Revision as of 06:25, 6 February 2006 editPilatus (talk | contribs)3,090 edits →What is the condition for a particle to be relativistic?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:01, 25 December 2024 edit undoScsbot (talk | contribs)Bots239,613 edits edited by robot: archiving December 10 | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--- Please DO NOT enter your question at the top here. Put it at the bottom of the page. An easy way to do this is by clicking the "new section" tab ---><noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/S}} | |||
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|] or ]|Science}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] </noinclude> | |||
= February 1 = | |||
What about February 1st? This question no verb--] 02:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The date header is added (as a level 1 header) to provide a navigational convenience by date. Please don't change it (and it is not a question). -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::But if February 1st 'was' a question, what question would it be? '''''Hmmmmm???''''' --Anonymous and silly, 04:05 UTC | |||
:::"What is one half of the ]?" - 21! ] | ] 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: I've never understood why we call our article that. What do we mean by "the answer to life" (etc)? Douglas Adams wrote about "The Answer to ''The Ultimate Question of'' Life, the Universe and Everything". ] 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I suppose you could suggest a pagename change to ], which might be more correct. I'm not sure if a decision was made long ago to shorten the actual title, considering the '''bolding''' at the top of the page is identical to what you just quoted. Perhaps they decided to go with the shorter name and figured it didn't matter as long as all the redirects work properly. ] | ] 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::It seems more likely that the page was originally created with that title, and no-one ever got around to changing it. You could post a move request at ] for it; I can think of no reason to oppose such a move. —] <small>(])</small> 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Thanks, I'll do that. Cheers ] 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
As usual my memory doesn't serve me well, but thinking in the context of the story I'm pretty sure that the first mention of ''The Answer'' was just as ''The Ultimate Answer to Life...''. It wasn't until they had the answer that they started looking for the question, and then they started talking about the answer not just as ''The Answer'', but as ''The Answer to the Ultimate Question...'' (to emphasise the fact that the question was almost as important as the answer). That being said, the article is strange though, with the article space and the title different as it is. ]] 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Birth Control Pills == | |||
What would happen if a man took birth control pills for women? Would there be any kind of disruption of hormones? | |||
*he might be able to get pregnant, for reference, please see the featured article ], for more details--] 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= December 13 = | |||
:Taking ]s would cause a disruption in hormones, particularly ] and ]. While probably not identical to the doses used in oral contraceptives, the article on ] may be a good starting point for learning about the potential effects of a man taking BC pills on a long-term basis. --] (]) 04:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== What is the most iconic tornado photo == | |||
Of course it would "disrupt hormones". Birth control pills would suppress your ]s, lower your ] level, raise your ] level, shrink your ] and grow you some ]. But it's your bod. ] 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|Request for opinions}} | |||
What photo of a tornado would you say is the most iconic? I'm researching the history of tornado photography for an eventual article on it and I've seen several specific tornadoes pop up over and over again, particularly the ] and the "dead man walking" shot of the ]. Which would be considered more iconic? ] | ] | ] 17:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:At the top of this page is a bullet point stating "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate": this reads to me like a request for subjective opinions. Perhaps you would like to consider what quantifiable and referenceable metric would answer what you want to know? | |||
:I do remember this case report where some dude was drinking his girlfriends' urine (they all took the pill) and eventually presented at the hospital with ]. H. Vierhapper, P. Novotny, Lancet 1999, 353, 640. ] 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Presumably you also want only real tornadoes considered? Otherwise some might nominate the the twister from ], or from more recent tornado-related movies – ], anyone? :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Apparently many kg of excreted OCPs enter the water system of every major city each day. OCPs are the most pervasively detectable pharmaceutical agent in the environment. ] 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:"Swegle Studios" has a couple of YouTube videos dedicated to the backstories of famous tornado photos and video; you might find them useful in your research. , . ] (]) 18:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I googled "most iconic tornado photo" and a bunch of different possibilities popped up. I don't see how you could say that any given photo is the "most iconic". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Splenda/Equal/Sweet+Low and Tooth Decay == | |||
{{hab}} | |||
Do Splenda, Equal, or Sweet and Low cause tooth decay like sugar? | |||
= December 15 = | |||
Splenda = ]; Equal = ]; Sweet and Low = ]. So no, no, and no. - ] 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== help to identify ] == | |||
:Are you suggesting that they're not bad for the teeth because they're not sugars? That's a rather wild assumption. Anything synthetic (assuming that they are) is something that the body hasn't adapted to in evolution and is therefre likely to have some negative effect (possibly in the long run). Whether the teeth will be affected is a different matter, but assuming they won't is a bit of a stretch. ] 11:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::No, I'm stating that they don't "cause tooth decay like sugar". You (the one who doesn't know whether or not they are synthetic), are the one making wild inappropriate logical leaps here, not I. In the case of sucralose, there were a series of actual studies demonstrating it didn't cause tooth decay, which is the reason the FDA approved it. - ] 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
] in New South Wales Australia]] Did I get species right? Thanks. ] (], ]) 06:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] has a nice gross picture. The synthetic sugars could rot other parts of your body, but the little bugs that chew on your teeth need natural sugars. --] 13:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:related: https://species.wikimedia.org/Wikispecies:Village_Pump#help_to_identify_species ] (], ]) 06:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Decay-causing oral bacteria require sugars for their nutrition. Non-nutritive sweeteners such as Splenda do not provide nutrition-- either to humans or to oral bacteria; they do not promote tooth decay. Equal (aspartame) is, technically speaking, a nutritive sweetener-- but oral bacteria do not have the capability of metabolizing it, and it does not cause tooth decay. And Sweet 'N Low, while predominantly composed of sodium saccharin, also contains lactose, which is nutritive, but in such low amounts as to make it for all practical purposes non-nutritive and non-cariogenic (does not promote tooth decay).--] 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:FWIW, I can't detect any visible differences between the plant in this photo and the ones illustrated in the ] and the ] articles. However, the latter makes it clear that ''Polygala'' is a large genus, and is cultivated, with hybrids, so it's possible that this one could be a close relative that differs in ways not visible here, such as in the bark or roots. That may or may not matter for your purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 10:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== why eye focus changes light colour == | |||
== How to address changes to taxonomy == | |||
When looking at certain light sources and changing the varying the focus of one's eyes, it is possible to notice a change in the percieved colour of the light. For example, a white light will appear yellow if underfocused (focal point behind source). What causes this phenomenon? -nshty mcnshterson ] 06:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi all, | |||
:I'm not an ] or any sort of eye expert whatsoever, so I can't give a good answer to your question. However, I just tried this myself, and I didn't notice any yellow at all. My experiment involved holding a small black plastic object close to my eye, focusing on it, with a white piece of paper behind it, unfocused. To me, the white paper remained white. The best answer I can give is that the yellow you are seeing is an ] of something else you may have looked at previously. However, I might be wrong. -- ] (]) 11:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I am a biology student brand new to wiki editing who is interested in cleaning up small articles/stubs for less known taxa. One that I've encountered is a mushroom that occurs in the pacific northwest ('']''). The article mentions that this fungus is occasionally mistaken for another fungus, '']''. <br> | |||
However, the issue I've run into is that ''F. pinicola'' used to be considered a single species found around the world, but relatively recently was split into a few different species. The original name was given to the one that occurs in Europe, and the one in the pacific northwest (and thus could be mistaken for ''F. ochracea'') was given the name '']''. | |||
:I tried it too and didn't notice anything. I used a lightbulb as a source because you say 'certain light sources'. Which ones? I thought that maybe the soure has a yellow hue, but when the background is dark the contrast will make it appear as white. But of course that has nothing to do with fodus (has it?). Could you be more specific (also known here as "suitly emphazi") so we can reproduce the experiment more precisely? ] 11:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
<br> | |||
The wiki page says <blockquote><p>Historically, this fungus has been misidentified as ''F. pinicola.'' When both species are immature, they can look very similar, but can be distinguished by lighting a match next to the surface of the fungus. ''F. pinicola'' will boil and melt in heat, while F. ochracea will not.</p></blockquote> | |||
<br>Since the source says ''pinicola'' (as likely do most/all other sources of this info given the change was so recent), and since technically it's true that they used to be mistaken for it... what would be the most appropriate way to modernize that section? | |||
<br> | |||
<B>My questions are</b>: | |||
:There is something called spherical aberration which causes the outer edge of a lens to act like a prism. This might have something to do with it. | |||
Should I replace ''F. pinicola'' with ''F. mounceae''? Or is that wrong because the source doesn't refer to it by that name? Would it be better to write something like (now known as/considered ''F. mounceae'') next to the first mention of the species? Or is that a poor choice because it implies all the members of ''F. pinicola'' were renamed ''F. mounceae''? | |||
<br> | |||
Any advice on how to go about updating this section is incredibly appreciated | |||
== Astronomy == | |||
<br> | |||
] (]) 10:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::First, take these sorts of questions to the relevant Wikiproject, in this case ]. I am not as familiar with the consensus at ], but it seems like they defer to '']'' and ] to decide. Those sources presently seem to consider '']'' a good species. Also, be careful about "replacing", there are rules to ensure the continuity of the article history. By the way, there is a hilarious but unencyclopedic/copyvio recipe appended to the '']'' article. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the tips, I didn't know about projects so I'll go read up on that. And thanks for the warnings about replacing things. I've been reading a lot of help pages, but I'm still in the process of learning the all conventions and what mechanics break if you do things the wrong way. | |||
::::I actually saw the recipe ages ago before I made my account and completely forgot about it... it was one of many things that prompted me to get into wiki editing. ] (]) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Does stopping masturbation lead to sperm DNA damage? == | |||
I am studying in 10th class in India and want to have a carreer in Astronomy. So please suggest want I should do next year. | |||
I'm looking for information on the potential link between the frequency of ejaculation (specifically through masturbation) and sperm DNA damage. I've come across some conflicting information and would appreciate it if someone could point me towards reliable scientific studies or reviews that address this topic. | |||
: Physics and maths, and make sure your English is good? ] (]) 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Specifically, I'm interested in whether prolonged periods of abstinence from ejaculation might have any negative effects on sperm DNA integrity. Any insights or links to relevant research would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 17:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: You can check the criteria for admissions into ] from its official website. Also the ] has several centres, you can go to the official ISRO site. ] 09:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Only males may abstain from sperm-releasing ] that serves to flush the genital tract of old sperm that in any case will eventually dissipate. No causal relationship between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder has been found but abstinence may be thought or taught]]] to increase the chance of wanted conception during subsequent intercourse. ] (]) 00:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::There's many rumors about that topic. One is that not ejaculating frequently increases the risk of developing ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 01:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Nothing really conclusive but there's some evidence that short periods are associated with lower DNA fragmentation, see<small> | |||
:* {{Cite journal |last=Du |first=Chengchao |last2=Li |first2=Yi |last3=Yin |first3=Chongyang |last4=Luo |first4=Xuefeng |last5=Pan |first5=Xiangcheng |date=10 January 2024 |title=Association of abstinence time with semen quality and fertility outcomes: a systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13583 |journal=Andrology |language=en |volume=12 |issue=6 |pages=1224–1235 |doi=10.1111/andr.13583 |issn=2047-2919}} | |||
:* {{Cite journal |last=Hanson |first=Brent M. |last2=Aston |first2=Kenneth I. |last3=Jenkins |first3=Tim G. |last4=Carrell |first4=Douglas T. |last5=Hotaling |first5=James M. |date=16 November 2017 |title=The impact of ejaculatory abstinence on semen analysis parameters: a systematic review |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5845044/ |journal=Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics |language=en |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=213 |doi=10.1007/s10815-017-1086-0 |issn=2047-2919 |pmc=5845044 |pmid=29143943}} | |||
:* {{Cite journal |last=Ayad |first=Bashir M. |last2=Horst |first2=Gerhard Van der |last3=Plessis |first3=Stefan S. Du |last4=Carrell |first4=Douglas T. |last5=Hotaling |first5=James M. |date=14 October 2017 |title=Revisiting The Relationship between The Ejaculatory Abstinence Period and Semen Characteristics |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5641453/ |journal=International Journal of Fertility & Sterility |language=en |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=238 |doi=10.22074/ijfs.2018.5192 |issn=2047-2919 |pmc=5641453 |pmid=29043697}} | |||
:</small> | |||
:for example. ] (] • ]) 02:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Mature sperm cells do not have ] capability.<sup></sup> Inevitably, as sperm cells get older, they will naturally and unavoidably be subject to more and more ]. Obviously, freshly produced spermatozoa will, on average, have less DNA damage. It is reasonable to assume that the expected amount of damage is proportional to the age of the cells, which is consistent with what studies appear to find. Also, obviously, the more the damage is to a spermatozoon fertilizing an oocyte, the larger the likelihood that the ] in the resulting zygote, which does have DNA repair capability, will be incomplete. The studies I've looked at did not allow me to assess how much this is of practical significance. --] 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 16 = | |||
:: See also, ], ], ]. They would all have good Astronomy departments. But right now, focus on Physics and Maths. ] (]) 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:In India, you cant specialize in Astronomy at this early stage. It would be a good idea to do your 11th and 12ths with Physics, Chemistry and Maths. That way you'll be eligible for all Engineering and Physics courses for the undergrads. I'm a final year Physics Undergrad from India, I'll specialize in Condensed Matter Physics. But, as far as I can see, I still have the option of going into Astronomy open. So, doing a B.Sc. with a Physics major might be an option for you? Where are you from?--] 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Remember that while popular consumer astronomy is all the pretty visual pictures of the heavens, real astronomy includes radar and other non-visual aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum. Many nations are active in space. Is India one of them? ]|] 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thanks to those who answered my ], I think it should be added to a disambiguation page. If anyone wants to help me write that, reach out. | |||
