members of the families Epipyropidae and Cyclotornidae, for example, are unique among lepidopterans in that their larvae are parasites of other insects (primarily leafhoppers and cicadas).

In terms of adult lepidopterans, some species may feed (technically they drink) on carcasses of animals. This is an extension of a behavior known as mud-puddling, necessary for obtaining salts important for their metabolism that they do not receive from nectar (if they feed on nectar at all). This also explains why butterflies may sometimes land on humans (they're attracted to sweat). In extreme cases, some moths in the family Noctuidae, Pyralidae, Geometridae, Notodontidae, Thyatiridae, and Sphingidae actually drink tears (sometimes exclusively) of large animals including humans. They do this by either crawling over the edges of the eyes or hovering over the eyes with their probosces extended. Some species deliberately irritate the eyes by poking at it with their probosces or with their feet, a behavior that has been linked to keratoconjunctivitis in cows. In one species from Madagascar (which does not have many large animals), they instead drink the tears of sleeping birds by piercing the eyelids, and doing it in such a way as to not awaken them. And lastly, some members of the noctuid genus Calyptra are known as vampire moths because they drink the blood of animals (including humans) by piercing their skin. As far as I know though, no adult butterflies are actively blood or tear-drinkers.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See calyptra (moth) (that other link points to a part of a plant). StuRat (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Abovementioned corpse eating butterzombies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApWAs9P0Sh8 μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Objectum sexuality and orgasms without physical stimulation

let's at least sign this if we're going to address it further
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was just reading this article, which is about on my level both intellectualy and puriently, and I was interested whether she actually is likely to have had a proper orgasm without stimulating herself at all physically (I assume for the moment that Ms. Liberty neither resisted nor reciprocated). An additional question incidentally - I hope none of us would class this as rape. Yet the only justification that I have heard for non-abusive bestiality being illegal is that the animals cannot consent. Well, neither did the statue here. Does that pretty much destory that justifaction? In fact I suppose one could be a bit more down to earth and compare two examples: a vibrator, or a dog licking up peanut butter strategically placed. Any sensible differentiation between the two? Actually tehre are so many questions here that it may be daft having it at the reference desk, but I will post it and see if anyone is interested. Otherwise, it's going to a message board! 21:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Personal opinion here: First, when you suggest that looking at a statue has the same legal implication as humans having sex with animals, I have to think you are verging on trolling. As for the vibrator and the dog comparison, to the best my knowledge, there has never been a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Inanimate Objects. That part is just silly. I'm not just talking about looking at it. I'm talking about have physical contact with it, which a lot of them do. And when I refer to sex with animals, I am not talking about all kinds of potential intercourse with animals (e.g. mr hands or worse) - I am talking particularly about the kind in which the animal is going about its business and so far as we can tell has no knowledge about it being a sexual activity (such as my peanut butter eample) Egg Centric 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Looking for cite; believed to be factual: Your first question is answerable: yes, both men and women can have orgasms with touching anything on their bodies at all. There is a whole website about it, though I didn't stop to read any of it. It is taught in seminars on sexual technique, and is sometimes used as a way to learn to control premature ejaculation in men. (I'm looking for a cite.) Bielle (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Yes. At the very least, I would remind the OP that animals are not things. [1] SemanticMantis (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Of course animals are not things. Not being funny, but I genuinely value my two dogs above 99% of individual human beings (which is not the same as saying I would kill 99% of humans to make them live - this isn't a trolley problem - it's more to do with me not having met 99% of humanity... actually I cannot see how anyone who feels different can have a pet as otherwise they would send the pet food money to charity). I think that Haidt has something to say about this, something about morality coming from personal relationships. Nevertheless, in a hypothetical situation where I were a bestialist (what is the correct term for that?) I would see no problem with the peanut butter situation I described. Well I accutally wouldn't because I wouldn't give my dogs peanut butter either but I'm being a bit silly here focussing on problems with scenarios... must repeat... DON'T FIGHT THE HYPOTHETICAL, EGG... Egg Centric 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Golly, I have a lot to learn to learn! Egg Centric 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

heat wave

Just thinking - Could the Japan Tsunami and resulting change in the tilt of the earth be a cause of the heat wave in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobant28 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. The tilt of the Earth changed by a tiny amount, while the jet streams which drive weather patterns move by hundreds of miles. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[2] Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Excellent, that clears it up. No arguing with that!!!!! Richard Avery (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Very illuminating... --Tango (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the change in the axial tilt was caused by the earthquake, not the tsumani. The tsumani was also caused by the earthquake. Secondly, as StuRat mentions, the change in the tilt was tiny ("between 10 cm (4 in) and 25 cm (10 in)" according to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami). There is no way a change of a few centimetres coult have measurable climatic effects. Also, there is no reason to be looking for a cause of this heat wave. Heat waves happen. They've always happened and they will always happen. It's just part of normal weather. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please may we have a share of your heatwave? So far this summer, we've had almost constant cloud cover and lots of rain where I live! Dbfirs 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A share ? You're welcome to take it all. A/C running non-stop here in Detroit and not able to keep up. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a little bit of sunshine would be nice. I turned off my car heater for the first time today, but still have heating in the house. At least the drizzle stopped this afternoon, and the sun shone for about one minute! Dbfirs 21:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't send us much! Yesterday afternoon was warm and sunny. The temperature reached 72 degrees (that's 22 of those Celsius things for those who use them) but the rain started again this afternoon and it feels colder [only 58 degrees (14C)]. Still, this is England: we wouldn't have anything to complain about if we didn't have weather! Dbfirs 16:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Added reference DOI not linking and same reference showing multiple times.

Hello,

I edited the pages on "polymerase chain reaction" and "Real-time polymerase chain reaction" to update them. When I added the reference, the DOI didn't come through as a link after the reference. Also, multiple instances of the reference are showing as different numbers in the reference list.

I know you get a million of noobs like me not doing something simple, but I can't find help in the archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wine Weed (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You wanted {{doi|... instead of {{doi:... per {{doi}}, and see WP:NAMEDREFS. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

July 23

Can our scientific knowledge be understood any other way than it is?

okay, so I was watching a video of Hank Green in which he basically talks to aliens, introducing earth. Now one thing is that he used the radius of Hydrogen atom as a unit for human body's height. Now since the real hydrogen atom doesn't really have a definite radius, and the radius we define is not very fundamental in a universal sense (I mean sure it's a constant in the whole universe, but there's no reason for ANY sentient being to define a radius that way, correct me if I'm wrong) that may not be a good unit. Then I thought what if they don't have a notion of atom? I mean in molecules, the thing we call atom doesn't exist anymore (maybe only nuclei and electrons "distributed" around them, but not atoms in the way we think about it) so why would they have a notion of atoms?(that's my first question)

Now a deeper question. Given a different "science history", can they come up with theories in physics and chemistry that are self-consistent and correct, and logically equivalent to ours, but look totally different, theories that for example do not have a notion of wave or particle, or even mass? In other words, if their theory is correct , does it have to include the notions and definitions that we have? can our understanding of science be shown, or understood, any other way?

Also, does having an advanced technology require the same kind of knowledge that we have? like do they have to know what an atom is in order to make a space ship? or satellite? or any other of our inventions?--Irrational number (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On that last point, it does seem to be entirely possible to develop advanced technology by trial and error alone, without any understanding of the underlying concepts. For example, some current medications work despite us not knowing the mechanism by which they work. And many technologies were developed before the theory. For example, I believe projectile weapons were in use long before physics of projectile motion were fully understood. There may be a few areas of technology which can't be arrived at by trial-and-error, though, like nuclear weapons. Nuclear power, on the other hand, might be possible, say if people noticed some perpetually warm rocks, used them to heat their home, but then all got sick, except those who stored them under a pile of normal rocks, so then people would start doing that, and maybe learn how to refine the rocks so they get hotter, and learn that putting them in a pool generates steam, etc. In another example, Thomas Edison didn't seem to have any theory that told him which filament would be best in a light bulb, he just tried everything he could think of until he found tungsten carbonized bamboo.

It's also possible to have a theory that's fundamentally wrong, but that nonetheless is useful. For example, during the black plague, many thought it was caused by "bad air". This is wrong, in that it was transmitted by fleas of rats. However, to avoid foul smelling air, you would implement sanitation measures, such as burning or burying corpses and trash, and this would eventually reduce the rat population, and hence the disease. Of course, there are other things they did, like using perfume, which were useless against the disease. More generally, contagion theory was developed before microscopes allowed us to actually see that the contagions were microorganisms, and they even determined which diseases were airborne, waterborne, etc. . StuRat (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are both superficial and deep answers to these questions. At the heart of it, you're asking whether our understanding of reality is based in an objective world picture or is a essentially linked to our language and culture. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing over this for literally thousands of years. Applying it to the question of extraterrestrials doesn't necessarily prove it one way or the other (commensurability is possible through shared culture, for example), but is a related question.

The right answer to this question is that there is no simple, obvious answer to this question. A fun book which explores this question in some depth, and actually spends quite a good amount of time playing with the philosophy of it, is Neal Stephenson's Anathem. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a darn good question. Although there's plenty of our mathematics, physics, and chemistry that feels pretty utterly fundamental (and might therefore be equally comprehensible to an alien), I suspect there's also plenty that's somewhat artificial, and wrapped up in our scientific tradition, and might be amenable to alternatively systematic explanation based on completely different principles.

You're right, measuring distances by atomic radii is lame. But I've never heard of anyone doing that -- the more usual "fundamental" length units are wavelengths of various oscillators (krypton-86 emission, spin-flip transition of hydrogen, etc.).

I always thought the Pioneer plaques did a pretty good job of communicating using "fundamental" constants. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. StuRat: Edison didn't find tungsten; that came later.