::Yes, it is. See ]. That said, they are different fields with only a certain degree of overlap. --] 11:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
A sandpile seems disorganized and inert, but these are critically self-organizing. Do the frequency and size of disturbances on sand dunes and snowy peaks follow power law distribution? | |||
== Keyframes in video == | |||
] (]) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Shouldn't this be at the Math Desk? <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 05:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If the question is not about the model mentioned in the heading but about the physical properties of sand dunes and snowy peaks, this here is the right section of the Reference desk. --] 08:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I await a non-mathematical answer. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It depends is probably a fairly reasonable non-mathematical answer for these kinds of systems. For sand dunes anyway, sometimes avalanche frequency is irregular and the size distribution follows a power law, and sometimes it's close to periodic and the avalanches span the whole system. It seems there are multiple regimes, and these kinds of systems switch between them. ] (]) 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thank you! I'm impressed this seems so casual, but surely you read this somewhere that might have a URL? | |||
:::::] (]) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hi, this is an interesting and somewhat open question! A lot of work is done on these models but much less on careful analyses of real dunes. I did find that is freely accessible and describes some physical experiments and how well they fit various models. The general answer seems to be that the power law models are highly idealized, and determining the degree to which any real system's behavior is predicted by the model ahead of time is very difficult. Update: and it does include discussion of how well the model fits experiments.] (]) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Q :What is importance of keyframe in video encoding? <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | |||
::That dissertation is great! | |||
::] (]) 22:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Polar night == | |||
: <small>(heading inserted) ] (]) 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
Are there any common or scientific names for types of polar night? The types that I use are: | |||
:According to the article ]: ''in ], a key frame is a frame encoded without reference to any images in another frame.'' | |||
* ''polar night'' - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below horizon entire day (there is no daylight at solar noon, only civil twilight), occurring poleward from 67°24′ north or south | |||
* ''civil polar night'' - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -6° entire day (there is no civil twilight at solar noon, only nautical twilight), occurring poleward from 72°34′ north or south | |||
* ''nautical polar night'' - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -12° entire day (there is no nautical twilight at solar noon, only astronomical twilight), occurring poleward from 78°34′ north or south | |||
* ''astronomical polar night'' - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -18° entire day (there is no astronomical twilight at solar noon, only night), occurring poleward from 84°34′ north or south | |||
These names were changed on ] article, and I wnat to know whether these named I listed are in use in any scientific papers, or in common language. (And I posted that question here and not in language desk because I think that this is not related to language very tightly.) | |||
:So, one advantage of key frame is that it prevents encoding errors from accummulating over time. It kinda has a "refresh" effect in terms of video quality. The trade-off is that more data bits are required to encode that frame. I'm not sure if there are any other advantages. --] 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Some definitions at from the ]. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Keyframes also make seeking faster, since the player doesn't need to process all frames before the current frame to find out the state of it. With keyframes evenly spaced, you'd just need to start seeking from last keyframe up. ☢ ]⌇] 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::These seem to be generalizable as: X polar night is a period, lasting not less than 24 hours, during which the sun remains below the horizon and there is no X twilight. The specific definitions depend then on the specific definitions of ]/]/]. These can be defined with a subjective observational standard or with an (originally experimentally determined) objective standard. --] 10:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::FWIW, I as a former amateur astronomer have never previously thought about the question of ''Polar'' twilight and night nomenclatures, but immediately and completely understood what the (previously unencountered) terms used in the query must mean without having to read the attached descriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 17 = | |||
:A little clarification to help you understand the above answers. Most frames (in ], anyway) are defined in terms of other frames. Oversimplified, if a piece of the image doesn't change from one frame to the next, you don't need to record it twice but just say 'do that again'. But since video is real-time, keeping up with the tempo is more important than getting the image exactly right. So errors are allowed. If you wouldn't 'reset' every now and then you'd get an ever increasingly garbled image. By the way, lossless compression like ] is better for video editing because it has all the frames complete (it's a sequence of complete ] images), so you can create a cut at any frame, not just a key frame. The big drawback is that it requires much bigger files. ] 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== differential equations with complex coefficients == | |||
::One quibble: I really doubt that ] is lossless, as it's based on ] which is lossy. ] / ] 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
In an intro ODE class one basically studies the equation <math>\dot x=Ax</math> where x is a real vector and A is a real matrix. A typically has complex eigenvalues, giving a periodic or oscillating solution to the equation. That is very important in physics, which has various sorts of harmonic oscillators everywhere. If A and x are complex instead of real, mathematically the ODE theory works out about the same way. I don't know what happens with PDE's since I haven't really studied them. | |||
== Doctor advice == | |||
My question is whether the complex case is important in physics the way the real case is. Can one arrive at it through straightforward coordinate transformations? Do the complex eigenvalues "output" from one equation find their way into the "input" of some other equation? Does the distance metric matter? I.e. in math and old-fashioned physics we use the Euclidean metric, but in realtivity one uses the Minkowski metric, so I'm wondering if that leads to complex numbers. This is all motivated partly by wondering where all the complex numbers in quantum mechanics come from. Thanks. ] (]) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Okay, let's say your a doctor and a teenage girl is having seisures, what sort of stuff would you do to find out what is wrong? Blood tests? X Rays? | |||
:Take her to a doctor who doesn't need to ask the Misplaced Pages reference desk for advice :) — ] | ] 12:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Perhaps I don't understand what you are getting at but simple harmonic motion is xdot=j*w*x where w is angular frequency and j is i ] (]) 00:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It depends. If you are seeing her have a seizure in front of you, you can see what kind of seizure it is, and treat it if needed. On the other hand, if she comes into your office and tells you she has been having seizures, you discuss what kind of seizures they were, with her and with anyone who may have seen her having an actual seizure; you discuss her medical history, and perhaps her family history. A physical and neurological examination is in order. Blood tests might be useful, but in the absence of a severe electrolyte abnormality, they are not likely to determine a cause for seizures. A CT-scan or MRI of the brain might be of use; an EEG might be of use, but the first step is a good history of the illness: determining if the illness is actually seizures or something else, and if so, what type of seizure (e.g. generalized or partial) they may be. - ] 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:If PDEs count, the ] and the ] are examples of differential equations in the complex domain. A linear differential equation of the form <math>\dot x=Ax</math> on the complex vector space <math>\mathbb{C}^n</math> can be turned into one on the real vector space <math>\mathbb{R}^{2n}</math>. For a very simple example, using <math>n=1,</math> the equation <math>\begin{bmatrix}\dot z\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}i\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}z\end{bmatrix}</math> can be replaced by | |||
::<math>\begin{bmatrix}\dot x\\\dot y\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}0&-1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\end{bmatrix}.</math> | |||
: --] 01:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Shouldn't this be at the Math Desk? It almost seems like the IP could be trolling, given the same question just above. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The question whether the complex case is important <u>in physics</u> the way the real case is, is not a maths issue. IMO the Science section is the best choice. I do not see another post that asks the same or even a related question. --] 21:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Just as above, I await a non-mathematical answer to this question. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 07:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks all. Greglocock, your SHO example is 1-dimensional but of course you can have a periodic oscillator (such as a planetary orbit) in any orientation in space, you can have damped or forced harmonic oscillators, etc. Those are all described by the same matrix equation. The periodic case means that the matrix eigenvalues are purely imaginary. The damped and forced cases are where there is a real part that is negative or positive respectively. Abductive, of course plenty of science questions (say about how to calculate an electron's trajectory using Maxwell's equations) will have mathematical answers, and the science desk is clearly still the right place for them, as they are things you would study in science class rather than math class. Lambiam, thanks, yes, PDE's are fine, and of course quantum mechanics uses complex PDE's. What I was hoping to see was a situation where you start out with real-valued DEs in some complicated system, and then through some coupling or something, you end up with complex-valued DEs due to real matrices having complex eigenvalues. Also I think the Minkowski metric can be treated like the Euclidean one where the time coordinate is imaginary. But I don't know how this really works, and Misplaced Pages's articles about such topics always make me first want to go learn more math (Lie algebras in this case). Maybe someday. ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for your help Nunh huh, but QuantumEleven, I'm not a doctor, I'm just very interested, I'm 13, might be more careful how you answer | |||
= December 18 = | |||
:I apologise - my remark was flippant and didn't really help to answer your question. Next time, I'll keep my mouth shut, or at least say something constructive... — ] | ] 13:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Why don't all mast radiators have top hats? == | |||
::Take a look at our article on ]s. There are several possible causes that must be analyzed. ☢ ]⌇] 12:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
]Our ] article describes a device called a "top hat" which increases the range for mast radiators that can't be built tall enough. | |||
:I tend to agree with the flippant advice, if this is one of those 'my friend has this' situations. If you have witnessed a seizure of a young friend (or yourself), it is not 'ratting' to talk to an adult, or to see a doctor. --] 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::And talking to an adult might be especially important if you think she might be using drugs or unprescribed medicine, as that is certainly a potential cause of seizures in a young adult. - ] 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
So, why would you bother building a mast radiator without a top hat? Couldn't you just build it shorter with the top hat, and save steel? ] (]) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I think QuantumEleven was just making a joke, maybe not in very good taste, but i thought it was mildly amusing when I saw the :) at the end. | |||
:The main source cited in our article states, "{{tq|Top loading is less desirable than increased tower height but is useful where towers must be electrically short due to either extremely low carrier frequencies or to aeronautical limitations. Top loading increases the base resistance and lowers the capacitive base reactance, thus reducing the ''Q'' and improving the bandwidth of towers less than 90° high.}}"<sup></sup> If "reducing the {{serif|''Q''}}" is an undesirable effect, this is a trade-off design issue in which height seems to be favoured if circumstances permit. --] 21:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Woah, woah woah, I don't have a friend or anything with this problem, I'm just interested because I'm a teenager and I'm doing RPGs on doctor stuff and I'm interested in what would help recover or find out what is wrong | |||
== Name of our solar system == | |||
:I don't believe the first priority would be blood tests or x-rays, though a doctor might do some of that too. You'd probably suspect that the subject became ] due to some sort of trauma (like smashing your head on a sink) and so you'd want to look into the brain (like a brain ] or ]) to see if you can find something wrong, as well as asking if the patient had smashed her head into a sink in the last white (or something like that). I'm not sure but I don't think a doctor can be 100% sure of their analysis unless they actually scan a seizure event. There are other causes but that's by far the most common, I'd say. ]] 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Is our star system officially called "Sol", or is that just something that came from science fiction and then became ubiquitous? ] (]) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Did you look up ] and ]? You will find most of your answers there. First of all, the doctor would need to determine that the "seizure" was in fact an actual seizure (and not ] or a ] for example). An ] could help confirm that there had been a recent seizure. Blood tests would be useful to determine if there was a metabolic disorder causing the seizures (for example, ], ], etc.). A ] or ] could determine if there was a structural cause (eg. a ]) for the seizure. ] 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's called the ], and its star is called Sol, from Latin via French. Hence terms like "solstice", which means "sun stands still" in its apparent annual "sine wave" shaped path through the sky. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Via French? According to the OED, it came direct from Latin.<sup></sup> --] 11:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
::::Old French plus Latin. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also in Old French, the word meaning "sun" was '']''. --] 23:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Let's say {{fact}} to that claim. The star is indeed called Sol if you're speaking Latin, but in English it's the Sun (or sun). Of course words like "solar" and "solstice" derive from the Latin name, but using "Sol" to mean "the Sun" does seem to be something from science fiction. --] (]) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"Sol" is occasionally used to mean the Sun by astronomers. I feel like it is used in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish our experience with the Sun here on Earth, such as sunsets, from more "sterile" aspects of the Sun one might experience off the Earth. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 08:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Being an astronomer myself, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "Sol" outside of a science fiction context. --] (]) 09:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Scientific articles that use the term Sol; and . These are rather speculative but as I mentioned, the usage is for off-planet situations. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 13:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Using Sol, Terra and Luna to refer to the Sun, Earth and Moon only happens if you write your entire article in Latin and in science fiction, not in regular science articles. They are capitalised though. Just as people write about a galaxy (one of many) or the Galaxy (the Milky Way Galaxy, that's our galaxy). The Solar System is also capitalised. ] (]) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The article says "Sol" is the "personification" of the sun. Google Image the term "old Sol" and you'll see plenty of images of the sun with a face, not just Sci-Fi stuff. And "Luna" is obviously the basis for a number of words not connected with Sci-Fi. Lunar orbit, lunar module, etc. And the term "terra firma" has often been used in everyday usage. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::: And yet, if you ask 1,000 people "What's that big yellow thing up in the sky called?", you'll get 1,000 "the Sun"s and zero "Sol"s. Yes, in specialised contexts, Sol is used; but that doesn't justify saying our solar system's star "is called Sol" without any qualification, as if that were the normal, default term. It's not. -- ] </sup></span>]] 12:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::And after you've gotten that response, ask them why it isn't the "Sunner System". And why a sun room attached to a house isn't called a "sunarium". And why those energy-gathering plates on some roofs are not called "sunner panels". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::What does that have to do with anything? The question was 'Is our star system ''officially'' called "Sol"?' (my emphasis). The answer is it is not. And that does not preclude other terms being derived from Latin ''sol'' (or, often enough, from Greek ''helios''), nobody denies that, it is irrelevant to the question. --] (]) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::The problem is that the OP's question contains false premises. One is the question of what the "official" name is. There is no "official" name. It's the "conventional" name. And the second part, claiming that "Sol" comes from Sci-fi, is demonstrably false. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Then demonstrate (that the usage of "Sol" as a name for the Sun, in English, not its use to derive adjectives, originated outside of SF), with references. The original question does not even include any premises, with maybe the exception of "ubiquitous". --] (]) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::"Is our star system officially called "Sol" , or is that just something that came from science fiction and then became ubiquitous? ". And the wording of your own question, just above, does not make sense. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing colloquial references to "old Sol" (meaning the sun) as far back as the 1820s. No hint of sci-fi derivation. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::Great! Well done. --] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::Feel free to box up this section. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::The 1933 OED entry for ''Sol'', linked to above, gives several pre-SF uses, the earliest from 1450. --] 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Yes, of course, but that's not surprising, is it? 15th century humanists, astrologers and pre-Victorian poets liked to sprinkle their texts with Latin words. But I don't think this is what the question is about. It's a matter of context, but it should be up to OP to clarify that. --] (]) 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::It's not surprising, but the discussion was not whether the use of ''Sol'' in English texts is surprising, but whether it originated outside of SF. --] 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::In my view, the question has a clear scifi bent, and that particular usage ("Where shall we go for our vacation? Alpha Centauri or Sol?") does not originate in the 15th century. The word is much older, of course it is, but the usage is not. In the 15th century people didn't even know that the Sun is just an ordinary star and could do with a particular name to distinguish it from the others. The connotations of ''sol'' were vastly different from what they are today and from what is implied in OP's question. Incidentally, the ] doesn't even define a name , although they recommend using capitalised "Sun". Certainly no "Sol" anywhere. --] (]) 12:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{small|Does that make it a Sol-ecism? ] (]) 12:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:::::::::<small>More like a ]. Meaning a factory where suns are made. From Sol = sun, and ipso = facto. Thus endeth the entymogology lesson for today. Go in peace to love and serve whomsoever. -- ] </sup></span>]] 19:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
== Mountains == | |||
== Statistics on Computer Science degrees == | |||
Why there are no mountains on Earth with a height above 10,000 m? As the death zone is about at 8,000 m, and above 19,000 m, there is an Armstrong limit, where water boils at normal human body temperature, it is good that there are no more mountains higher than 8,000 km than just 14, but if there were hundreds of mountains above 9,000 m, then these were bad to climb. If there were different limits for death zone and Armstrong limit, would then there be possible to have higher mountains? I have just thought that, it is not a homework? --] (]) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Where's the best place to start looking for statistics about how many people have received degrees in computer science (BSc, MSc, PhD, etc.) per year since, say, the 1980s? --] 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:There are ] that are over 20km high. Given that some of those are on airless worlds, I don't think the air pressure has any bearing on it. ] (]) 22:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Actually... nevermind! I found just after posting this. --] 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Multiple sources from web searching suggest the ''theoretical'' maximum height for mountains on Earth is around 15,000 m – the limiting factor is ]; the higher (therefore more voluminous) a mountain is, the more its weight causes the crust beneath it to sink. The actual heights of mountains are a trade-off between how fast tectonic movements can raise them versus isostatic sinking ''and'' how quickly they are eroded, and tectonic movements do not last for ever. See also ]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Sneeze == | |||
::And erosion goes faster as the mountain gets higher, in particular when it's high enough to support glaciers – one reason why mountains can get higher on an airless world. Now it gets interesting for a mountain high enough to reach into the stratosphere, as it would be too dry to have anything but bare rock. I suppose it would locally raise the tropopause, preventing that. ] (]) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 19 = | |||
Why do adults sneeze so much louder compared to children, or compared to when they were younger? It seems to get louder as one gets older. Thanks. ] 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Possibly because the average size of the lungs, sinuses, etc. is larger would be my guess.... ]|] 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Though this counts as original research, I think that since adults tend to try to 'hold in' sneezes it actually amplifies the effect of the sneeze; holding it in can build up the 'explosive force' of the sneeze. Me on the other hand, I rarely ever lose control of my sneezes and I can hold them in quite easily, and it still feels almost as good as an orgasm! ]] 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Does human DNA become weaker with each generation? == | |||
:::I wonder what the religious right would make of that. Should you go to hell? Or is it okay if you and your nose are of different genders? ] 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
As with photocopying something over and over, the text becomes less clear each time. | |||
== Alternative to organ donation? == | |||
Does human DNA become weaker with each generation? ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Am I right in saying that the biotechnology of cloning is now advanced far enough to be able to take an individual's cell sample and grow up a new organ, eg heart, liver, lung etc. If so, both donor and recipient would be histocompatible. This therefore potentially solves the problem of looking for donor organs, and the drudgery of renal dialysis for kidney failure patients etc. Or, is this type of human organ cloning currently illegal in the UK ? | |||
:Sure, DNA replication is not perfect, although ] reduces the error rate to about 1 mistake per 10<sup>9</sup> nucleotides (see our article on ]). But that is per generation of cells, not of the whole organisms. Many mutations will be neutral in effect (because much of our DNA is redundant), some will be deleterious, and a few might be advantageous. It is the process of natural selection that hinders the spread of deleterious mutations: sometimes this aspect is called ]. One thus usually expects a stable ] over time rather than that "DNA becomes weaker with each generation". Medical science is reducing the selection pressure against some mutations, which consequently may become more common. One of the problems for asexual organisms is referred to as ]; assuming that reverse mutations are rare, each generation has at least the mutational load of its predecessor. In contrast, in sexual organisms ] generates the variation that, combined with selection, can repair the situation. Sexual organisms consequently have a lighter genetic load. ] (]) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::So ] won't work properly in case of ] ? ] (]) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The larger the degree of inbreeding, the larger the chance that deleterious traits are expressed. But this very expression of traits leading to decreased biological fitness of their bearers is what actually enables purifying selection in the longer term. --] 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] so ] won't stop these deleterious traits to get expressed? ] (]) 14:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, this is not an issue of ]. The genes involved are faithfully reproduced and passed on from generation to generation. --] 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Or stronger e.g. "", and those guys live for centuries and have much more DNA than us. ] (]) 15:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] If not due to DNA damage, why do babies from inbreeding appear like DNA-damaged species? ] (]) 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Inbred offspring of species that normally outcross may show abnormalities because they are more likely than outcrossed offspring to be ] for ] that are deleterious. In individuals that are heterozygous at these loci, the recessive alleles will not be expressed (because the other wild-type dominant allele is sufficient to do their job adequately). See our article on ]. ] (]) 19:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Larvae going south == | |||
:You can grow cell samples in culture but that's a long way from growing complete organs. I think the only way to get a complex organ like a heart or lung is to grow a whole human being in a woman's womb. —] 15:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
In a novel I've just finished ('']'' by ]) he writes: | |||
:The chances are that people are working hard on this and that it will one day be possible. The rewards (both financial and medical) are enormous, so billions will be spent on research. I wouldn't count on much in less than 10-20 years, except for skin (a really important organ: think of burn victims). I suspect livers will come among the first. Other internal organs later; limbs after that. Brain cells are the really interesting one. Even if illegal, that isn't really relevant: if research is legal anywhere it will take place, then there would be huge public pressure to make it legal so people can get their new bits. ] 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* '' leave the body in an orderly fashion, following each other in a neat procession that always heads south. South-east or south-west sometimes, but never north. No-one knows why''. | |||
The author has done considerable international research on the science of forensic identification of decayed bodies and I assume his details can be trusted. | |||
:You might be interested in from the Washington Post. Among other things, it mentions the possibility of growing entire human organs inside other animals. However, this (and almost everything that is in that article) has at least some sort of moral debate attached to it that might slow down research, especially in the ]. - ] | ] 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I've looked online for any verification of this surprising statement, but found only , which seems to debunk it. | |||
:This is one of the reasons that research into ]s is so popular at the moment, because they are the undifferentiated cells that, given the right signals in the embryo, turn themselves into the various organs. Of course, there are ethical dimensions that send certain parts of the population into a tizzy. --] 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Is there any truth to this? -- ] </sup></span>]] 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ah, ''given the right signals in the embryo''. That's what I wanted to say. How the cells differentiate is determined by their biological surroundings and for that you'd need almost a complete human (or animal as EWS23 says - didn't know that). Well, ''almost'' complete. I've heard about the solution of growing a human clone without a brain, which thereofore has no conscience and there wouldn't be any moral problems (...) with 'harvesting organs. But I see one big problem here (correct me if I'm wrong - I am by no means an expert). To avoid rejection you'd want to have as close a relative as possible, in other words, preferably a clone of yourself. But then, when some accident happens and you need an organ you can't usually wait for that to grow. And cloning everyone at birth, just in case, would be a bit too much (for now, anyway). So it might only be used for people with some medical problem that will probably require a transplant later in life. ] 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Can't speak to its truth, but . . . | |||
== Starting PHP == | |||
:* Does Beckett state this in his own auctorial voice (i.e. as an ])? If so, he might be genuinely mistaken. | |||
:* The book was published nearly 20 years ago, what was the accepted wisdom ''then''? | |||
:* What specific species (if any) is the book describing? – your linked Quora discussion refers only to "maggots" (which can be of numerous species and are a kind of larva, but there are many others, including for example ]). | |||
:*Alternatively, if the statement is made by a character in the book, is that character meant to be infallible, or is he portrayed as less than omniscient, or an ']'? | |||
:Regarding the statement, in the Northern hemisphere the arc of South-east to South-west is predominently where the Sun is found well above the horizon, the North never, so the larvae involved might simply be seeking maximum warmth or light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: This appears in the very first paragraph of Chapter I, which starts out: | |||
Hi, | |||
::* ''A human body starts to decompose four minutes after death. Once the encapsulation of life, it now undergoes its final metamorphoses. It begins to digest itself. Cells dissolve from the inside out. Tissue turns to liquid, then to gas. No longer animate, the body becomes an immovable feast for other organisms. Bacteria first, then insects. Flies. Eggs are laid, then hatched. The larvae feed on the nutrient-rich broth, and then migrate. They leave the body in an orderly fashion ...'' (then the quote above completes the paragraph). | |||
:: It's not until para 2 that he starts talking about any human characters, and not until para 4 that he invokes the first person. | |||
:: That's as much as I know. But I find it hard to believe he'd just make up a detail and put it in such a prominent place if it could so easily be debunked if it were not true. -- ] </sup></span>]] 02:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I wonder how they would measure the migratory path of maggots within a sealed coffin. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: The context of the novel is about finding decaying corpses that have been dumped in a forest. No coffins involved. -- ] </sup></span>]] 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::], see also ] research facilities. ] (]) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Could it be that the larvae are setting off in search of another corpse? The prevailing wind in the UK is from the south-west, so by heading into the wind they won't be distracted by the frangrance of the one they've just left. ]|] 09:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
If you can, have a look at 'Heinrich, Bernd. “Coordinated Mass Movements of Blow Fly Larvae (Diptera: Calliphoridae).” Northeastern Naturalist, vol. 20, no. 4, 2013, pp. N23–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43288173.' Here are some extracts | |||
I want to start learning PHP, but I have a couple of questions that I have not been able to find answers to: | |||
* On the fourth day, after a cooling night with dew on the grass, a stream of tens of thousands of larvae exited from beneath the carcass within 1 h after sunrise, and proceeded in a single 1-2-cm-wide column directly toward the rising sun... | |||
*Can I use PHP as a stand-alone programming language on my computer? That is, do I need a server and database and stuff, or can I first program something on my computer (windows and mac) and then move it online? | |||
* However, in this case, the larvae left at night, within 1 h after a cloudburst (at 21 :00 hours). But, unlike before, this nocturnal larval exodus in the rain was diffuse; thousands of larvae spread out in virtually all directions over an 8 m2area. Apparently, the sudden moisture had cued and facilitated the mass exodus, but the absence of sun had prevented a unidirectional, en masse movement. | |||
*(Related) Would I have to change my program if I moved it to a different type of server or database program? | |||