Thanks, I corrected it. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

H2 has an average width between the nuclei at a given temperature. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edison, the example quoted by StuRat, is a good example in a way he may not have appreciated. Edison famously tried an immense variety of materials for possible use in incandescent lights, before finally settling on one (carbonised bamboo if I remember correctly) that worked acceptably well for long enough. If he had a good theoretical knowlege of both materials and the requirements for a lamp filament, then (a) he could have got there much more quickly, and (b) he might have realised that the best material would be a metal (because its electrical resistance is self regulating), and not some form of carbon/graphite (which to an experimeter looks good becaues of its higher electrical resistance).

An even better example with Edison was his lab experiments aimed at discovering why his lamps didn't last long. He put an extra electrode in the bulb not in contact and notice a current never the less flowed. But because he was not a physicist he completely missed the importance of this discovery (the fundamental basis of electronics).

A different sort of example: Rudolf Diesel relaised that vastly better engine eficiency was possible than was then obtained from internal combustion engines, which had until then been designed on experience. Efficiencies of 15% of so were common, but Diesel thought he could do as well as 50% or more, and set about achieving it, based on sound theoretical knowlege of thermodynamics gained in his career in early refrigeration techniques. His theory was not quite right, never-the-less, with only 2 prototypes he achieved an efficiency of ~37%, and was able to immediately correct his theory.

So it seems that while it may be possible to have advanced technology with only practice of the art, and not a good theorrectical undertsanding, but advancement with good theory is much more probable.

It should aslo be realised, that the natural reaction to something not working well, or not working as expected is "Let's try and figure out why" - which inevitably leads to good theory, except where the theory is exceptionally difficult.

Note that there are two kinds of boffin - Scientists, who seek to understand what has been discovered, and Engineers, who seek to apply the scientist's understanding to design things we need. In different words, there is analysis (why is it so) and synthesis (let's make it so) - both analysis and synthesis depend on good theory. In nearly all fields, good analysis and good synthesis vastly outperforms mere practice of art. An example: By practice of the art and successive refinement, and limitted theory, AM radio was taken from a novelty to practaical home entertainemnt in the 1920's. But Armstrong's excellent theorectical knowlege produced a breakthrough in sound quality in one step - FM radio. That's the key - Good theoretical knowlege enables breakthough progress & technology change, without it, you mostly get only incremental improvement.

Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You may find some answers in the philosophy of science, specifically in the philosophy of science related to linguistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No one has mentioned Bohr radius yet. Also the article on Model-dependent realism might be interesting. Vespine (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely for an alien civilization to really start exploring the world at the level of quarks because none of that exposes itself in a manner that is obvious to anyone, vs atoms which are more directly accessible.

Much of what we know in the sciences originally developed from trial and error exploration of the real world around us, trying to learn what works and what doesn't. For at least 2000 - 3000 years the pre-science (and totally wrong) concepts of earth air fire water prevailed across human civilization (see Classical elements), and it wasn't until alchemists really started pushing the limits of what was known to find "base substances" from about 1500 AD onward, that our understanding of the world flipped around to consider the idea of atoms and elements sorted by atomic weight.

Also much of our modern scientific knowledge comes from exploring electricity and magnetism and understanding the relationship between these forces. Since these are "fundamental forces" that govern how the world works, it is unlikely for an advanced civilization to have much progress without discovery of them at some point.

DMahalko (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is unlikely for an alien civilization"... frankly, neither you nor I have any barometer as to what is "likely" in such a case. We have exactly one data point — humanity. We don't know if we're normal or strange. That's kind of the problem. Anyone with a small sci fi bone in their body can easily imagine alternatives, both big and small in their differences. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-freezer

I was at a motel last week and there was one of these mini-fridges in the room. Inside, there was a freezer-like compartment, but it was not completely sealed off from the larger refrigerator compartment. How is it that putting something into the freezer pseudo-compartment can reliably and consistently freeze while the things just inches away do not? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct conduction of heat. If you were planning on staying long enough that it would matter, you could rent a freezer. Most college students don't have that problem. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Those things don't work all that well anyhow. If you put stuff inches away from the freezing compartment it can easily freeze too. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be that they work too well. How in the world do you get things that near the freezer coil anyway unless the entire compartment is full, Looie? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite easy. On mine, the right half of the top shelf is filled with the uninsulated freezer compartment, and items on the left half of the top shelf must not be placed so they touch the freezer compartment, or they will freeze solid. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a thermal gradient thing. The piece of metal that forms the freezer compartment is the cooling element for the entire refrigerator. Since the inside of the freezer compartment is small, you can think of the cold getting "concentrated" there and making it that much colder. On the other side (the outside of the freezer compartment, the inside of the rest of the fridge) there's much more space (and much more outside surface area for heat to leak in), so the little piece of cold metal can't keep that larger volume frozen, and doesn't. (It's actually sort of a clever design, if you like minimalist kludges.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a full size fridge like that in my house, manufactured by Phillips Australia (known in the USA as Magnavox I think). It actually works very well, but not quite as efficient as a more traditional design. (I've had it for over 25 years). The cooling by the refrigeration machinery is only applied to the freezer compartment. Cold air from the not quite fully enclosed freezer compartment (-12 C) then flows downward to the meat box, which tends to be about 6 to 8 C. From the meat box the air flows downward to the general area, which tends to be about 10 to 12 C, ideal for bread and vegies. Air relatively warmed in the general area then flows by convection up the back into the freezer compartment again to be re-cooled. Critical to the success of this system is the small gaps in the freezer box and the meat box that the air "leaks" thru. In fact the manufacturer provided 2 temperature controls - a thermostat to adjust the freezer temperature, and a slide to vary the meat box air leakage to set the main compartment temperature. Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The equilibrium temperature for any volume will be where the total amount of heat coming in equals the total amount of heat going out. In the general fridge section, a fair amount of heat is going in, coming from the large outside surface area. A fair amount is also going out, being removed by the refrigeration coils around the freezer section. So, you get a cool, but not frozen, fridge. Inside the freezer compartment, much less heat is going in, since it needs to go thru that small surface area of freezing metal to get inside, but just as much heat is being taken out by the refrigeration coils, so it's much colder inside.

For an analogy, think of heating your house in winter. You could close and seal all the vents (I'm assuming a forced air system) in every room but one small room, in which case that room would get hot, and the rest of the house would barely be warmer than outside, even if you had all the doors open. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All fridges used to be made that way. It works fine, except that the freezer compartment invitably develops more and more ice on the walls. Given time, the entire compartment will freeze up. You have to periodically empty the fridge and defrost it.--23.24.20.245 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's also true of regular fridges, unless they have a defrost cycle added, which also destroys the food. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking locked

Can someone explain why the description of passive smoking is locked? It appears to be provided by an entirely driven special interest [an advertisement for smoking patches] with many factual extensions and outright inaccuracies with many evidence links dead. The IARC report much to the contrary of what is written demonstrated also much to the embarrassment of the World Health Organization who financed it, in the press of the day; displayed no significant risk to non smoking spouses, even among those who worked and lived with smokers, In fact the effects to children seemed to demonstrate a curative effect. The much larger Enstrom and Kobot study a few years later demonstrated that the risks of second hand smoke are largely overstated. Continuing with the risk to children and cognitive losses, anyone who actually read the made for media research claims and followed up with an evaluation of the data, saw that the author was led more by agenda than her acknowledgement of the facts observed. You see the data actually showed a lowered risk pattern which was inversely proportional with most exposures, so the media report stated that they "could not find a level where no losses were observed" while those with no exposures, had the highest level of losses by far. There are far to many inaccuracies and outright untruths stated in the WIKI article none more abhorrent than the "causal link to SIDS" claimed to be found in the 2006 surgeon Generals report. While no such statement exists in the report, it was claimed in the news release purchased by an obviously financially conflicted special interest group, prior to the report's actual publication. Locking an article as controversial as passive smoking, which is more a religious belief as a product of paid promotion, than any connection to legitimate science. This brings a deficit of credibility in the entirety of what is provided by WIKI to the public, as a work of the public or any community beyond the 1% who are profiting billions every year by misleading advertising and the existing ad agency ability to flow their purchased spin to the front pages without restriction. WIKI should work harder to protect itself as distinct, from the traditional and bottom line oriented "mainstream" sources of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.250.14 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is pretty one-sided; I see what you mean. I wouldn't call it a stellar example of Wikipedia's neutrality principles.

It is "semi-protected", not completely locked. This is (unfortunately) the norm for more and more of Wikipedia's controversial articles. Any established (registered) editor can edit the article -- register an account and you can, too. Others can request changes on the article's talk page.

This reference desk isn't really the right place to discuss editorial issues with articles. Bringing up your concerns on the talk page would certainly be a good first step. If you get lots of pushback there (as I fear you might, if the article has indeed been "taken over" by special interests), you can consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for lots of resources on resolving disputes. In this case, if you don't get anywhere on the talk page, posting a notice at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be in order. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC), updated 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection is applied when there is a lot of drive-by vandalism or contentious edits by anonymous editors. The purpose is to make sure all edits are constructive and according to consensus. Non anonymous users who refuse to discuss issues get blocked. The locking is no indication of the articles current quality. Make your suggestions for the article on the talk page. Even better, if you have a rewrite, put it in a new section on the bottom of the talk page. Good luck!Staticd (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will science come to an end?

Will we eventually discover everything discoverable and learn everything learnable? Or will there always be more to discover and learn, no matter how much we discover and learn? -----150.203.114.14 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From my experience as a working scientist, the more I learn, the more new questions I have. It's like the border of an unknown country - if I start an expedition into the wilderness, I may discover something new - but I also extend the length of the border into the unknown. Of course I don't know if the "continent of knowledge" is infinite, but it sure looks like it. BTW, what makes me realise how far we have come is teaching - it draws me back from the perpetual half-ignorance in my research onto a well-established map, and makes me realise how big the mapped area has become. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At first thought I want to say that there are an infinite number of things to know, so we can always learn more. However, their could be limits. String theory, for example, may never be testable, which makes it as much a philosophy as science, with each person choosing their own version, according to their beliefs. So, that may put a limit on delving into the super small. On the large scale, once we've fully explored the observable universe (admittedly that may take a year or two), that may put an end on that large scale exploration. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There may also be theoretical limits to the total amount of information in the Universe[3]. This would mean that the "continent" of all there is to know is finite, but of course this would exceed our capacity to hold knowledge by many orders of magnitude. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of science, from history and philosophy of science, is that science is a human practice dependent upon small group power relations and classed power relations. As there are no plans to sustain human culture beyond the information death of the universe (as currently expected), science will end with the end of the universe, or with the end of human and post-human cultures, or with the abandonment of the cultural construct of "science" in favour of other (almost certainly) instrumentalist understandings of material reality. For example, "technologism" could conceivably replace science in our lifetime. This is in contrast to the unlikely abandonment of material instrumentality altogether. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gesundheit! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Read more HPS Steve. This stuff came out in the late 1960s as a result of pursuing pre-structuralist arguments in science itself. Most of it is hardly even influenced at its commencement by Marxism. See Feyerabend for the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on previous millennia of human history, scientific knowledge, even just pretty basic stuff, may be lost and may need to be rediscovered. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. It is somewhat of a cliché, but nonetheless true, that the more we discover, the more we realize how much we do not know. In the grand scale of the universe, humanity devotes precious little time and precious little resources to knowledge generation. I would not expect us to exhaust that knowledge within the limited lifetime of our species.

This entirely avoids the question of whether you could write down "reality" in an unmediated way, given infinite time and resources. This is a much stickier philosophical question, with a great many disagreeing answers, and depends on whether we, as conscious beings, can actually have unmediated access to the fundamental nature of reality. People have been arguing over this for thousands of years. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• We may eventually discover a complete set of basic laws of physics. But there is no limit on the phenomena that can result from complexity. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::Even God does science! And God already knows everything! lol.. Vespine (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Because of things like Goedel's incompleteness theorem, it's general consensus that mathematics can never "end" in the sense the OP says. Since (as far as we can tell) physics obeys mathematical rules, this would suggest that physics too will never end. Staecker (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sulfonamide antibiotics

I remember reading somewhere that before the first Sulfonamide antibiotics were discovered, people used to just swallow sulfur and it was just as effective. Is this true? --Wrk678 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sulfur was used medically as a tonic and laxative. I doubt that it was effective as an antibiotic. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

thats not what I heard I dont believe you. --Wrk678 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says plain sulfur is an effective antibiotic? I couldn't find any. Sulfa drugs were an amazingly effective treatment for some infections, way beyond any drug up to that time. "Plain sulfur was just as good" is not a valid claim.Edison (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I now can see where this notion came from. The Bayer company spent a fortune developing a drug "Prontosil" in 1935, which was effective against strep. They expected to make a fortune from their patent. But the French, in the process of reverse engineering it to evade the patent, found that the chemical sulfanilomide, called "sulfa" was just as effective, and was not patented, since it had been introduced in 1906. It was "plain old sulfa," not "plain old sulfur" that was "just as effective" as the newly introduced (in 1935) Prontosil. Your recollection is correct, once we change "sulfur" to "sulfa." Edison (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

so what is "plain old sulfa," exactly? did they have it in the 1700's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk678 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How does the seat push when a pilot ejects?

F-16 ejection seat in action

I was just reading about the American pilot who ejected out of his crashing F-16 in Japan recently and I was trying to picture in slow motion in my mind the process of the cockpit opening and the pilot's seat rising up both without him hitting the windshield and quickly enough so that the forward-moving pilot, who is moving very fast, is not pushed back into the opened windshield by the no-doubt great amount of wind force on him. Does the ejection mechanism provide some forward boost in addition to vertical to counter wind immediately experienced that would tend to push him into the windshield before he got the 3'-5' clearance needed to clear the windshield and the presumably still-powered jet safely rushes ahead below him as the wind continues to drag down his forward speed? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of information in our Ejection seat article. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The short version, though: bear in mind that the canopy is subject to the same factors (initial speed, drag, etc) as the pilot, and as it probably has higher surface area and lower mass, will be dragged aft of the plane more rapidly than the pilot. Note also that we have a picture of a pilot ejecting from an F-16 that nicely illustrates this. Alternate options include ejecting through the canopy (with reinforcements above the pilot's head to break through the glass) or, in a handful of cases, ejecting out the bottom of the plane (obviously less useful at low altitude). — Lomn 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial impulse of a fighter jet seat tends to be backwards, so allow the pilot's legs to clear the instrument panel under which they normally rest (ref). That's done by a system sometimes called the "ejection cartridge" or "ejection gun". That's just enough to get the seat out of the cockpit. Then the problem is, as you say, to clear the airframe. The high drag of the seat is one issue, but a bigger is the consideration that the aircraft may be pitching or yawing wildly, and may be compromised in some other way. So your assumption about airflow is valid in level flight, but so many ejections happen in other circumstances (spiral banking, pitch-up stalling, uncontrolled diving, etc.) that the seat has to conservatively cope with all kinds of unpleasant and unpredictable scenarios. So the gas generator (which is how aeronautical engineers spell "bomb") they use to blast the pilot clear of the aircraft's environment is massive (this gives mass of 3.73 kg for a Russian fighter seat design), burning for only about 0.1 seconds (ref). That's enough force to throw pilot, suit, seat, and parachutes one to 200 ft in the air (ref)(ref) (and given that's a subsonic trainer, the system for a supersonic aircraft is surely more powerful still). Modern seats have attitude control (cf the howstuffworks ref and this). But the key point is the astonishing vigor of that explosive ejection - the ejector seat article cites 12-14g for western designs, with older Soviet designs yielding an astonishing 22g. Those are car-crash-like forces, more than enough to tear the tattered pilot away from the aircraft and its environs. The onrush of air is injurious, and tends to wrench the pilots knees violently apart - if they weren't restrained the pilot would sustain serious hip injuries. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellently detailed explanation. Anecdotally, the force of the ejection is particularly problematic for the human spine. Apparently at some point in history (and possibly still the case), U.S. fighter pilots were only "allowed" two ejections because of the potential cumulative spine damage - after you ejected twice, your career as a fighter pilot was over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This paper says that between 30% and 70% of ejectees sustain vertebral fracture. At least anecdotally there's some evidence that ejection makes the pilot slightly shorter, due to the trauma to the intervertebral discs. I can only imagine that being ejected from a tumbling aircraft must feel like being an Action Man in the grip of an angry toddler. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A ejection seat isn't an amusement-park ride; it's an option of last resort, when a combat pilot believes he should be safer outside his aircraft than inside. That means that his aircraft is probably in bad shape: not only damaged, but unable to land safely. When compared to almost certain fiery death, an ejection seat need not set a high bar for comfort or safety... as long as it's "mostly" better than exploding. Even this Air Force Fact Sheet bluntly says it... "Not all emergency situations are escapable, but ejection seats greatly enhance a pilot's chances of getting out of most of them." Nimur (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Ejecting is hazardous even from a stationary aircraft - broken limbs are common, and I believe an accidental ejection from a stationary BAe Hawk on the ground recently killed a pilot. The pilot who ejected from a hovering Harrier jump jet at an air show off the Essex coast a few years ago, broke his ankle after landing on the remains of his aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the 1960's era F111 fighter-bomber, the entire crew compartment was designed to be blasted away from the airframe in emergencies, as they considered it was not possible to eject and survive from an aircraft going at Mach 2.5 at low altitudes, and probably any altitude. Ratbone121.215.33.69 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The F-111, like most fast aircraft of its era, was not capable of Mach 2.5 at low altitudes - its maximum speed (in level flight) at sea level was less than half that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question

How automatic are modern ejection seat systems? Some of the answers above seem to imply that the pilot choses when to eject. I've always assumed that the seat was automatically actuated since I would think that in many cases the window of opportunity to eject safely would be closed by the time a human could respond to the emergency situation. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For the same reasons (mostly) explained by others above, the control of life-critical systems like these is not given to computers. Feel free to go on YouTube and look for and listen to "ready to eject", "ejecting to the north" and all the rest of it. Computers can quite plausibly decide that the aircraft is inverted when it is not. Humans also sometimes make that mistake, but humans mostly know to pull the eject lever when things have become very bad.

Listening to some of those recordings, you will hear and see that the human pilots left the aeroplane long before the computer decided it might be necessary.

The interesting one is the F-16 at an air show. I assume that the pilot made that choice, since he knew there was no way he could pull out of that dive. Do you have any evidence to indicate that the computer made the choice for him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence either way. The article on ejector seats mentions how ejections are performed manually by pulling lever and so forth, but it also cites a dead link to say that a "Soviet VTOL naval fighter planes such as the Yakovlev Yak-38 were equipped with ejection seats which were automatically activated during at least some part of the flight envelope." The article on the Yakovlev Yak-38 (which was introduced in 1976) also mentions that feature and says that it was "advanced". If it was advanced in 1976, then by now it might be a standard feature. If the pilot experiences G-LOC and the aircraft encounters a situation where ejection is appropriate, then I can see how automatic ejection would be helpful. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

a puzzling biophysical relationship

While processing my data, I found that the instantaneous curvature of the 2D plane-constrained trajectory of a fruit fly is positively correlated with the inverse hyperbolic cosecant of its instantaneous speed (r=~0.7) Such a relationship is the best fit I've found (among logarithmic, inverse square, etc.) and gives a very convincing straight line correlation in the scatterplot. I have no idea why. Does anybody have an ideas? I don't know how to interpret this relationship.