* However, on the following morning as the sun was starting to illuminate the carcass on the dewy grass, masses of larvae gathered at the east end of the carcass at 07:00 hours. In one half hour later, they started streaming in a column directly (within one degree) toward the rising sun, and the carcass was then nearly vacated. | |||
Thanks! --Mary | |||
It goes on. Maggot migration appears to be a bit more complicated than the novel suggests. ] (]) 09:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I suppose you could try to address it from the other direction and look at the technology your average maggot has access to in terms of light detection, heat detection, olfactory systems, orientation in magnetic fields (like many arthropods) etc. They presumably have quite a lot of tools. ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:If orderly migrating maggots tend to move towards the sun, they should display a northward tendency in Oztralia. --] 10:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:PHP is a pretty good interpretted language in itself. You can run PHP scripts, just the way you run any other script. And they wont need to be changed, when you decide to switch to GNU/Linux for example.--] 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Maybe, but the novel is set in England. | |||
:: I must say, as soon as I read the quoted para for the first time, my immediate thought was that it might have something to do with the magnetic field of the earth. -- ] </sup></span>]] 10:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Prime suspect might be the Bolwig organ, the photoreceptor cluster many fly larvae have. ] (]) 10:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Obviously, Jack, you need to create a corpse, place it in a nearby forest, and carefully observe which way the maggots go. For Science! And Literary Criticism! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 21:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 20 = | |||
* has a book on PHP. --] 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Winter solstice and time of sunrise? == | |||
Thanks. What if I want to develop a website which will eventually need a server, database and all that. Can I still just program it right in my computer, without access to an online database? --Mary | |||
:You can program it, but you can't test it locally if you don't have a database. Of course, you could always install a database (such as ]) locally along with ]. --] <small>] ] ]</small> 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
How is it that despite December 21st supposedly being the shortest day of the year, sunrise here happens later and later until December 26 and only on January 05 starts to turn around to occur earlier and earlier. On December 25 it takes place at about 08:44, between December 26 and January 04 it takes place at about 08:45, and on January 05 it takes place again at about 08:44. (Google rounds out the seconds). Is it Google's fault? Is it everywhere the same? Confused in Brussels, Belgium. ] (]) 12:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Running PHP locally can be done by installing a web server like ], which is free. If you are using a Mac with OSX, it already is installed. Basically.. install Apache; install PHP; install MySQL (or whatever database you want). All are free and all can be run from your home computer. | |||
:The pertinent article is ], start with the section ]. The details are not that simple to understand, but it's basically due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit and its axial tilt. --] (]) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:As for portability: it depends on the setup of the server. Each installation of PHP can have different settings. If the settings are the same, programs can be transferred without any difficulty. If they aren't, then you will have problems. An easy way to see the settings is to install PHP and then create a file called "info.php" which contains just the following line: <?php phpinfo(); ?> | |||
::Also note that sunset begins to be later on 22 December so that the time between sunrise and sunset is a few seconds longer than on 21 December (3 seconds longer on 22/12/24 in Brussels according to ). ] (]) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It will output a page like this: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/test.php | |||
::Also see ]. The obliquity of the ecliptic (that is, the Earth's axial tilt) is the main component and hardest to understand. But the idea is that the time when the Sun is exactly south (that is, the true noon) moves some minutes back and forth throughout the year and it moves quite rapidly to later times in late December. ] (]) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The most important settings are to make sure that any libraries you need (i.e., the GD library for image processing, or the PDF library for PDF-related functions) are installed. There are some other issues too (i.e. whether variables passed to a script through a GET protocol are immediately available or whether they have to be assigned from $GET) but at this point you shouldn't worry about them. Long story short: it can be portable, but it might need some tweaking. If the project you are working on requires a specific optional function library, make sure the server you are intending it for will support that. | |||
:Hope that helps a bit. --] 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Three unit questions == | ||
# Why territorial waters are defined by nautical miles instead of kilometers? | |||
I'm in the process of hammering out a new article - ]. Does anybody have the same writer's block that I do? It takes me forever to start. I hammer things out directly on-line, then I format, and wikify, add outside sources, and then add links from other articles. Once I do it, it's fine, but it's just getting in to it that is so difficult. --] 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
# Why GDP is usually measured in US dollars rather than euros? Euro would be better because it is not tied into any country. | |||
: A little help ... same for me! | |||
# Are there any laws in United States that are defined by metric units? | |||
:''(Note to users: There is a just for editing wiki pages.)'' | |||
--] (]) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I open as many pages as I need for references + the ] page. I save once or twice to have the idea and read again (misspellings appear easily in a different font!) | |||
:#There were nautical miles in use before there were kilometers. | |||
:What I suggest is a search feature in the edit forms! Good luck! Take care! --] 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:#There were US dollars in use before there were Euros. | |||
::It's very common for writers and composers to shrink from the act of sitting down and committing their ideas to paper. Having great ideas is one thing, but the spectre of having to write all those words/notes is most unattractive. So just getting started is often a huge challenge (it is for me). That first word is often the hardest of all. The good news is that this barrier can be overcome by writing - one word. ] 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:#Yes. | |||
:I periodically print out the pages I am working on. I circle words and phrases in different colored pens to indicate links found, what should be linked but not yet found article that matches that phraseology, right topic different naming, etc. ]|] 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The questions all reduce to Why can't millions of people make a change of historically widely accepted units that continue to serve their purpose, and convert to different units that would have no substantive difference, because someone has an opinion. ] (]) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Do any people use metric units in marine and air navigation like "The ship is 10 kilometers from the port", "The plane is 10 kilometers from the destination? And is there any European country with metric flight levels? --] (]) 07:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Inland shipping (rivers, canals and lakes) in Europe (except the UK) is fully metric. Ships going for example ] – ] may have to switch units along the way. Gliders and ultralight aircraft in Europe often use metric instruments and airport dimensions are also metric (including runway length). Countries are free to define their territorial waters in whatever way they deem fit, so with nautical miles having no legal status in a fully metric country, they may define their territorial waters as extending 22224 metres. ] (]) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Our ] article says: {{xt|"In 1929 the international nautical mile was defined by the First International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference in Monaco as exactly 1,852 metres (which is 6,076.12 ft). The United States did not adopt the international nautical mile until 1954. Britain adopted it in 1970..."}} | |||
::As the US customary units are actually defined in terms that relate them to metric units, any US law based on measurements is technically defined by metric units.--] (]) (]) 01:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The US dollar has been the world's dominant ] for about 75 years. As for the metric system in the US, it is standard in scientific, medical, electronics, auto manufacturing and other highly technical industries. By law, all packaged foods and beverages have metric quantities as well as customary quantities. See ]. ] (]) 02:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The Wikipaedia article on the Nautical Mile talks about how the term originated, it was originally defined in terms of latitude not as a number of meters ] (]) 10:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 24 = | |||
== Unknown species of insect == | |||
There's a skin disease that makes a person's skin lihter. It literally can change a black skin into a white skin. It perhaps also makes the skin extremely sensitive to the sun light. What is this disease called? Scientific name and other please. | |||
Am I correct in inferring that ] this guy is an ]? I was off-put by the green head at first, but the antennae seem to match. ''']]''' 03:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:]? —] <small>(])</small> 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
(reference: https://www.genesdigest.com/macro/image.php?imageid=168&apage=0&ipage=1) | |||
::Exactly what I was going to post. ] claims that's why his skin is lighter than it used to be. ]|] 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:<s>It looks like one of the invasive ]s that happens to like my blackberries in the summer.</s> ] (]) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::He also claims that it's not so strange that he's white (and his kids are white) because ]s are sometimes called ''colored'' people because that they come in many different colors, and by his reckoning, white! ]] 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I would say not necessarily a Japanese beetle, but almost certainly one of the other ] beetles, though with 35,000 species that doesn't help a lot. Looking at the infobox illustration in that article, 16. & 17., "]" looks very similar, but evidently we either don't have an article or (if our ] article is a complete list) it's been renamed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 14:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] is another condition you might be interested in. It's a lack of pigmentation in the eyes, skin and hair. However, it's much more of a genetic thing and a lot rarer than vitiligo, but still worth a look at. -- ] (]) 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, it's not the Japanese beetle for this beetle appears to lack its white-dotted fringe although its condition is deteriorated. Its shape is also more or less more slender; and not as round. ] (]) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::And it doesn't start developing when you become famous either! ]] 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Perhaps it is the ] ]. Shown . ] (]) 16:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
::That looks like easily the best match I've seen so far, and likely correct. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 25 = | |||
"Michael Jackson is the ultimate example of social mobility in America; he started life as a poor black boy and ended up a rich white woman. He still likes to play with little boys, however." ] 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:How do you know it's bedtime at Michael Jackson's house? When the big hand touches the little hand. ] 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::They would be lucky if only their hands were touched. ] 15:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Brain and Food == | |||
When you are getting ready to eat a piece of pizza describe in detail what parts of the brain are involved and why? | |||
:''"'''Do your own homework''' - if you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers."'' Please review the instructions at the top of the page. To start on answering your question, I'd suggest reviewing our article on the ] and following links from there. ](]) 18:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Sorry for the inconvience,this does not pertain to homework. I am a late thirty's, father of four and this was the topic at our dinner table while eating pizza last night. I was trying to get some insite in order to discuss this further with my inquisitive eight year old son whom asked the question. | |||
Lol. There's a lot of these homework accusations flying around, although I must say it did smack of a homework question! Sorry I can't help... --] 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Let's see. In order to pick up the pizza and get it to your mouth, you have to process the image from your eyes and recognize it as pizza, which involves the ]. Then you have to actually pick it up, which involves using your ] to send signals to your muscles. | |||
:When you smell the pizza, the amazingly complex ] sends a signal, perhaps through the ] and the ], which eventually gets to your ]s and tells them to start making saliva. The parasympathetic nervous system also tells your stomach to start making acid and the smooth muscles of your intestines to get ready to digest the pizza. | |||
:After you've used your motor cortex to tell your jaw muscles to chew the pizza, your ] kicks in with the swallowing reflex. I'm sure I've missed quite a lot of things, but you get the picture. —] 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Apart from the obvious motor activity involved in eating, there is the complex interplay between endocrine and neural function that is behaviorally expressed as hunger and satiety. Various sensory and endocrine parameters (e.g., visual and olfactory input, blood glucose and insulin levels, degree of stomach distension, levels of hormonal peptides such as ], and cholecystekinin) are translated by the hypothalamus into either a sensation of hunger (attributed to the lateral hypothalamus) or satiety (the ]). Of course, all the sensory input is also conveyed through its own pathways, which include the ] and the ] as well.--] 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Providing Oxygen To Domestic Boilers == | |||
How is it ensured that enough air gets into a domestic boiler for gas to burn with a blue flame, whilst at the same time heat loss is minimised? --] 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Hi 132 - I'd guess the important factor is to have a good ] on the exit flue, so that all the heat produced is transferred to the water pipes - ] 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Ok, for sure this is homework! I actually love it when the originator comes back and denies it. Shows that we have reached out and touched someone. That said, this is really the most classic combustion engineering problem, and is a major engineering challenge in designing clean EPA wood stoves. I looked it up because I want to buy one... --] 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Well, sure enough here I am, and you're right, I deny it! I'm a student at Durham University reading Biomedical Science and we don't actually do much combustion engineering, at least not in the third year! (just curious) Thanks, though! --] 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== CSS/JS table hiding == | |||
I am exporting a database to an HTML file in the form of tables. The basic structure will be something like this: | |||
<nowiki> | |||
<table> | |||
<tr><td>Entry 1 title</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td> <table><tr><td>Entry 1 data</td></tr></table></td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>Entry 2 title</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td> <table><tr><td>Entry 2 data</td></tr></table></td></tr> | |||
... | |||
</table> | |||
</nowiki> | |||
and so forth. What I want is to create a little button or something which will cause the data to be shown or hidden via Javascript. I assume this will involve setting some sort of DIV tag or something on the fly. I once knew how to do this but now I'm not so sure. | |||
Any tips as to where to start? If you give me a basic area to pursue I'm happy to do the research on my own. I don't think this should be too difficult but the details elude me. --] 20:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I use this stock code: | |||
var ie4 = false; if(document.all) { ie4 = true; } | |||
function getObject(id) { if (ie4) { return document.all; } else { return document.getElementById(id); } } | |||
function DisplayTable() { | |||
var d = getObject("table"); | |||
if (d.style.display == 'none') { d.style.display = 'block'; } | |||
else { d.style.display = 'none'; } | |||
} | |||
:Then you just make your table id="table" and use the js function DisplayTable() to hide/show. ☢ ]⌇] 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Bar of Tungsten == | |||