This is regardless of whether they are on cocaine or not. (Yes, I work in a cocaine behavioural lab.) 128.143.1.64 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the logical place to start would be to find prior research that correlates instantaneous curvature and instantaneous speed for other test subjects under other conditions. What techniques and methodologies did they use? What correlations have been found to exist by previous researchers? What causative factors explain those correlations? It's very easy to crunch a lot of numbers, but if you don't have any motivating reason to assert a cause, detecting a correlation might be totally useless (even if it is very strong). Even worse, the calculation may be incorrect, due to some detail of your process that you overlooked. (Is there a geometric relationship between radius of curvature, and instantaneous velocity, possibly amplified by your data collection methodology? Can you test for such an effect in your algorithm by feeding it a synthetic or randomized data-set, as a control experiment?) Nimur (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Curvature on a plane is abs(y"x' - x"y') / speed^3. If I multiply the curvature set by speed^3, I get a weaker line (correlation r=0.55) and a lot more scatter. 76.104.28.221 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the fruit fly operate in 3-dimensions of aerial flight? Did God made that individual incorrectly? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the experiment involves hundreds of fruit flies, "a" is just rhetorical. The arena is 3x4 inches long but only ~1.5mm in height. 76.104.28.221 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at what happens if you use the radius of curvature as your variable rather than the curvature itself -- that's what most of the literature does, and it gets you away from the singularity at zero, which can really distort your numerics. Most of the literature looks for power law relationships when examining curvature-velocity relationships. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to know the range of speeds and curvatures covered by your data, the value of the constant of proportionality, and the units you're using for speed (since the argument of arccsch is unitless). -- BenRG (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHROMATOSUS

CAN MENTAL STRESS CAUSE SLE NEPHRITIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.37.13 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

After looking at several medical sites including Merck Medical and Systemic lupus erythmatosis I have found no reference to stress as a causative factor. The disease itself is thought to be possibly genetic in origin. It is a long duration disease with periods of remission punctuated by flare-ups of signs and symptoms. The flare-ups are caused by clear physical agents like strong sunlight, infection or surgery, among others. Richard Avery (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

LHS and RHS differentiation

In gravitation, we know F ∝ m₁m₂ and
F ∝ 1/r².
Combining both equations, we get
F ∝ m₁m₂/r²
Here, we multiplied LHS (Left Hand Side) of both equations. But why we don't multiplied RHS (Right Hand Side) i.e., F. I don't understand why we cannot write F² instead of F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Because they're not equations. They're proportionalities. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When setting up a problem you need to decide which are your variables and which are your constants. For example the two masses might be constant while the distance and force vary with time. In that case the equation is F(t) = G m₁ m₂ / r(t)², which you can write as F(t) ∝ 1 / r(t)². Or the distance might be constant while the masses vary with time (though that's a bit weird), in which case you could write F(t) ∝ m₁(t) m₂(t). But these two proportionalities don't apply to the same problem, so it doesn't make sense to multiply them together. -- BenRG (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's given that:
$F\propto m_{1}m_{2}{\text{ and }}F\propto 1/r^{2}$
${\text{so }}F=k_{1}m_{1}m_{2}{\text{ and }}F=k_{2}/r^{2}$
Since the constant of proportionality k₁ represents the components of F other than m₁m₂, and it is known that F ∝ 1/r², therefore k₁ ∝ 1/r² and likewise k₂ ∝ m₁m₂.
$\therefore k_{1}k_{2}\propto {\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$

$\therefore k_{1}k_{2}=K{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$
If we then multiply the equations:
$F=k_{1}m_{1}m_{2}{\text{ and }}F=k_{2}/r^{2}$
We get:
$F^{2}=k_{1}k_{2}{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$
And substituting in the expression for k₁k₂ we get:
$F^{2}=K{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$

$\therefore F={\sqrt {K}}{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$
The squareroot of K is the constant of gravitation which is usually represented by G. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that F² is proportional to m₁m₂/r², with the constant of proportionality being G²m₁m₂/r². But if you allow that, the ∝ symbol is meaningless since everything is proportional to everything else. For it to have any meaning, the constant of proportionality needs to be constant for the purposes of whatever problem you're solving, and something else (on both sides of the proportionality) has to vary. -- BenRG (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Value of second square

What is the value of Second²? Sunny Singh 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs)

I would answer your question if it only made any sense. A second is a unit. It doesn't have a value. Dauto (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunny has been asking a variety of very simple questions about basic physics and algebra. When a person is struggling with such basic concepts, it becomes reasonable to ask them to do some homework: review the basics, and come back to ask questions about the parts you're struggling with. Here is a list of really good introductory physics texts that may be at your level: texts commonly used in introductory high school physics. If you would like help finding free online alternatives, we can link some of those as well.

You may also find the links to the complete physics lectures of Professor Walter Lewin of MIT useful (the full courses are available online); though they are actually quite a bit more advanced and expect certain prerequisite familiarity with math and physics. Nimur (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see the unit s²? Since you've been asking questions about kinematics, was it perhaps m/s²? Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity, which is in turn the rate of change of the displacement. It's actually s^-2 which means "per second per second". It's a rate of change of a rate of change i.e. a second derivative. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Body hairs

Why do our body hairs raise when we feel cool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See goose bumps, specifically, Goose_bumps#Extreme_temperatures SemanticMantis (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Musical orgasm"

Jean Benner: Ecstasy

Sometimes, then I listen some piece of music, I feel something like religious ecstasy (although I'm not religious). Extreme happiness. Really really intense feeling. More intense than orgasm.

For example, Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven), Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss), The Darkness Inside (Agathodaimon).

Could you help me with the name of the phenomenon? I'm sure I'm not the first who feel this way.

I don't need a medical advice, lol. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Serendipitously, this question can also (see above) be answered in part by goose bumps, specifically Goose_bumps#Music talks about release of dopamine. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Numinous is perhaps more accurate. Although the word is religious in origin and usually interpreted as such in various religions (where it is known under names like ecstasy, mysterium tremendum, unio mystica, mast, wajd, etc.), the experience itself isn't. See also the wiktionary entry: numinous. It's not restricted to music. Can also happen while, for example, stargazing, seeing a particularly stunning view, witnessing a particularly emotional moment, dancing, etc.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You will probably want to listen to Liszt's Les Preludes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnITC-IkPVg also known as the theme to Flash Gordon. (Not the one by Queen).

See Euphoria which includes a section on Music. Also Stendhal syndrome and Lisztomania Rmhermen (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also the page Music and emotion, which gets into some of the theories about why music can elicit emotions. There are some interesting unresolved questions, like why people enjoy listening to powerfully sad music. Pfly (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to get off topic, but isn't the fact that it's cathartic a good enough reason? It lets you (or gives you the excuse to) get the emotions out in a socially acceptable way, when in normal day to day life we might be conditioned to bottle it up. Vespine (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually catharsis. If I'm right, I've experienced what Ewigekrieg has described. It's not catharsis in the sense of letting go, it's more like a powerful (though usually fleeting) hair-raising feeling of wonder and/or pleasure usually accompanied by the feeling of being dwarfed by the awareness of something greater (hence why I think it's usually associated with religions).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, my comment was specifically addressing the "unresolved question" raised by Pfly immediately above my reply. Vespine (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It sounded unresolved or at least debated in Music and emotion#Nature of musical emotions (some aspects), a section which admittedly could be much improved. Personally I find I enjoy really good "tragic" or "melancholy", etc music in a way that involves non-negative feelings. The first example that comes to mind is Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4 (Chopin), known as the "Suffocation" prelude. I find it hard to describe how it makes me feel, but "hair-raising feeling of wonder and/or pleasure" sounds in the ballpark. I'm reminded of an article about "tear jerker" songs like Adele's 'Someone Like You', [4]. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the appoggiatura is quite as powerful as they suggest (although, that Chopin prelude is full of appoggiaturas, now that I think about it!), but there's other interesting points raised--that heartfelt music can trigger pleasure and reward centers in the brain that can "rival any other pleasure"..."even when the music is extremely sad". Maybe "catharsis" is the right word for this, but I thought it was generally associated with feelings of relief after the release of negative emotions?Pfly (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why California Highway 57 south extension were never built

I have only learn a little bit about the California 57 extension south into Huntington Beach to meet the I-405 or California 1, but I don't think I know enough details about it. What type of opposition blocks that road from being extended to I-405 or CA 1. is it because of the house development or is it more about the environment issues. Did city committees resist the highway from being extended, or is it just the earlier days they try to make PCH into a freeway?--69.226.40.110 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Orange Freeway article cites this newspaper story, which seems to cover the issues pretty well. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Determining gender of peachfaced lovebird using a pendulum?

I saw this being done recently. If you hold the pendulum above the lovebird's head (or even a lovebird egg) and allow it to move freely - allegedly, if it swings back and forth the bird is a male, or if it swings in a circle, the bird is female.

Is this an accurate method to determine the gender of this species, or can this be considered 'woo'?