Where could i get a free sample of Tungsten? Or even one for a very low price as it would be very helpful for my A Level physics project in which i am investigating Tungsten. | |||
:The guy who created has acquired a number of samples of tungsten over the years. They vary quite a bit in terms of size, shape, purity, and cost, but might give you some ideas—he's listed his sources for most of them. Depending on what you're planning to do, you might be able to beg or borrow a sample from a local university materials science or metallurgy department. ](]) 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: A metal dealer should be able to supply that for you, and quite possibly for free, if it's a small enough amount. Given that they usually trade in rather large amounts, it'd may not be worth their while to bill you for it. On the other hand, it's a rather expensive element, currently running $260 per MTU, (Metric Ton Unit) which is a mere 10 kg of WO<sub>3</sub>, and even less in terms of pure tungsten. --] 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Could you explain what an MTU is? We don't seem to have an article on it. —] 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::It's ], and it's 1000]. ]] 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::That doesn't make sense. How can a metric ton be 10 kilograms? —] 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think what Blueplatypus is trying to say is that you can buy some industrial product (I'm not sure what) for $260 per 1000kg, and from that you can extract 10kg of WO<sub>3</sub>, and less than 10kg of tungsten. You wouldn't really be paying $260 just for the tungsten... though I'm not sure why he mentioned that figure. I don't know how easily tungsten can be obtained in a pure form though. ]] 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Tungsten is measured in Metric Ton Units of tungsten trioxide. In this context is actually 1% of a metric ton (quite misleading!), that is 10 kg of WO<sub>3</sub>. So only 7.93 kg of actual tungsten. Google for "Metric Ton Unit tungsten" or similar. --] 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Edit confliect! I was just going to say that. In particular I suggest looking at Russ Rowlett's excellent . A "metric ton unit" is simply 10 kg, and it has that name because it's the amount of metal you can extract from a ] of ore if the ore contains 1% metal! (].) --Anonymous, February 2, 2006, 02:13 UTC | |||
If you want a (very small) free sample of tungsten, smash a domestic light bulb—the filament is made out of tungsten. ] ] 02:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
What the hell : (. What could the benifit be of using such a unit? (And giving it such a confusing name.) Why don't they just admit that if you have a metric ton/tonne of ore, and the metal content is 1%, you can extract 1% of 1 ton/tonne of metal (e.g. 0.01 tons/tonnes)? ]] 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*The straightforward way is to order from a fine chemical supplier. and are the best known; depending on which country you live in there may be others. They sell the material in all shapes (powder, wire, sheet and bar). Be warned, though that the stuff is expensive. It's also brittle and highly refractory and thus difficult to work. ] 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Myspace Music Help== | |||
For some reason, my settings on firefox will not allow me to access MySpace Music (http://music.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=music). It also won;t allow me to access it on Internet Explorer. Can anyone help? I will be able to provide answers to any questions that could help solve this. Thanks ]] ] ~ ] 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I can access it ok. If it's both browsers, it might be some ad blocker, or a firewall somewhere along the line. You accessing it from work or home? ] (]) 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::From home, and I don't think it's an ad blocker issue, because I keep a pretty tight watch on that. I'm wondering if my browser's security settings might be to blame, because once I turned off SSL 2.0, TLS 1.0, and SSL 3.0 (all of which are currently ON), and I was able to see a banner, but not the main page. Much thanks if that helps you figure out my problem. ]] ] ~ ] 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::If you're unable to access it properly with either browser, I'd say it's probably a problem outside of the browser settings. But I don't really know what it could be. If you can access other websites successfully, then there's no reason why MySpace Music shouldn't work, unless it tried connecting through a different port which might be blocked, which is unlikely to be possible unless some plugin is doing it... I'm rambling now, ignore me. :) By the way, SSL and TLS aren't firewalls or anything like that, they just encrypt the data you send on secure websites (like online banking), and MySpace Music clearly is not a secure (HTTPS) site, like most websites. -- ] (]) 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::It is a strange prediciment, but thanks for trying guys. It's not too big of a deal I guess, but it would be nice to know what the problem was. Thanks. ]] ] ~ ] 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== What is a feeling of apprehinsion tension or uneasiness that stems from antcipation of danger, the source of which largely unknown or unrecongnized == | |||
:]? —] 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:]! ]] 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Isn't it "spidey sense" ? ] 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:]. ] 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::According to the American Phychiatric Glossary (via Google books; direct links there won't work, right?), anxiety is "Apprehension, tension or aneasiness from anticipation of danger, the source of which is largely unknown or unrecognized." ] 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The word is '''dread''', folks. ] 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'd say that 'dread' is usually associated with a known fear, e.g. ''I dread the day I have to leave home.'' As an unknown sense I think plain anxiety or paranoia makes more sense. ]] 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:What about "foreboding" or "disquiet"? ] 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::According to admittedly hoary information from my behavior pathology class 33 years ago, the distinction between fear and anxiety is that fear is attached to a particular idea or object, while anxiety was a generalized, free-floating state of arousal/agitation unattached to any specific object. It is a sensation that is described as ego-alien, or something that is perceived as unpleasant and acknowledged as abnormal by the subject. As for paranoia, that is a completely different situation-- an ego-syntonic (perceived by the subject as factual and real) delusional perception of persecution, and a symptom of ].--] 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Howabout '''forboding''? M-W.com: "to have an inward conviction of (as coming ill or misfortune)".--] 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: (already suggested - see above) | |||
Speaking ], ] or ]? Or ]? ] 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*I don't know the word off the top of my head, but I'm certain that there is one in ]' '']''. ](]) 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned ] ]. ] 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== English Convention for Titling Subjects == | |||
I was wondering what the reasoning is behind using uppercase for the first letters of most words, and lowercase for words like of, the, and...? --] 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This question really belongs on the ] page. ] 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I find that the more uppercase there is, the harder it is to read quickly. So why capitalize totally unimportant words and just make the title harder to read? It doesn't draw attention to anything important to capitalize Of. — ] ] 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
For those of us whose eyesight had a hard time distinguishing between a period and a comma, the capital letter at the start of a sentence is a good backup. ]|] 01:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Check out ] - there are many different styles of capitalising headings and titles, and which one you use depends on your personal preference, house style, country and more. On Misplaced Pages, we set up a 'house style' for capitalising headings and titles, read all about it in ] and ]. — ] | ] 08:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:What do you mean by 'capitalisation of ''most'' words'. Just read the prose here and you'll see that only one in about 20 words or so are capitalised. ] 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Although it wasn't stated in the posted question, the section heading for this question mentions that this question refers to Titles. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== extacation of caffeine from coffee == | |||
the chemistry experiment extraction of caffeine from coffee. | |||
after using the separating funnel for extraction why do we discard the dark brown aqeous layer in the funnel | |||
:From the ] article: | |||
::''Caffeine will migrate to the solvent in which it is most soluble, and it is more soluble in chloroform than water.'' —] 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Damn, we just used benzoic acid when our lab did it, removing caffeine from coffee should be considered a federal crime, decaf... *shudders*--] 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= February 2 = | |||
==Music of the Spheres== | |||
Do planets like earth make different sound vibrations,like harmonic sound? | |||
: Have a look at our article ]. ] 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: ] used to believe in this stuff. He actually published it in 1619, in the same book in which he postulated his ]. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Sound is vibration of air. Lack of air around planets means there is no sound. Audible sound has frequencies between 20 and 20.000 Hz. Planetary movements are much slower. Of course you could take the various cyclic planetary motions, speed them up to our audible range and play that on a synth. I've once heard the sound of trees in a BBC documentary, which was recorded and then speeded up to make it audible. It was almost rhythmical (except there was no regular beat). ] 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The earth does vibrate, at frequencies too low to hear . Sadly though, "this sound is not particularly pleasant or enlightening - in fact it sounds like a bored person banging a garbage bin lid very loudly." ]] 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::All the scientists made a mistake; it ''is'' a bored person banging a garbage bin lid very loudly. ]] 04:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Avian Influenza genus and species == | |||
After researching for the genus and species of Avian Influenza, I am not sure if I have found the correct answer. The information I have found does not list the genus and species together. I have found that the genus is Influenza A, but not the species. Avian Influenza I have found is commonly referred to as H5N1 and is considered a sub type of Influenza A. Would the correct list of genus and species for Avian Influenza be Influenza A H5N1? | |||
00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
] 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:See ] and ]. Try using the search box on the left of the page next time, you'll get an answer much quicker. --] 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==.rar== | |||
Just wondering, I just downloaded a .rar file of just under 15 MB in size, unzipped it only to find that it contained a 400 MB file! I've never heard of any compression system that works quite <i title="!400 MB --> 15 MB!">that</i> well on rar archives, does anyone know how that might work?--] 02:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] uses a very good (but slow) compression algorithm. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Also, there are certain types of data that can be compressed rather well. Additionally, if the RAR contains several slightly different versions of the same file, and they're all compressed in a solid format (that is, they're all compressed as a single chunk of data), then the extra redundancy can be cut off tremendously. The extracted files, however, will be pretty big anyway. ☢ ]⌇] 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Imagine that you have to compress a photo taken with the lens cap on. It might be 8 MB, but many compression systems could reduce it to a few KB, because it is all a repetition of the same, black, colour. This is an extreme case, but graphics with repetition are good candidates for astonishing amounts of compression. ] 11:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Some data compress really well. For instance, a megabyte worth of binary zeroes compresses to only 1051 bytes using ], or ''45'' bytes using ]. ''Ten'' megabytes worth of binary zeroes compress to ''49'' bytes using ]; a hundred megabytes, to 113 bytes. Obviously, your data doesn't compress as well as pure binary zeroes. --] 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I firmly believe that pure binary ''ones'' will compress even more efficiently, because they stack better (at least in a ''sans serif'' typeface). Zeroes contain a small amount of incompressible space in their holes. ](]) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::That's why the smart people who invented the "Fixedsys" font put the disambiguating diagonal strikes through the zeros, not only to distinguish it from an "O" (a letter of the alphabet), but also to let all the air out. ;) -- ] (]) 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== bluetooth == | |||
ooth | |||
:Please suitly emphazi your question. —] 04:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You might be interested in our article on ], or our article on the ], a fictional location from ]'s ], where the valley of '''Ooth-Nargai''' is located. ] | ] 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::the ooth is out there. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 06:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* That'd be ]. --] 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
If you have a blue tooth, you might want to consider eating fewer blueberies and/or brushing your teeth more often. :-) ] 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Return of the penis == | |||
Why does a penis rise while having sex? <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | |||
: Um... try our article on ]? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::You should answer questions with statements, not more questions. ]] 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Even if using the ]? ] 11:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::No? ] 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Employing the Socratic method in the bedroom could be pretty interesting. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
::::::<small>What did I start? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:''While'' having sex? How do you start without an erection? Or don't you mean coitus specifically? Enough counterquestions for you? ] 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Well, how do you define ]? ] | ] 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::]s shouldnt have that problem, and ] and ] don't require an erect penis. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:"] keeps the penis off the floor." - ] 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I think ] has fully explored the disingenuity of the theory that sex = penetration. ] 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Avoiding pacemaker rejection == | |||
What is done to avoid the body's immune system treating an ] as a foreign body and creating anti-bodies to reject it ? ] 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:]s are the most common technique. -- ] (]) 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I actually had checked out the Immunosuppressive drug article. It talked of natural organ translpants, but there was no mention of artificial organ transplants. Will the case with artifical be a lot different ? ] 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The chemical makeup of the casing is so designed that it will rarely cause problems. The whole thing will not be rejected, and will be encapsulated by scar tissue, in the same way a piercing is. -- ] 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Can you give some link to this ? I would like to add all this to the article. ] 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Immunosuppressive drugs are '''not''' used when mechanical devices (or even non-living biomechanical devices such as a porcine heart valve) are implanted. Such devices do not provoke a ] immunological response. - ] 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Oh. Whoops. I guess I shouldn't talk from now on, considering I'm not a <s>physicist</s> '''physician'''. Must stop getting my words mixed up. -- ] (]) 06:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The outser casing of pacemakers is often (usually?) made of ], which is very inert in the body. It is also used for joint replacements and some dental prostheses, for the same reason. ] ] 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Petroleum rock deposits == | |||
With what rock type(s) are petroleum deposits generally associated?--] 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Shale is a major one - have a look at ]. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Oil is always associated with ], as opposed to ] or ]. That said, a lot of oil companies pay a lot of money to find out precisely where the black gucky stuff actually lives. --] 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Data Recovery == | |||