Also, how are the peachfaced lovebirds themselves able to determine the gender of others of their species? This is a bird where the male and female are notorious for looking exactly the same, for anyone that's never seen them. --87.115.140.123 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see that being done? Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In a pet shop a couple of weeks ago. There was a guy in there who said that he breeds lovebirds, and uses this technique to determine the gender of his chicks. Just some guy who happened to be in the shop at the same time as me, I think. He was talking about it to the owner and demonstrated it on the lovebird in the shop. He correctly detertmined that the bird was male using his pendulum (though I suppose there was a 50% chance that you could just guess and get it right). I asked him if it worked on eggs too and he said that it did. --87.115.140.123 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The pendulum method is an old method of determining the gender of babies (by swinging it over the mother's pregnant belly). This can safely be put into the "old wives tales" category. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See article on Dowsing, subsection Other equipment

DMahalko (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Likely to be confirmation bias. This article lists more scientific ways to determine gender. But given that Agapornis roseicollis (like most parrots) are sexually monomorphic, the consensus is that you can't always tell without genetic or surgical testing, or more blatant proof like having had it lay eggs already,

As for pair-bonding, I assume it's the same as with other birds which depend largely on hormonally-determined courtship behavior. Pair bonds are established very early as juveniles. Unpaired juveniles will "test" other juveniles for compatibility by preening them or catching their attention, and if successful, they'll pair up.

However, this seem to rely more on if they get along well (i.e. behavior towards each other), not on determining if their potential partner is of the opposite sex. Which can explain why they will readily bond with humans when kept alone and are quite affectionate in such situations. Even when allowed to select their mates naturally (i.e. by putting them all together in a cage), lovebirds and other pair-bonding parrots will still sometimes end up bonded to a partner of the same sex, especially when the male-female ratio is not equal. But note that although pair bonds are relatively stable, contrary to popular myth, they are not life-long and are often rife with infidelity in the wild (i.e. it's a form of social monogamy). Pairings can change if the pair is separated (e.g. with the death of one partner or a change in male-female ratios). The function of the pair bonds thus, seems to be primarily social, a necessity for maintaining flock stability. However, same-sex pair bonds will still exhibit the same mating behaviors as heterosexual pair bonds; in captivity they can be distinguished by an excess in eggs which never hatch (indicating a female homosexual pair) or no eggs at all (a male homosexual pair). In the wild, female same-sex pair-bonds can still raise chicks if fertilized by opportunistic matings with males (i.e. cheating ;P).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Peach-faced Lovebirds regularly demonstrate infidelity? In the wild? I was under the impression that they were one of the very few species that were genuinely sexually monogamous. Within reason, of course - I know that it's untrue that if one bird in a pair dies, the other one will die shortly after... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, see [5], under "Polygamy or Promiscuity".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

July 24

volcanos

Were there ever volcanos in ogemaw county michigan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.52.40 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ever" is a long time. There was likely a point near the beginning of the formation of the Earth that the entire planet was molten rock. Starting from that, what counts as a volcano?

DMahalko (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Did "ogemaw county michigan" exist back then? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/ben/Publications/90_geology_howell.pdf, that part of Michigan is covered with layers of sedimentary rocks over two miles deep. So you'd have to go way far down to find anything volcanic. Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been proposed [6] that a strongly reflective sequence imaged on COCORP (another article to write) data with a top at about 8km (5 miles) is the lower Keweenawan volcanics (which formed about 1,100 million years ago). So the answer is yes, but a very long time ago. Mikenorton (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

latex usage statistics

I'm looking, please, for statistics on how latex from rubber trees is used: what percentage or vloume goes into, say, tyres, clothing or - particularly - party balloons. I've searched the web and both Wikipedia and reference desk archives, without success. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ansul Fire Suppression Systems

While at an amusmement park cafeteria, I noticed that the fire suppression system appeared to have been activated at some time and had never been reset; the pull station near the grill looked as if it had been activated. I know what an Ansul pull station should look like because I'm a food service laborer myself. If I'm not mistaken, food service establishments are supposed to shut down pending an inspection after that system has been activated, yet the cafeteria was still serving guests. Obviously, if the facility was operating without a functional suppression system, it poses a serious fire and public safety hazard. So my question is, is there any chance I'm wrong on this? 76.7.95.112 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't judge the chances of you being wrong. But many health departments and fire marshals conduct random inspections of eating establishments. Wouldn't it be far more useful for them to conduct an inspection of a place where there is a reasonable suspicion of a problem rather than a random check? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You should report your suspicion to the relevant safety authority. It's no skin off your nose if you're wrong, and the possibility you could save lives if you're right. Rojomoke (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The system may be still functional, as discharge can be triggered automatically be heat sensors etc. Or it may have been completely replaced by another supplier. However, even if this is so, and the pull station is still in situ and inactive, it is a hazard as in an emergency someone might recall the location of the pull station and expect it to work. And if they are sloppy enough to have a disconnected or disable pull station, it s not a good sign that the rest of teh system is maintained. I suggest asking for the duty manager and politely and courteously pointing it out - give him/her a chance to fix it. If you don't get a suitable response, or if it's unchanged after a week, dob them in to the authorities. I wouldn't have too many qualms about dobbing them in, as restaurants, especially fast food restaurants, have a high fire probability, and customers are at risk. Ratbone120.145.168.58 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that one of their competitors would have ratted on them already, wouldn't you, all being fair in love, war and business, and all...? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Quite apart from the fact that a competitor may not know about it for the same reason the authorities don't know about - they haven't been there - it is not generally wise to rat on your competitors. It's not professional, for several reasons, inluding: it can be seen as unfair competition; it's not wise to throw stones unless you are very sure you don't live in a glass house; it brings down the public's view of the industry (in this case restaurants) generally; it invites retaliation. In any case, in my experience as a building manager over several years, quickie/fast food/snack restaurants, unless run as branch/franchise of a major chain, are run by unqualified people who just don't know any better. That applies to the competitors of any one outlet. Major chains are different as they get good advice from the franchise owner; 5-star & similar quality service restaurants are a very different story - they have managers and executive chefs who are properly qualified and do know what their obligations are. Ratbone124.182.2.27 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific heat capacity

Does specific heat capacity refer to specific heat at constant volume or constant pressure? Thanks. 82.132.235.213 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• For gasses there is a separate specific heat for constant pressure and constant volume. The difference between these is the gas constant R. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For gasses, it is equally valid, and in both cases useful, to quote/use/dicuss the specific heat (aka thermal capacity) for both constant volume and constant pressure - the value for constant pressure being greater. The symbols normally used are C_v and C_p. You often find textbooks on reactions however, that only talk about constant pressure, because most chemists carry out reactions at atmospheric pressure, and combustion in many applications is carried out open to the atmosphere. In such cases they may not explicitly state that it is the constant pressure value. So you need to be aware of this.

[Incorrect sentence deleted by Ratbone]

Note that the correct standard term in science is specific heat - there is no need to append the word capacity. In engineering, the term thermal capacity is often used.

Ratbone120.145.168.58 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem which gives you specific gas constant, specific heat for air, power of a fan, temperature of the room, dimensions of the room, and the problem requires the temperature to be calculated after a certain time. I assumed e=pt and e=mct is the right equation to use but it doesn't give me the correct answer. Thanks. 176.27.223.180 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by e=mct? that seems wrong

energy=mass x specific heat x change in temperature 176.27.223.180 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rooms operate at atmospheric pressure - the pressure does not change. Therefore in your example it is the constant pressure value that is the correct one to use. In practical real world rooms, as the air heats up, some of it will leak out, so that pressure does not change. Be carefull - if this is an assignment question, who ever set it just might have had a sealled room or box in mind. That would be wrong, but, hey, teachers do forget things so as to keep questions simple. You did not provide the specific heat value you were given. The correct C_p value for dry air at 300 K is 1.007 kJ/kg.K and is a reasonable value to use in this case if humidity is not given. Note that specific heat changes somewhat with humidity. It also changes with temperature, but only negliglibly so over any temperature range appropriate to this question. Ratbone124.182.2.27 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a correlation between incidence of type 1 diabetes and vitiligo?

Does the data indicate that if you have one, the probability of you having the other is higher than that of someone who doesn't have the one? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Blood filter

I was giving blood and commented about the length and complexity of the hoses in the collection bag and the technician started to explain and commented that the pink disk was a filter that he thought was to remove white blood cells (but wasn't sure what it was filtering.) As a filter it makes sense but how would you filter out white blood cells without removing the red cells? Does anyone know about this filter? RJFJR (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a process called leukoreduction. They basically use layers of filters to remove anything larger than red blood cells. It isn't a perfect system though because about 10% of the red blood cells are lost in the filtration. Tombo7791 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The filter that you saw almost certainly was for leukoreduction. The removal of leukocytes from transfused blood products seems to reduce the incidence of some post-transfusion side effects, as well as potentially reducing the transmission of some diseases. Filtration of leukocytes is actually fairly straightforward. Leukocytes (white blood cells) are appreciably larger than erythrocytes (red blood cells) and other blood components; they are also 'stickier' under some circumstances and can be somewhat selectively adsorbed on to some filter materials. In-line filters work by trapping leukocytes within the pores of the polymer filter material, while allowing the smaller blood components to pass. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I just assumed red blod cells and white blood cells were about the same size. RJFJR (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the picture at our White blood cells article seems to support that assumption. They look more spherical rather then disk shaped, but certainly not at a scale that looks like it would filter out.. Maybe there's something more clever then just "size" at work.. Vespine (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This page says that one form of white blood cells are 1/700 the size of red blood cells, so there is a discrepancy here. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is clearly wrong. Granulocytes, the type of white blood cell the page is talking about, are about 12 micrometers on average in diameter. Red blood cells are around 6 micrometers. From my own experience as biologist I can state that erythrocytes are smaller than all kinds of white blood cells. Size filtration is therefore a simple and effective strategy to reduce the amount of other cells. You can also have a look at leucocyte, where I found a nice table with diameters for the most relevant leucocytes in blood. Btw: There are no mammalian cells (or no cells at all) 1/700 the size of an erythrocyte. Mycoplasma, one of the smallest bacteria and one of the smallest cells known, is 0.1 micrometers in diameter, which is just about 1/60 of an erythrocyte. --TheMaster17 (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How many quantum fields are there?