I desperately need to format all the drives of my computer but I have some important data(occupying a space of about more than 1.5 GB) stored in my computer. I need to start over again with a new installation of the operating system after completely formatting all the drives. I do not have a CD writer hardware so copying the data to a CD is impossible and the data is VERY IMPORTANT and I do not have a backup.Is it possible to upload the data to the Internet or is there any other way I can create a backup? I do not exactly know what is uploading. Please explain the term and whether it can be a solution to my problem. Please explain in detail the solution to my problem. Please help me! Please help me! Thank you! | |||
:Probably the safest option is to buy a new disk and install the system to that. Once it is done, you can (with some juggling of hardware settings) add the old disk and read the data from that. Better still, buy an external CD drive that plugs into your computer. Backups are very important, and disks can fail at any time, without warning. Happens here all the time. ] 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Well, he says 'all hard drives', which is plural, so I'd say put it all on one drive, format the rest, install your new OS, copy to a formatted drive and format the remaining drive. If you don't use backups it's especially important to physically unhook the drive with the data on it in case you make a mistake specifying the drives to be formatted (maybe that's what you were asking for). It is also advisable to unhook all other drives when installing the OS, especially when it's msWindows, because that can give a lot of headaches in my experience. Of course, backups are a ''very'' good idea and a cd or dvd writer doesn't cost too much. ] 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I would also recommend you buy an external CD- or DVD-writer - they're not that expensive, you can easily hook them up to your computer (usually through a USB port), and the case of a DVD drive, you can fit all your data on a single disk. Echoing ] and ], if your data is as important as you say, it is ''very'' strongly recommended to make backups somewhere that is not your PC. Imagine what would happen if, for instance, you spilled coffee all over your PC. Or a water pipe broke and flooded the room. Or a fire broke out - these things can and do happen. CD or DVD backups are relatively cheap and easy. | |||
:::In case this solution is not possible / not practical for you, you could get a friend with a laptop to help you, connect the two computers up with a network cable, and back your data up on your friend's computer. Then, when you've reformatted your PC, you can move the data back by the same way. | |||
:::Backups over the internet work in a similar way, except you are copying your data to a computer which is connected to yours through the internet. The problem is finding one which will offer to host your data - your ISP (the company you connect to the internet through) might be able to help you. Many of them offer "web hosting" (which is basically a bit of space on their server where you can upload your files), but most only offer several tens of megabytes, too small for your purposes - but ask. Sure, you can get more space, but it will probably cost you and is unlikely to be worth the hassle if you're just backing up your data once. — ] | ] 14:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'd echo what's been said above, and strongly recommend acquiring a CD or DVD writer; they're useful things, and you can do regular backups for the future. Another option is to go out and buy a portable USB drive of some sort. Looking at the website for my local computer shop, I can buy a 2 GB USB flash memory device for as little as 120 dollars (Canadian); that's a shade more than a hundred bucks U.S. They're handy for moving data around, too. ](]) 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'd recommend an external hard drive. I paid £60.00 for an 80GB one last month.] | ] 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Software program for creating "20 questions" game == | |||
I'm looking for a program where young students (5th-7th grade) could easily and inutitively program a 20-questions-like game. Basically, once they've written it, it should produce an output such as "Vehicles: ''Does it have wheels?'' 'Yes.' ''Is it big and yellow?'' 'Yes.' ''It's a school bus!''", or whatever. | |||
If such a program could be created by drawing a decision tree this would be ten-times better, but either way, is there anything out there like this? — ] | ] ] 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:IMO it might be borderline for the age group, but you could teach them a very simple programming language like BASIC, which supports decision trees (by means of IF-THEN statements as well as the dreaded GOTO). | |||
:Something I'm not entirely clear about - do you want the computer do the guessing ("does it have wheels?", "is it big and yellow?"), or do you want the computer to reply to the guesses made by the students? In the former case, the decision tree would have to be gargantuan (possibly covering every known object), or the student's "unknown word" would have to be limited to a known, small set. In the case of the latter, you would have to restrict the questions the students can ask it, otherwise it will get confused very quickly. I'm just wondering... — ] | ] 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There's a commercial version of the "computer guesses" variant - see http://www.radicagames.com/20q-cb.php. According to http://www.radicauk.com/20q_howitworks.htm, it uses a neural network approach, likely to be far beyond the capabilities of 5th-7th grade students. -- ] <small>(])</small> | |||
Right. I'm neither looking for the students to create a 20Q game for all possible objects, nor, hopefully, for them to have to do any programming. This would be more along the lines of giving them 10-20 objects/events/whatever, and having them create a decision tree with them in the most intuitive way possible. Any other suggestions would be great. — ] | ] ] 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This is a branching database isn't it? I have a program at work but I can't remember the name. I'll try to remember to post it here tomorrow. ] | ] 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This reminds me of an old story I read in an anthology of science fiction, sorry that I can't remember the author. The program should say: | |||
**"Welcome to 20 Questions, I am thinking of a person, place, thing or idea. Enter your guess, or type 'quit' to end." | |||
**The program should then take the input provided, drop the question mark at the end, and examine whether the last letter is an "e" (or any other random criteria you choose, for that matter). | |||
**If the question ends in "e" or matches the criteria, answer "Yes". Otherwise, "No". | |||
**The logical human mind will take care of the rest, because a person will typically not ask a question that contradicts a previous question, therefore they will "create" a unique object in their mind based on the random answers given. When they are satisfied that they have found the object, they will type 'quit' to end. | |||
:I know that doesn't really answer your question, just interesting. But playing the game the other way (Computer-asks) was one of the early example uses of the ], known (if I recall) as ANIMAL or ZOO. is one (strange) online adaptation. I don't know if anyone has come up with a way to do this graphically, but computer science professor claims that his "On-line Decision tree system to graphically illustrate Guess-the-Animal" is "Forthcoming (by Oct. 1999)." | |||
:'']'' 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, that last link was interesting, though it's a pity the program that looks relevent is, as you note, "forthcoming"... — ] | ] ] 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You might try emailing him (see the link at upper right, "Eric Siegel", then check the bottom of that page). Seems rather friendly. '']'' 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== cutting the umbilical cord == | |||
Is cutting the ] painful to the newborn and/or mother ? Does it result in blood loss ? How do all other mammals cut the cord and how do they manage to control the blood loss ? ] 12:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
See ]. The umbilical cord is made of ], not ordinary skin and connective tissue. There are no nerves, so cutting it is not painful. There is ordinarily no significant loss of either infant or maternal blood unless something goes wrong. I am not certain of the range of variations of ]l and cord structure in most other mammals, but suspect that it either shrivels and falls off (like the stump of umbilical cord of a human baby) or is consumed by the mother (which recycles the protein, and reduces tissue that would attract scavengers or predators). ] 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:For animals: the mother bites the cord apart, and it dies and falls off after a short while. | |||
== Albert Einstein and an article inconsistency? == | |||
An anonymous user posted a comment on ] stating that there is a factual inaccuracy in the article. | |||
:''Misplaced Pages's own articles point out that Henri Poincare discovered Relativity, and David Hilbert first published on Novemer 20, 1915 the famous Field Equations of general relativity which completed that theory. Reference See Einstein-Hilbert action. Also, the so called theory of general relativity is only a theory of gravity, which should be pointed out. Thus, Einstein's Introduction on Misplaced Pages must be re-written. ]'' | |||
I'm not familiar with the detailed history of the theory. Could someone knowledgeable in the area go take a look? Thank you very much! By the way, is there a good book on the ''history'' of relativity out there? --] 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This idea was covered many months, if not years, ago on the talk pages here. An anonymous user tried to accuse Einstein of plagarism. It may be the same person. It is certainly true that Einstein's work built substantially on those who had gone before, and that Poincare and Hilbert both made significant advances in what might be called Relativity. Who exactly 'discovered' it is one of those questions that depends on exactly what you mean by Relativity. What is certainly true is that Einstein was fully deserving of the praise he eventually got for the discoveries he did make. ] 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Read the top of ], which is what ] invented according to our article. It says that the principle is ''not'' the same as the ]. The anonymous user is confused; perhaps our articles should be clearer. -- ] 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== PEPPER == | |||
Please give me a brief history of Pepper and its effects on humans who consume a lot of it ie its side effects if any. | |||
:Have you read our article on ] (or, for other kinds of pepper, ])? In fact, it's such a good article that it was a ]! — ] | ] 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Hey, they now put a magic search box in the preamble! --] 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:darn, now it's gone.. too much pepper for me.. --] 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Spam == | |||
Two years ago Bill Gates said . Apart from a few laws and a handful of prosecutions, have there been any significant advances towards this end? --] 14:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Bill Gates' ideas for a "postage cost" for e-mail has met with stiff resistance and is very unlikely to be implemented. We have made, however, significant progress in e-mail filters (see ]), to a point where a good filter can screen out about of incoming spam. Also, people are slowly learning the rules of the net, such as not posting your e-mail address on public forums, or using several addresses for different purposes. However, all this is receiver-side stuff, very little has been accomplished on stopping the miscreants sending spam in the first place (save for a few arrests and trials, such as ]). Spam continues to be a large problem for the e-mail backbone, as something like of all e-mail sent is spam, and while it may not reach its intended destination, it still clogs up the networks to a huge extent. I'm not completely up to date on the latest findings, but I don't see any breakthroughs in the fight against spam happening anytime soon. Which is a depressing thought. — ] | ] 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:And unfortunately spam is moving into other areas. Every connection you have that is open to random calls will be a target for spam. For example, the monopoly phone company did a good job of stopping mass callers, now with IP phones, this protection may be gone. You can completely stop all spam by only allowing encrypted connections from people on your list, but then you'll never get that call from your rich lost uncle. --] 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::And how much of that progress was thanks to Bill? ]] 04:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't see how Gates could have any effect on it (let alone eliminate it). About 10% of my email is spam,and only because a few years ago I have been a little careful with my email address (the one and only email address I have had over the last few years, without any filtering at all!). Not broadcasting your address or otherwise making it available to people or organisations you don't have any serious dealings with is the only way to go. Unless there will be some (international) law against it. And since people apparently don't learn from the mistakes they've made over the years, government intervention seems to be the only solution. By the way, what bothers me is the phone spam I get every few days. The big difference is that with email spam (1) ''I'' decide when I'm exposed to it (2) it's instantly obvious it's spam, I remove it and I'm done with it. So even though email spam is more frequent it irritates me much less. ] 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:See also the Userfriendly comic strips on , , . – ] 11:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Anatomy-Directional References == | |||
:]? - ] 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== medicine/alpha adrenergic receptors == | |||
do alpha adrenergic receptors influnce on the level of potassium in blood? | |||
thank you in advance, | |||
ivan | |||
: Yes. See . - ] 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Cells staff == | |||
What is meant by "multi-cellular"?How are cells able to live side by side? | |||
What do cells "eat"? | |||
What 2 roles do DNA play in running and maintaining the cell? | |||
What materials have to enter the c4ell and what would you expect the cell to give out? | |||
What do vacuoles fo?How are they different in plant animal cells? | |||
: We don't have a specific staff just for cell questions. We also generally don't answer homework questions directly. ] 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: However, you might want to look at the article ] to get some help. ] 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::See also ], ], ]. Please try typing search terms into the ''search'' box on the left side of your screen before you bring your questions here. ](]) 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why do u think this is homework question? | |||
:People generally become quite skilled at recognising a homework question. For example "What 2 roles do DNA play in running and maintaining the cell?": if someone was just curious, they wouldn't know there were two roles; if someone was reading an article, it would mention the roles. That leaves a question someone expects you to answer: homework, or a quiz. Doesn't look like quiz material. Of course people can also be wrong. So, if we are wrong, let us know why you want to know, beyond what the references have already said. "Why you want to know" isn't just being nosey: there are very different kinds of answers you might need, depending on whether (e.g.) you are trying to understand an article, write an essay at 12 year old school level, or are studying medicine at university; also a full answer would be dozens of pages long, and most people are too lazy to type that much, so they want to know where to focus. ] 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Verification of the existence of the ] == | |||
Can anyone ] that the ] really existed? If you really feel like helping, can you suggest a source for ? All the best and thanks for any help. ] 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* Google works. "academy car coventry 1906" gives a number of hits, enough to make me believe the thing did exist. Some other randomly-chosen entries by that user seem to check out as well. From the edit history, it looks like he's going through a list of cars, perhaps from some book. I'd be more worried about copyright violations in that case. --] 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
** Thanks.. it was the 1906 that I was missing. My google searches came up with useless junk ... hmm.. clearly not equipped for the bright new future ] 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Pterasaurs: Bird brain? Brain dead?== | |||
I am posing this question for a friend of mine. There is a lot of thought put into it, and we hope that an answer or some insight can be found. | |||
*I've been studying pterosaurs recently, and only after much searching have I found a fairly complete reference with ANY real mention of ] brains. Though I'm not done with the pterasaur skull chapter, what I have read so far indicates that braincasts of at least PTERODACTYLOID pterosaurs were similar to birds in that the ] was fairly large. Are there any experts or newbies like me who can put their two cents in on their opinion on pterosaur brainpower? I'd really like to hear the latest word on this. Also, I know that brain to bodysize ratios are important in guessing if an animal is intelligent. Is size just a factor? Or is weight as well? Anything anyone knows or guesses is extremely appreciated. | |||