Is there just one quark field, or are there six different quark fields? What about gluons, leptons? Is it accurate to say that fields are more fundamental than particles? Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is just one field, I suppose. The different particles are different types of oscillation of the field. As an example, a rope under tension can oscillate up and down as well as side to side; those are two "particles". Diagonal oscillation is a combination of those two basic oscillations. You can also take two other perpendicular directions (diagonals) as the fundamental directions and express everything in terms of those. If the rope is in outer space, those directions are equally good, but if there's a gravitational field in the up-down direction, it breaks the symmetry and the description in terms of up-down and left-right is simpler. This is what happens in the standard model: after symmetry breaking, there are favored directions corresponding to electrons, etc. The symmetry of the gluons isn't broken, though, which is why you'll often hear that there are eight gluons but you'll never see a list of what they are. They are eight different arbitrary directions.

I think it's accurate to say that fields are more fundamental in the standard model, because of nonperturbative effects like the Higgs mechanism (which involves the Higgs field, but not the Higgs boson). -- BenRG (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Counting the number of fields (or particles) is a tricky business. First you have to decide what counts as different fields (or particles) and what doesn't. Add to that the fact that particles and fields are not counted the same way. What BenRG said above is only partially correct. If we make the reasonable assumptions that fields that belong to a given multiplet should be counted only once, than there are 9 quark fields (3 per generation) and 1 gluon field. Each generation has a weak-doublet strong-triplet left handed quark field and 2 weak-singlet strong-triplet right handed quark field for a total of 3 fields (double that to 6 if you decide to count anti-matter separately). Gluons on the other hand are represented by a single weak-singlet strong-octet field (do not double it if you decide to count anti-matter separately since gluons are their own anti-particles but double it to 2 if you decide to count each possible spin state (helicity) separately). So, forgetting about spin states and anti-matter for simplicity (too late), either you say that there are 8 gluon fields and 36 quark fields (12 per generation - 6 for the weak-doublet strong-triplet and 3 for each of the two weak-singlet strong triplets), or you say that there are 9 quark fields and 1 gluon field as previously stated. If counting particles instead of fields than you are really counting mass eigenstates in which case there are 6 quarks and 1 gluon. Dauto (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I remember hearing someone (whom I assumed knew what he was talking about) talk of there even being meson fields and proton fields. Is this accurate, or merely easier to comprehend? Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That can be done, yes, but keep in mind that this is an approximate theory much like newtons gravitation is an approximation for general relativity. It has its domain of application and its limitations. The meson and hadron fields are not introduced in addition to the quarks and gluons. They are introduced instead of them. Dauto (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It can't be wrong to say that there's one field, just as it isn't wrong to say that a hydrogen atom is a single object. It's just terminology. The division of the fermion field(s) into generations doesn't really make sense (what are the three generations of left-handed quarks?). The rest of it is well defined but I'm not convinced it's all that helpful. There was just a thread in which someone complained about the seeming arbitrariness of the SM fields and I mentioned that the gauge fields are SO(10) broken in a certain way and the fermions all fit in one big "hexadecet" of SO(10). Even if SO(10) grand unification doesn't work you can still define the standard model this way, and I think it's nicer (at least it's shorter). Also, I think the mass eigenstates of the neutral kaon system are perfectly good particles and can reasonably be said to be orthogonal vibrations of the quantum field. If you subdivide the field based on the fundamental particles the neutral kaons end up with a second-class status that seems undeserved. -- BenRG (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't constellations move?

Stars move, but yet constellations are still the same shape. For example, why is the Big Dipper, still the Big Dipper, shouldn't it just be an amorphous jumble of stars by now? 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Stars do move in the sky, just very very slowly, because they are so far away. According to this article, most constellations in our sky should be unrecognizable in about 100,000 years. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply, the 2,500 yrs that humans have plotted the stars is an insignificant amount of time when relating to the speed and size of the universe. All of the movement that we see from the stars is from the Earth's own motion rather than that of the stars themselves. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This website has an indication of how familiar constellations are predicted to change in 50,000 years. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you want is proper motion. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Urban OS

What exactly is the urban OS & what are the advantages of it? 176.27.223.180 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a BBC article on Urban OS; many more references are readily available via search engines. It appears to be a largely-theoretical loosely-defined notion of automating various features of city management (see, from the above article: "this is what Urban OS is providing, this kind of solution to analyse mass data, enter it in a context and perform magical actions."). — Lomn 18:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can milk splatter so high?

Actually I'm sure this doesn't have to do with milk specifically, but when it happens with milk it's more important to clean it up than with water.

When I'm pouring milk from a box with a narrow hole, and especially when it gets interrupted to let air replace it, the milk often splashes higher than any part of the box. I think the milk has potential energy as a function of the head between the glass and the box, which turns into so much kinetic energy when it reaches milk already in the glass, but I always thought that a falling object could never bounce as high as it started because that's all the energy it had (and some of it will have been lost). So how or why does some of my milk splash high enough to land on the top of the box?

80.90.168.44 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be impossible for all of the milk you pour to splash higher than the starting point, but that doesn't prevent the kinetic energy of the whole getting concentrated into a smaller quantity of fluid and thereby causing it to rise higher. Fluid mechanics is a very complex subject and there are lots of strange things that can happen. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For something similar, see Galilean cannon. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example is a tsunami, where a large volume of water with a small elevation becomes a smaller volume with more elevation when it hits the shallows. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This NPR story may be helpful in seeing what is going on. Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks everybody.Tom Haythornthwaite 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Mallorca sea levels 1 m higher 81,000 years ago than today?

Hi. I recently came across this article in Nature, which suggests that calcite-dated cave deposits show that sea levels during the height of the last ice age were one metre higher than present, even as data from elsewhere in the world suggest that sea levels should have gone down by several metres around that age. The first thing that came to mind was that the Mediterranean Sea had once been separate from the rest of the Atlantic Ocean prior to an event called the Zanclean flood, but that had been 5.33 million years ago. Could the calcite records somehow be corresponding to a local sea level change as ice sheets covered much of France and freshwater could have flowed into the Sea of Sardinia which at the time would have had little contact with the Atlantic and the rest of the Mediterranean, potentially creating a discrepancy and lag time between the local and global sea levels? I have included the Antarctic and Greeland ice core data for comparison. It appears that EPICA (Dome C) in Antarctica hits a peak almost corresponding directly to 81,000 years BP, while Greenland and Vostok experience a peak at about 84,700 years BP. Interestingly, global ice volume was at a low around the same time period. Basically, is it possible for a local ice age-era melting event around southern France or the Pyrénées mountains to infill the Sea of Sardinia quickly enough that sea levels rise about 10 - 28 metres higher than eustatic (global) sea levels? Finally, why does this image suggest sea levels were up to 9-10 metres higher than today during the Holocene climatic optimum, directly contradicting this image, which shows sea level estimates no more than 4-5 metres higher than today? Disclaimer - most of this information was acquired through pixel analysis. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aside: is the article on climate oscillation accurate? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where there cave was but this paper suggests that there is modest, but active faulting affecting the island, with one normal fault, the Sencelles fault, having an estimated displacement of 100m during the Pliocene to Quaternary (a 5 million years period), which gives an average of 1 m displacement every 50,000 years. The researchers have probably taken account of this, but it might be relevant. Mikenorton (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is in an active seismic area, and a 1 meter change in elevation in 80000 years is really nothing extraordinary. GPS readings may not yet have the resolution to determine such a small rate of change. To tell what the sea level was then it would be best to determine this in more stable regions of the earth. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me first note that the primary publication underlying this is a Science paper, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860. All of these issues of tracing sea level fluctuations are tricky, and I don't think the method used in that paper has really been thoroughly validated. Regarding some of the other comments here, sea levels are thought to have been around 120 meters below today's values during the Last Glacial Maximum, around 20,000 years ago, so the differences being discussed here are relatively moderate. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Carbon balance

I live precisely 2.4 miles (3.9 km) from the recycling centre, and I drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio. How many aluminium coke cans do I have to take to the recycling centre before I offset the carbon emissions spent getting there in the first place? -- role^player 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that an attempt to ask a real question in a clever way? If so, could you please be less clever? Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He is asking us to weigh the carbon cost of driving 8km round-trip vs. recycling an arbitrary amount of pop cans. I.e., how many cans must he recycle just to break even? Consider the clear counter-productivity of driving 8km to recycle one can. From a quick googling, that car is roughly 6L/100km (highway or city I do not know) which gives a ~500mL fuel expenditure estimate. The first decision is whether you're going to look at this as an energy efficiency problem or a pollution minimization problem. The second problem is getting pop can data for either scenario. BigNate37_(T) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you give up the coke and switch to drinking filtered tap water from a reusable bottle then you eliminate this dilemma from your life and you may find that you will sleep better at night. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Aluminum Association estimates that the energy saved in recycling a single aluminum can could power a television for 3 hours."[7] So you merely need to convert TV power to Renault Clio power. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the question for Looie. "Assume that the fuel used to power the mining, refining and shaping of the aluminum for an aluminum is derived from oil. Assume that my car also burns an oil product. My car consumes an amount of fuel "y" to make a round trip to the recycling center, whereas the de novo creation of an aluminum can ultimately consumes an amount of fuel "x". The number of cans I take with me is "n". For a given value of "y", and a value of "x" that may be provided in a reference, find the "n" for which nx = y. I believe that is as unclever as I could make it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