:Thanks from us both. ]] ] ~ ] 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I do know of a book which might be of interest to you (assuming it's not the one you say you've found). Try to track down a copy of ''The illustrated encyclopedia of Pterosaurs'' by Peter Wellnhofer (Salamander Books, London, 1991, ISBN 0861015665). It goes into a fair amount of detail on pterosaur anatomy, incuding a small section of comparative brain anatomy between pterosaurs, birds, and reptiles. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you, I will pass the advice on to my friend. ]] ] ~ ] 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
For a fairly simple modern discussion of the topic, there's David Unwin's new book on pterosaurs: | |||
Unwin, D. 2006.''The Pterosaurs From Deep Time'', Pi Press, New York. | |||
The most recent paper I know of, using CAT scans and all the bells and whistles is: | |||
Witmer, L. M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J., and Rowe, T. 2003. Neuroanatomy of flying reptiles and implications for flight, posture and behaviour. ''Nature'', '''425''', 950-953. | |||
] 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I notice that a search with such terms as ''pterosaur brain skull'' returns quite a few hits, so you might try a few searches of that type if you haven't already done so. --] 08:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= February 3 = | |||
== Question == | |||
] <font color="green" face="arial" size="8">+ ] = ] ?</font> | |||
:Hah, what a great question. ☢ ]⌇] 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
<math> NaOH + CHCl_{3} -> ?</math> | |||
Hmm...don't remember any more. ] (]) 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Adding a base to chloroform will form ], which is a fairly reactive species. I'm not certain it'll cause that large an explosion though! If you're after an "Oops, I made a bang in my Chemistry Lab", go for ] and ] crystals. If you slosh the resulting ] onto any surface and leave it to dry, it'll make a quite satisfying bang (and nasty iodine stain) if anything touches it. Even a feather'll set it off. As always, see ] before giving it a go. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::It can be explosive, yes, especially as the NaOH pellets helpfully contain about 20% water which would quench the carbene rather too rapidly. ] ] 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Whenever I see that detonation picture, I don't see the explosion, I see a man in a lumberjack jacket bending down. --] 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:*Yeah, a lumberjack welding a railroad track. Poor guy, he has to work two jobs to make ends meet. ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== How to build a mechanical arm??? == | |||
My school has a project due on Febraury 21, 2006. My partner and I are supposed | |||
to build a Mechanical Arm. It has to raise a normal #2 pencil up 1 meter. We | |||
have a great idea and everything, but we have no idea on how to start and what | |||
to use. We have been looking for hours for an idea, but everything is about a | |||
the sergical arm for people with problems. You know!!!!! I was wondering if you | |||
could maybe explain to us how to start, what to use, and help us understand how | |||
to do it. We would like to make it a decsent one so we could get a great grade. | |||
We can't have a crane to raise it up and down (so i think) so we have to use a | |||
button. Can you tell us where to go to get the materials and everything that | |||
has to do with our problem. And if you would like to add what ever you want to | |||
help us out would be appreciated. (hin,hint) (lol) We want to thank you for | |||
your help!!!! | |||
sincerely, | |||
--] 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Dear anonymous, to answer this kind of question it helps to know what level of education you're referring to; a suitable answer for an primary (elementary) school student is not the same as for a university engineering school student. | |||
:That said, some general advice; the details of the rules of the challenge matter greatly. To give an example, to win a paper plane distance contest, a standard "cheat" is to squash the paper into the smallest, densest ball possible, and throw the resulting ball. Depending on the point of the contest, it may be advantageous to think about similar "cheats". | |||
:Finally, if you do need to control motors and suchlike, could you use something like ]? | |||
:Hope this helps. You don't have much time, though; so think simple!--] 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Make it with Knex! You can do anything with that stuff (if you have a ton of it lying around). I once made a model of a power track for work, and my Gr9 daughter is using it to model DNA. --] 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Seeing the title, I instantly thought of Lego, but Robert beat me to that. All that is left for me to do is refer you to . This stuff isn't cheap, though, but it's also quite cool, som depending which country you're from (click 'dealers'), you might ask if the school wants to buy some of this stuff (if it hasn't already). For some pics see <s><a href="nowiki>http://www.lipperfamily.org/lego robots.htm">here</a> (how do I make a link to a url that has a space in it?). </s> ] 11:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::''How do I make a link to a URL that has a space in it?'' — Like <nowiki></nowiki>. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
::::Ah, yes, of course, I knew there was an escape sequence for it, but I forgot which (could have looked it up myself of course). Thanks. Made the link now (I had left behind quite a mess with the various attempts). ] 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Cheating == | |||
Does Cheating exist in Medical Colleges?and if it does,what measures have been taken to prevent that?and also can any information or data be provided to prove that? -- ] 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Cheating exists in any school environment. I'm guessing they use the same methods anyone else uses. Teacher in the room during exams and not allow pen bags (to avoid hidden notes) are two such options. Why wouldn't cheating exist in medical colleges? - ]|] 09:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Except during practical surgery exams ? --] 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Sure it exists, but the negative consequences are so far reaching (no career and a wasted education) that not many dare. Unethical conduct is punished very strongly. I knew a Mayor's son in dental school (in his home town) who swindled with the dental gold during his last year. He got caught. No more school, and never a dentist. Period. Even being the Mayor's son didn't help him. Unethical conduct in students is a red flag for even worse conduct when finished. Those types of docs are called "]." When caught they just become "holistic," "natural," and "]" doctors, claiming that they are being persecuted. How convenient! (not) -- ] 17:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Erm? You don't think it's a little out of line to suggest that unethical western doctors become alternative medicine doctors as a result of being unable to practice western medicine? I'm sure it may happen, but not as a matter of course. ] 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I know someone who told me of a friend of theirs who, in Medical school, cheated on their Ethics exam. ] 13:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Equation Balancing == | |||
I'm trying to a stoichiometry problem for my chemistry class right now, but I can't balance this equation, a single replacement reaction for aluminum and copper (II) Nitrate: | |||
Al + Cu(NO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub> = Cu + Al(NO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>3</sub> | |||
Can someone please explain to me how to balance this out? | |||
:Before you think about balancing it, you have to figure out what the products are. —] 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, got the products. Now how do I balance? | |||
:::Consider one element at a time. Say you decide start with oxygen. There are 6 oxygen atoms on the left and 9 on the right. You must add coefficients so that the number of oxygens on either side is the least common multiple, 18. Continue with all the other elements until you arrive at a stable solution. —] 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Writing down the ]s is also helpful. ] 03:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Would it be 2Al + 3Cu(NO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub> = 3Cu + 2Al(NO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>3</sub>? | |||
I think coding the subscript was more difficult than balancing that. ;) | |||
] 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Huh? == | |||
Why is there an Opera:blank in ] when there's a universal about:blank ? — ]]]] 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Probably for the same reason there's an ] in FireFox. Because they can. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Something to add to Subject: Allergies == | |||
Hello, this is a new reader doing a report on Allergies and i could not find out anywhere on the internet where it shows specifically the different steps of what different allergens do in the body cell-wise... like an easy to follow step analysis to show how the cell is affected by allergens. thanks for taking the time to read this and i will hope to be able to learn and find out about these... i have tried to explain my subject quite thoroughly, and please excuse me if you do not understand it :P... --] 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*It's a bit science-jargon heavy but our article ] has some info on that. I'm suspecting the first book listed in the references section can tell you things in more detail. Don't just really on the internet for you information. There's some great books out there. - ]|] 08:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== SIM card == | |||
how does a sim card works? i would also like to know about the internal structure of sim card.how it receives and sends data and what does the metallic grooves on the card mean? | |||
thank you <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | |||
:I would tell you to use the search box and look at ], but that article doesn't give much information on how the card internally works. It explains a fair amount though. -- ] (]) 09:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The GSM/UMTS SIM card interface will be specified on . The summary, though, is that it's a small computer (with it's own ROM/Flash memory/RAM and Processor). I guess by "metallic grooves" you mean the contacts? The metal contacts on the surface provide power to the SIM and also act as a communications channel to and from the device the SIM is connected to (e.g. the phone). | |||
:Real life SIM cards will be small/thin ] with various protective layers around them. There are (were?) some good sites around with information about security of SIM cards. If you look for physical attacks, you will see information about the actual structure of the card. ] 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Consult ISO standard 7816. This is not in the public domain, but it is widely available on the Internet, probably because it is relevant to satellite television smartcards etc. ] 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Turtles == | |||
I have baby water turtles as pets and i was wondering how old do they have to be (in human years) for them to start mating? | |||
*~*~*~*~ | |||
:I imagine this would depend on the particular species. But states that for painted turtles, the males start at 3 years and females at 6. - ] 11:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Whoa, that's weird. I would have thought the males and females would start at the same age. Are there other animals whose ages are even more different? —] 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I believe humans have a bit of difference in timing between males and females. ] describes that somewhere, if you have time to wade through it. ] 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Also, if you do get your turtles to mate, you might like to decide if you would like the babies to be males, females, or a few of each sex. This is determined by the temperature at which you incubate the eggs. | |||
== Clinical studies == | |||
A question I asked on ] that has been as yet unanswered: | |||
In the 'Saccharin and Cancer' section, it says that | |||
"The notorious and influential studies of the kind published in 1977 have been criticized for the ridiculously high dosages of saccharin that were given to the test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer." | |||
This is, I believe, typical of drug studies, where actually buying 1,000,000 of the animal would be ridiculous, and so, a smaller number (10,000 typically?) is used, with far higher dosages than normal, and real-life population numbers are extrapolated from that. Am I correct here? | |||
--] 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:My understanding is that you are correct. The quote is basically the uninformed person's reaction to seeing the dosages that were used. I remember thinking the same thing when I first read how much they gave each rat, but before I'd studied such things. From my statistics classes in college, I recall that the modeling from huge doses given to rats or whatever to smaller doses for humans is considered a fairly reliable way to do the testing. It of course allows some possible errors, but they are believed to be understood well enough that the overall interpretation is valid. In other words, that quote should be removed from the article unless it could be attributed to a source. Then it would still require an explanation about how the research is done. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
First note that the technique relates specifically to testing whether a substance is ]ic or not. We're not talking about "drug studies" as suggested above; megadoses of pretty much any drug are likely to be harmful. | |||
The way I have seen it explained is, if a substance is not carcinogenic, then no matter how huge the dose is, the animal just won't get cancer (or more precisely, there will be the same number of cancers in the test group as would be expected without anything special going on). If it is a carcinogen, then increasing the dose will produce more cancers -- which means that a smaller (cheaper, faster) experiment will detect the carcinogenicity faster. It's like when someone makes a new connection in a gas main: the next thing they'll do (if feasible) will be to test it by putting in air at a pressure far above the normal gas pressure. Then if it's going to leak or fail, they'll find out at once, and if not, we can trust that it'll be safe for a long time at normal pressures. | |||
The counter-argument to this is that this sort of carcinogencity test may be too sensitive. First, it can't be ruled out that some substances may be carcinogenic only in high concentrations. Second, if a substance causes cancer with very low probability at normal levels of use, this may not be a sufficient reason to ban it -- either it may have other benefits, or you may have the view that people should be free to choose their own risks. Of course this is a subject that can be debated at great length. | |||
--Anonymous, 22:12 UTC, February 3, 2006. | |||
== Instant pancakes == | |||
I was wondering: if you heated up pancakes sufficiently, in an oxygen-free environment to keep them from combusting, would they melt? I ask because I had an idea for doing so, storing the liquid in an aerosol can, and marketing it as spray-on pancakes. --] 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:An initial thought is that you are overlooking that much of the property of food is texture rather than purely chemical. Pancakes are light because they trap lots of air. They also have a variable texture because the outside is cooked more than the inside. Also, a large component is sugar: consider what you get back if you melt sugar then allow it to set. If you were to change state and reheat, what you got back would not be recognisable as a pancake. Now, spray on uncooked pancake batter: that sounds like an idea that could work, if you can overcome the stickiness, but it would still need cooking, rather than just heating. ] 11:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Curses! Foiled again! Darn you and your 'science', Notinasnaid, darn you all to heck! --] 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::(I would still eat it) | |||
:::Well, what do you expect from the science ref desk? I love the idea, though. I've come across some weird types of instant food, but spray-on pancakes really take the cake (if you don't mind the pun). :) ] 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Speaking of puns, I doubt if these would sell like hot cakes, and even more if working out this idea would be a piece of cake. ] 12:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Why would they melt? Well they won't anyway, they'll ]. They'll turn into charcoal or something mostly consisting of it. --] 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::And even if whatever you heated up did melt, and you put it into a can, wouldn't it harden again when you brought it down to room temperature? So you'd just have a solid block of pancake with some metal wrapped around it. ] 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Not necessarily, you might be able to pressurise it enough that it stays liquid, although that's still assuming that you could actually get them to melt in the first place. I still like the idea of spray-on pancake batter, though. ] 13:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