N.B. "Recycling [aluminum cans] consumes 3.5 kilotwatt hours of electricity, one-eighth of that required when using new material." From Aluminum can#Recycling. BigNate37_(T) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, reading that statement's source... the article has it wrong. For now, see [8]. I'm going to fix that article. BigNate37_(T) 22:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer depends heavily on where the power for the aluminium smelter was sourced. If it was hydro or nuclear, then you will have to cart an awful lot more to break even. If it was coal, oil or natural gas it might not be so hard. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let x be the energy saved by recyling an aluminum can. Then x ≐ 7⁄83.5kW·h (from Aluminum can#Recycling, which I've now fixed)
• Let y be the energy cost of driving to your recycling centre. I assume you do not employ the first of the three R's by combining the trip with other business. Thus y = E_gas(500mL) = 0.5L × 9.7 kW·h/L (from Gasoline#Energy content (high and low heating value))
• nx = y ⇒ n ≐ y⁄x

For which I get ~1.6. Better make it two whole cans, just to be safe. BigNate37_(T) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite low. Is that just considering the fuel burnt, or carbon generated by the life cycle of the car, as well ? StuRat (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It also goes without saying that more cans in a load is better for the environment. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At those numbers, an aluminum can would cost something like 60 cents based on California consumer electricity prices. How much does electricity cost aluminum smelters typically? It just seems like a fairly large chunk of the cost of a can of coke. But maybe the smelters get it cheap since they use so much? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well all the links are there, so you can track down the information to see. I only did a cursory check into those figures. I recall seeing 2.5 cents quoted somewhere as the cost of an aluminum can, but that was qualified by a disclaimer. BigNate37_(T) 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 60 cents per can can't be right. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the NY Times figure from the article. It's apparently off by at least an order of magnitude (see talk). Manufacturing cost for the aluminum in one can appears to be about 0.2 KwH. Plugging this figure into BigNate37's calculations gives an answer closer to 25 cans. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

July 25

Angle of Vega in Summer Triangle over time.

I don't have any facility at all with the sources needed to answer the following, so I cannot really begin. The question I have is (for somebody who might have such facility) whether there is a date specific (nearest ours) when the angle of the star Vega was or will be (very nearly approximately) right from the vantage point of the Solar System (say, specifically, from the Sun, if it is possible to be at all that precise based upon available data). Thanks if anybody has this in a source or from easy work from own knowledge.173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

By "right", you mean a right triangle (one with a 90 degree angle) ? StuRat (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The necessary information is in our articles on Vega, Deneb, and Altair -- their coordinates and proper motions -- but it's more work than I'm willing to do right now. Based on a quick glance, though, it looks to me like it would have been in the past, and probably a few hundred thousand years ago. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Transition hydrides

Hypothetically, what would be the transition hydride sequence/habit?

The main group, alkaline, alkaline earth, noble groups have the structure: 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0

What about the structure for the fourth period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0?

Or, perhaps: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0?

What would be the most reasonable, hypothetical choice? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Transition metals don't fit into such a simple model. For the first, transition metals don't exhibit singular oxidation states per element. Nearly all of the transition metals have multiple oxidation states, and multiple hydrides, they form. Iron hydride for example has many different varieties. --Jayron32 04:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Most elements exhibit multiple oxidation states per element. Oxygen can form two hydrides in which the oxidation state is not mixed or fractional: either oxidane or oxidanyl. I should mention that I'm talking about molecular hydrides, not ionic or interstitial hydrides. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Did you just use the word "oxidane" for "water?" I've never met a person who didn't use that word ironically. --Jayron32 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For me it depends on the context, when I discuss molecular theory, I prefer "oxidane" when I talk about applied chemistry, I use "water". Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In the FeH article, it is stated that there are three known FeH_x molecules. To follow the pattern of no unpaired electrons, it would be fair to say that the smallest value for iron would be 4, ferrane. Meaning that, FeH would be ferranylidyne. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets take into account the case of pumbane vs plumbanylidene. Even, though the latter is more stable at STP, the former is still the main hydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The best analogues to understand those differences in lead-hydrogen compounds would be to look to the difference in stability between methane and carbene. The article Carbene analog discusses lead analogues of carbene. --Jayron32 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For the iron hydride FeH₂ and FeH₃ are only known at cryogenic temperatures in a noble gas matrix, so I am not sure you can call this a habit. FeH molecules are only around if the temperature is high enough and density low enough not to form liquid or solid iron, so although it occurs in nature it is not exactly a habit. By the way I am planning User:Graeme Bartlett/Chromium hydride to make Chromium hydride but it is in substub status at the moment. This is also CrH in stars. For molecules with Me a metal atom, MeH is likely to be stable as a molecule by itself. However in higher density MeH+MeH may form H₂ and Me. MeH₂ may decompose to Me and H₂ if there is enough energy to move or break the bonds. And MeH_x will have even more ways to break up. For high values of x, eg ReH₉ there needs to be enough space around the central atom to accommodate the H atoms, and then this may be unstable unless there is some extra charge involved, or the temperature is extremely low. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating that article is going to be difficult, considering I can only find its CAS number and a particular spectroscopy study on google.

Maybe, I should rephrase: I'm looking for a pattern, the maximum non-eximer hydride, containing only two centre, two electron bonds, for each elemental group. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Group 3 has a minimum limit of 3 proved by scandium trihydride.

Group 4 has a min. lim. of 4 proved by titanium tetrahydride.

Group 5 has a min. lim. of 2 proved by vanadium dihydride.

Group 6 has a min. lim. of 6 proved by tungsten hexahydride.

Group 7 has a min. lim. of 4 proved by rhenium tetrahydride.

Group 8 has a min. lim. of 3 proved by iron trihydride.

Group 9 has a min. lim. of 2 proved by cobalt dihydride.

Group 10 has a min. lim. of 3 proved by platinum trihydride.

Group 11 has a min. lim. of 2 proved by copper dihydride.

Group 12 has a min. lim. of 2 proved by zinc dihydride.

That's according to WebBook. I proppose a new sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Synthesizing HeO using alpha decay

Let's say we have (currently unknown) some ²²⁶RaO or ²²⁶RaO₂(should be easy to prepare).

Now, I wonder if the alpha particles emitted by the process ²²⁶Ra→²²²Rn+⁴He can oxidize the oxygen atoms to form HeO molecules.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful way, and likely not at all. Alpha particles are very hot, moving at extremely high speeds, much too fast to interact with oxygen or even free oxide. Even if you could slow it dowm, its electron affinity is likely too high to form any meaningful molecules or ionic compounds, even fleetingly, before it simply stripped some electrons off of a nearby atom to make itself neutral helium. There are metastable helium compounds known as excimers, but these aren't formed as you describe, rather they form in conventional helium plasmas. --Jayron32 05:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, radium does not exhibit the fourth oxidation state, or are you refering to the peroxide?

Secondly, He²⁺ + O^2- --> He + O^2•.

Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the peroxide in the latter; I based this musing off the noble gas compound article where it says there's evidence for an He-O bond.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but you simply aren't going to get one off of an alpha particle. The wikipedia article Alpha particle states that recently decayed alpha particles move at 5% of the speed of light; in technical terms this is known as "hauling ass". It isn't going to hang around to pick up any hitchhikers. Even if an He-O bond is feasible, you aren't going to get an He-ANYTHING bond out of alpha decay. They do slow down via collisions with anything, including molecules of air, but those same collisions allow them to easily strip electrons off of what they collide with, giving you again inert neutral helium. --Jayron32 05:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if you fire alpha particles into thin gaseous oxygen or solid oxygen or oxygen embedded in solid helium you may get He+ ion which could form a HeO+ molecule. However this is going to be quite unstable as mentioned above, scraping electrons off other things to make He and atomic Oxygen as a more stable alternative. One thing that may work something like this is tritium hydride decaying to Helium hydride ion. In this case most of the energy is put out in the electron and neutrino, with not much imparted to the tralphium. So the molecular bond remains. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cryonics and its Viability

Are there any prominent scientific articles discussing the odds of cryonics' success in the future? Futurist110 (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking about resuscitation of cryonicly preserved humans? As cryonics can be counted as successful now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, single cells (like sperm and embryos) can be frozen, thawed, and reused now. But we can't yet freeze, thaw, and revive a human. StuRat (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Cryonics article lists 104 references (admittedly not all scientific articles), the second of which has an abstract that includes:

We consider the limits of what medical technology should eventually be able to achieve (based on currently understood chemistry and physics) and whether the repair of frozen tissue is within those limits.

So the answer to the question is probably "yes". Mitch Ames (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Melted cheese

It seems to taste different, and IMHO better, after it's melted, even after it re-solidifies, and hard cheeses are then softer. What changes ? Does anybody sell pre-melted (and re-solidified) cheese ? StuRat (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Denatured proteins? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't even need full denaturation, even partial unfolding would be enough to expose buried disulfides, and thus induce cysteine mediated cross-linking between proteins. Would certainly be enough to change the physical properties of the cheese. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Isaac Asimov write something on why is melted cheese so tasty? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool, do you have a link ? StuRat (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to find it, racking my brains and I'm not even sure it's Asimov and not Feynman or Sagan... pretty sure I'm not hallucinating it though! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

H1 antagonist and sleepiness

Why do H1 antagonist medications provoke sleepiness? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because they cross the blood/brain barrier and trip the cholinergic receptors of brain cells as well as the H1's of any cell. Wickwack120.145.129.240 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So, does less histamine get detected? But, why wouldn't our body just release more histamine when it notices that it has less (or it's detecting less). OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen taste taste

I watch Hell's Kitchen on Hulu so I'm behind a week or so, but in the taste test between Brian and Christina, it seemed unfair that Gordon Ramsey gave them shallots and they both got it wrong for guessing 'onion'. I've never had shallots before but when I see them at ShopRite, they certainly look like small onions and even our shallot article seems to say they're basically a variety of onion. I'm assuming that Ramsey himself would be able to spot the difference -- but how is that is they're basically a variety of onion? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are different kinds of onion. Not quite sure what your question is, but to my mind shallots taste much better than regular onions. Suggest you try some.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking: If shallots are just a type of onion, why is it wrong for them to have guessed 'onion'. I understand that something like sweet potato is different than a white potato, but just because shallots have a different name doesn't mean they are different. Whiskey made outside of Kentucky mustn't be called bourbon, but it can taste exactly the same as something made across the state border. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if he gave them sweet potatoes and they answered "potatoes," they would also have been wrong. A sweet potato may be a type of potato, but a chef ought to know the difference by taste, and most chefs would say "sweet potato" when you asked them what the ingredient was. Likewise, a shallot — which is not even an onion, if you had read the article, it's simply another species in the genus Allium — is different from an onion and a chef ought to be able to taste the difference. — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the show's producers to get a final answer—though their reaction would probably be, "It's a reality TV show; don't sweat it." As 63.138 notes above, it's essentially a functional distinction. If you visit the grocery store or a kitchen, or if you read a menu or a cookbook, the subset of onions identified as shallots will never be described as onions or even small, mild onions. They will be called shallots. In the kitchen, they're recognized as a distinct ingredient, and named accordingly. Regardless of what might be 'correct' for a biologist or taxonomist, calling a shallot an onion is 'wrong' in the domain of the professional chef. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't watch the show, but my understanding is that Ramsay is somewhat of a pedantic jerk, no? Anyway, presumably Ramsay expects wannabe chefs to be able to distinguish between the tastes of major onion and onion-like varieties. Shallots, yellow onions, sweet onions, and red onions all taste quite different and are generally speaking not interchangeable in recipes. Anyway, I would file this under "things not worth spending much time worrying about," personally. Out of all the unfairness in the world, this ranks quite low — it's arguably not unfair at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And, if they both were judged by the same standard, it doesn't give either an unfair advantage. Heck, he could even have required them to say "it's a shallot harvested on May 23rd, 2012 at 3:28:58 PM, at Tomlington Farms, at the following GPS coords...". StuRat (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First up we have to remember that Mr Ramsay does most of his stuff on TV for dramatic effect. This often involves humiliating people by pointing out their shortcomings in a variety of ways. Considering there are several types of shallots it is asking almost the impossible to expect a regular Joe to be able to tell the difference between them and onions - especially if they are not familiar with them. Most people would be unable to tell the difference in a sudden blind tasting because shallots grown under different conditions and onions grown under different conditions are going to have a lot of flavour overlap. It is not a sin to be unable to tell the difference between shallots and onions in spite of what the odious Gordon might say. When he knows his onions then he's got room to pull up other people - don't hold your breath! Richard Avery (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

hunter education program

according to wikipedia 49 of 50 states have a mandatory hunter education program. what state dosent?--Wrk678 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Arizona is the only state that still does not require taking classes to obtain a hunting license.Tombo7791 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How does curvature correlate to velocity in a random walk (Brownian motion) ?

While investigating fly path curvature in a 2D arena as a statistical parameter, I have found that the curvature-speed relationship follows a power law where curvature in (1/mm) is predicted by the relation C = 10^a * x^b, where a is ~0.8 and b is ~ -1.6, and x is speed in mm/s. Firstly, if behavior is random, doesn't the physical equation for curvature already "totally account" for velocity, i.e. curvature should be statistically independent of velocity in a random walk of stochastic speeds, such as Brownian motion? Curvature is |y"x' - x"y'| / speed^3, but both the numerator and denominator are dependent on velocity and should cancel each other out, right? Thus any correlation between curvature and velocity should be due to non-random behavior-- is this correct? 137.54.30.45 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You have already asked this question on the Math desk. Please don't ask a question in more than one place. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

|}

I don't recall cross-posting being prohibited-- people suggest that all the time. 137.54.30.45 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

People frequently suggest moving a question to a different reference desk, or repeating a question on an article's talk page, but people who contribute here regularly never suggest asking a question on multiple ref desks at the same time. Looie496 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Converting a density into Daltons/A^2

Hi all, I have a density that's listed as 200 Kg/(mol * Ų). How would I convert this to Daltons/Ų? I'm a little confused, because 1 Kg is 6.02e+26 Daltons, but what's 1 Kg/mol? In Molar mass it says a Dalton is 1 g/mol, so is 1 Kg/mol just 1000 Daltons? So is the above 200,000 Daltons/Ų? Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A Dalton is just the name given to the otherwise nameless unit that measures the atomic mass. Most basic chemistry books will use g/mol instead of daltons in order to make it easier to convert to grams. Therefore 200 Kg/mol * 1000 grams/1 Kg will give you 200,000 grams/mol or 200,000 daltons. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've got it now, working backwards from the mass of a mole of Carbon atoms. — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On Superman breaking and entering

Let's say Superman pulls on the handle of a locked, standard-commercial-grade steel door. Since we're talking about Superman, he keeps pulling with sufficient force until it breaks open. My question is - which part of the door breaks first? Is it the lock? The hinges? The door frame? The door itself?

For the sake of context, let's say that the door is set in a wall made out of reinforced concrete, at least a foot thick. The frame of the door is probably metal, same as the door itself.

What do you think? Any guesses? --Brasswatchman (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Very likely the handle breaks. There's no need to frame this question in terms of fantasy -- you're really just asking what is the weakest point on a steel door. The answer of course will depend on the specific type of door, but my guess is that for most types the handle will come off before anything else breaks. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I just figured the thought experiment aspect might help the literalists out there. Okay, the handle being weakest makes sense. Switching things around, then - let's say he pushes against the door. What would you guess is the next weakest part? --Brasswatchman (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mythbusters did a test of trying to bash in a locked door to see what would happen. I don't remember the specifics of how the door was built, by the locks broke before the door or its frame, with the exception of one hotel privacy lock that they installed with stronger-than-standard screws. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Location of Big Bang

If "we" know the trajectories of all the matter then do "we" also know where the center point location of the big bang is today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Although this depends on the shape of the universe, it is entirely consistent with modern cosmology that there wasn't a location of the big bang. Although the big bang is often represented as an explosion into empty space, this is utterly inaccurate. At the moment of the big bang, there was no empty space to explode into. The big bang was everywhere, and things have been getting apart ever since. There is no center of the universe from which we are still hurtling away. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the Big Bang was not the expansion of matter into space, it was the expansion of space itself. Therefore EVERY point in space is the location of the Big Bang. hajatvrc @ 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But we are hurtling away from somewhere and to somewhere else, right? we haven't been hurtling away from somewhere forever...165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

From our vantage point, everything is hurtling away from us. From our vantage point, if you look at the trajectories of every other object in the universe, they're all moving exactly as you would expect if we had been the center of an explosion. Yet it looks that way from every other vantage point as well. — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The are those trajectories considered an illusion, since we know that can't be?165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No if you were on the surface of a balloon, everything would be moving away from you, from every point....the universe is a 3-d version of that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Of an expanding balloon, that is. — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang is cannot be looked at as having a location because before the Big Bang there was no such thing as location. Location, or coordinates, is a method of defining something in terms of everything around it. We can describe the location of Earth because we can say Earth is so far away from this point or that point. No method that we have discovered can describe a location for the big bang, and there probably is no method. hajatvrc @ 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no more than it is an "illusion" that the sun gets farther away from us when we are moving towards the furthest point in our orbit. You can measure the trajectory of the sun with regards to us, and that trajectory is perfectly valid from our frame of reference. When we move towards the apex of our orbit, who is moving, us or the sun? Who is to say? There's no "fixed point" in Space where you can measure everything from. This is a big part of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. — Sam 63.138.152.202 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the balloon analogy, however, isn't it more like we are the surface of the balloon? Beings and planets and galaxies surely don't exist outside the fabric of space, and as far as we can tell, (correct me if I'm wrong) space expands at the same rate everywhere. The only reason the relative distance between two given objects (e.g., the sun and the earth) remains constant is that gravity is holding them together against the force of the expansion. This is less relevant on an intergalactic scale, so explains the seemingly ubiquitous red shift we see when looking outside the Milky Way. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But the balloon was initially not filled with air located at some central location that can be extrapolated to have been "inside" the inflated balloon. How can this phenomenon be related to the big bang?165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking in too many dimensions. Imagine a world in which you can only experience two dimensions, but exists on the surface of a balloon. You don't notice that it's a balloon because every particle is stuck firmly to its surface. Light simply curves around the balloon as it moves, giving the illusion that you are on a flat plane. At the "beginning" of this ballooniverse, the balloon was completely deflated, and the entire surface was crunched into a point of infinite density. Then the balloon began inflating in its own big bang. Every point on the surface is moving away from every other point in its 2-dimensional perspective, the big bang effectively occurred "everywhere". You'll also notice that this universe does not have a center, or at least not one that's reachable by anything it contains. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an analogy. The universe is not a balloon at all. The way things move apart from each other is like the way that dots on the surface of a balloon would move apart if it were being expanded. — Sam 63.138.152.139 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Camel humps and dehydration

I understand that fat in camel humps is metabolized to produce water, saving them from dehydration during dry periods.

1) Do humans produce water from their own fat, too ?

2) If so, why do people who still have fat on them die of dehydration ?

3) Do we metabolize it too slowly and/or need water faster than this mechanism can provide ?

4) Would an obese person be able to avoid dehydration longer than a skinny person (neglecting the tendency of the extra fat to overheat them and make them sweat more) ?

StuRat (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)