You could add carbonic acid to them, which would form bubbles of carbon dioxide inside the pancakes to make them fluffy (due to the pressure drop when they are sprayed out). ] 18:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Most powerful computer == | |||
What is the most powerful and advanced computer ever made?--]]] ] 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The ] ] | |||
:After edit conflict: | |||
:The latest? The most advanced computer is by definition the latest. :) As for the most powerful, crappy computer magazines (not ] of course! :) ) regularly have a big headline FASTEST COMPUTER EVER or whatever. They could write such an article every week, but that would make the cheap trick a bit too obvious. Of course, this is about home computers. The most powerful computers are called (not surprisingly) supercomputers. And note that that article even has a section ]. That, however, is about a single computer. One can also hook up loads of consumer computers to form a ] (which usually run under Linux, I believe). I don't know which of the two has 'the biggest', but my bet is on the latter because there's basically no limit to it. If you stretch this a bit further, you can hook up a bunch of computers connected to the internet, such as is done with ] (I participated in this for a while until I had to re-install msWindows again). If you could hook up all the computers on the Internet that would constitutequite a formmidable computer. Of course, this requires a very high level of distribution of the workload (what's the term for that again?), which is the biggest problem with ]. With SETI this is fairly easy, but for other tasks it isn't (especially when the different results are inter-dependent and one program has to wait for another to finish). Now I realise that it is quite possible that some worm (or whatever) has spread over the entire Internet, using all computers in the world in such a clever way the owners don't notice. Maybe some hacker somewhere illegally has one humungous supercomputer at his disposal consisting of half the Internet or whatever, biting his lip because he can't tell anyone about it because he would immediately lose it. The good thing is that he has to work non-intrusively and thus non-destructively to keep this quiet. Unless of course he's waiting for that final big hit when he takes over all the world's communications and thus the world itself. Maybe a theme for the next James Bond movie. :) ] 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The term David might be looking for is ]. It's very easy to get a whole set of loosely-connected computers to work on this type of problem together. The total computational efforts put in to solve some examples of these can far outweigh that of dedicated supercomputers. --] 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The fastest computer would be the ], of course! After all, it does "compute", and it can do so at a high rate, with some scientists estimating that it can handle 20 quadrillion instructions per second. -- ] (]) 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:]. – ] 11:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Don't forget the whole area of ]s ]s and ]s which, for some applications, blow away the ] approach, which I believe ] falls into. | |||
However, the marketplace dictates what computers get sold, so some very high quality machines, like ] for example, are far superior to stuff that most people buy, because most people want computers that are vulnerable to ]s, ], ] problems. They would not be happy if they had a good system that never has any of that kind of problem. | |||
In my opinion, the most advanced computer is the ] which was built several years ago in IBM labs. This is just a prototype, proof of concept, not yet ready for marketing, assuming there is a market for this. | |||
]|] 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== history of chemistry == | |||
My question is: What was the branch of science called prior to chemistry? | |||
Thank you | |||
:The search bar on the left-hand-side, near the top of every page is great: it allows you to find nearly anything you're looking for. If you type in ], there's a brief section in that article on the history of chemistry, as well as a link to the major article, ]. — ] | ] ] 12:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I could answer your question, but I think I'll go play a game of Al'''chem'''y instead: ] 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Bullet == | |||
If you point your gun to the sky and pull your trigger, will the bullet drop back down? The weather conditions are calm. Thanks -Betty | |||
: Yes, looking at the ] article, it doesn't appear that it exceeds the ] for Earth, and so it will fall back down to the ground. ] (]) 12:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, as above, anyway, it's plain physics. Actually, hundreds of people are killed each year by "anonymous projectiles". ] 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Whoa, seriously? We should have an article about that. —] 13:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::And falling bullets are deadly (or can be). It has been reported that in places where it is a cultural norm to fire rifles into the air, such as Iraq, people die on a daily basis from falling bullets. ] 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hmm, I'd heard that that was an urban myth, and that the ] for a falling bullet wasn't enough to kill a person, but seems to prove me wrong. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::::Really? I always thought that was true, but then I read a discussion (possibly on here) a while ago which concluded that the ] of a bullet wasn't enough to do any harm. ] 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::It is also important to differentiate those bullets fired exactly vertically and those simply randomly gired at a random high trajectory. These may hit someone a large distance away at a greater velocity than the terminal velocity of a vertical bullet. ] 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Googling for "people killed by falling bullets" yields some interesting stuff. says that people get killed by this practice in the USA, not just in Iraq, and mentions a study that was done on the subject. --] 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: It is also illegal in some jurisdictions. See ] for an example. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It's generally illegal to discharge a gun in a city anyway. But every year just before New Year's Eve, the Los Angeles police issue a warning about this. ]|] 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I suggest updating ] with the conclusions reached here. ] 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
This has already been discussed. See the . There (apart from a charming family tale), I calculated that the chances of a bullet shot in the air has a chance of 1/100.000 that it will hit someone. If that is true, then tens of million of bullets would have to be fired into the air to cause the death toll mentioned above. ''If'' they are all lethal. And it was also said that they aren't, so I'm inclined to think it is an urban myth. ] 10:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I think it highly probably that tens of millions of bullets are fired into the air each year. With over 6 billion people on Earth, if only 1% of them fire a single bullet into the air each year, that would give us 60 million bullets shot in the air each year. I would bet the number is far higher. ] 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
By the way, note that the word 'terminal' in 'terminal velocity' is used here in the sense of 'in the end' not 'lethal'. :) ] 11:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== LPG == | |||
if LPG is odourless how do we know if there is a leakage??thanks, | |||
] 12:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)sidra] 12:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
LPG is mixed with ethyl mercaptain(C2H6S). If any leakag is there we get the smell of this. -] | |||
::Suraj, if you type 4 tildes (~) after your posting, it will put your user name in automatically, and the date and time as well. Cheers ] 07:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's spelled "ethyl mercaptan", also known as ]. —] 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== In females == | |||
While having sex the penis erects in males. Then what happens in females? | |||
: It's all ]. ] 13:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Shemales == | |||
Are there really any people having a brest and a penis? | |||
: Sure are. See ] and ]. ] 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:''A'' breast? I thought they usually came in pairs. :) ] 11:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::How about ] then? ]] 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Flu in winter== | |||
In school, we all learned that micro-organisms grow optimally when temperature is high (up to a certain point, when it becomes too hot). So why do flu and other epidemics always happen in winter ? -- ] 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:People are indoors more often during the winter, they are in close contact more often, and this promotes transmission from person to person. Another reason is that cold temperatures lead to drier air, which may dehydrate mucus, preventing the body from effectively expelling virus particles. The virus may also linger longer on exposed surfaces (doorknobs, countertops, etc.) in colder temperatures. Increased travel and visitation due to the holiday season may also play a role. ] | |||
::Not to mention that the pathogens spend very little time actually out in the cold - they spend most of their time in the comfortable 37 °C temperature of a human body. Finally, remember that a ] is different from a ]. They don't have a metabolism of their own and are fairly resistant to cold. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Hey, our ] article has all this and more! --] 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC HEAT OF LINSEED OIL == | |||
What is the specific heat of linseed oil | |||
: There is no particular specific head of it - ] is not a single ]. As such, it doesn't have fixed ratios of its constituents, and it may vary, and thus its specific heat varies as there will be different distribution of molecules. ] (]) 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: A single compound can have very different specific heats depending on temperature. So it's a bit of a moot point because C<sub>p</sub> is temperature-dependent, using a single value will always be at best an approximation. So as long as the ratio of constitutuents doesn't vary largely, it's not going to matter much. Googling for it, it's 0.44 Btu/lb*F at 60F. By comparison, most oils are around 0.40-0.47 so I doubt linseed oil is going to vary any more than that. --] 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
About .44 Btu/lb-°F @60 °F. see --] 08:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That is perhaps the ugliest unit I have ever seen used. ] ''']''' ] 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ]Shooting a gun into water == | |||
If you fire a bullet into water, what happens? How far does it go before it slows to a harmless speed? Does it go at a different angle through the water than the air? —] 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This was recently featured on the television show Myth Busters. They found that slow small caliber bullets will travel a little ways into the water. The faster or larger the bullet, the faster it was torn into tiny, slow moving, harmless fragments. Also, they tried it from a steep angle because hitting the water at an angle would spread the impact on the bullet out over an extra microsecond or so. It didn't help the bullet survive impact with the surface of the water. Now - if you fire a gun under water - that is a different story. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::or fire a gun with the barrel in the water... - ] 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not sure what happens to the bullet, but I know what can happen to the shooter.....;-) While on a reindeer hunt in the Godthåb fjord, Greenland, I was on my way back to camp after an unsuccessful day. I happened upon a small pond connected to the river. It was probably about 5x4 meters, and a half meter deep. It had about 8-10 nice fat trout in it, and I didn't have my fishing pole! Shucks. What to do..... Well, on one side of the little pond was a large boulder about seven feet tall. I climbed on top of it and looked over the situation from my great vantage point. I aimed directly down into the water at one of the fish and shot my cal. 30-06. I immediately was drenched in what amounted to a geyser of water. All the fish turned belly up for between 30 secs. and a minute, then recovered and swam out into the river. I didn't get a single one! -- ] 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: Damn! You murder fishes and proudly boast about it! ] (]) 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::But he (or she) didn't! He only attempted to! --Anon, 07:53 UTC | |||
:::::Not sure if that was meant in an ironic way, but this was fishing for food, which is a lot better than fishing for fun or breeding for food. The only argument against that that I can think of is vegetarian (it is wrong to kill whatever the excuse). If you eat meat (or, in casu, fish) then this is the animal-friendliest way to do it, provided you don't cause unnecessary pain for the animal (in which sense we do better than most other animals) because the animals get to live their lives in freedom. Actually, this sounds like a good way to fish - the fish get stunned by the blow. And if you're prepared for that (with a net) you'll be able to catch a lot of fish easily. This is sort of a mild version of fishing with bombs, which is way to destructive or poison (as done in Borneo, among other places), which also kills (not stuns) more fish than you need. | |||
:::::By the way, I'm amazed at the effect. I expected you to say you got a splash of water ricocheting straight back at you. But then there's a lot more energy than is needed to shoot back a squirt of water, so that has to go somewhere. Interresting story! ] 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I thought that if you fired a gun into water while the end of the barrel was submerged, the chamber would explode in your face. Is this true? ] 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: The US Navy has reportedly developed ] bullets, intending they be fired from helicopters to destroy mines, or from ]/] like systems fitted to the sea hull of a submarine, intended to destroy incoming torpedoes. . -- ] | ] 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Fishing with firearms is legal in several places in the U.S. See which mentions Vermont, Virginia and previously New York. So it must work. Bow and arrow fishing is more popular though. ] 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::The ] article has some interesting links to underwater firearms - basically using very very long bullets: ], ]. ] 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= February 4 = | |||
== the size of a disk & multispectral images == | |||
please i would like to know how much disk space a 5000 × 5000 × 16 bit image require. thanks | |||
: Assuming that means 16 bits per pixel, and 5000 pixels in height and width, then if the image is a bitmap image, simple arithmetic comes out to 400,000,000 bits. At 8 bits per byte, that's 50,000,000 bytes, so roughly 50 megabytes. Of course a megabyte isn't really one million bytes, it's 1,048,576, so more arithmetic is needed. The size of a disk cluster might come into play as well. | |||
: Of course, if the image is being stored as a JPEG or with some other encoding method, then it's hard to determine the actual file size, since it is dependent on the properties of the image being stored. ] 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::16-bit per pixel is uncommon in images - it's likely 16-bit per channel, which works out to 150 million bytes, or 143.0511474609375 megabytes. But as you said, compression will decrease that value. --] <small>] ] ]</small> 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The size of a disk? <math>\pi r^2</math> - ''Sorry, coudn't resist'' --] ] 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Considering raw image | |||
:Pixel in total: 5000 x 5000 pixels = 25 000 000 pixels | |||
:]: 16 = 2 x 8 bits/pixel = 2 bytes/pixel | |||
:total filesize: 25 000 000 bytes * 2 bytes/pixel = 50 000 000 = approx. 47.68 MB | |||
:Note that the W x H x B notation usually has B as overall bit-depth, not bits/channel. Using 16 bits/channel you'd have three times the value I just gave you. ☢ ]⌇] 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That's pretty big. A standard digital photo is about 5 megapixel at 24 bits (8 bits per colour channel, of which there are 3). That's 15 MB, which is usually slightly compressed (meaning with barely visible artefacts) to about 2 MB. You're talking about 25 megapixel at (probably) 16 bits per channel. Uncompressed that would be 75 MB. Are you sure you need it to be that big? Generally, it's better to decrease the file size with compression than with a lower image size (pixel count). But an image size of 25 megapixel seems a bit over the top unless you want to do some very special stuff. What is it for? Especially a ] of 16 bits per channel is way over the top. Even Photoshop can't handle that for a lot of operations because it's unnecessarily precise. ] 13:17, 2 | |||
February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::<small>user posted a detailed question over an old question as a new section, so I'm moving the whole thing down to keep it active and avoid two sections over the same topic ☢ ]⌇]</small> | |||
thanks for your help about the disk size requirement for a 5000 * 5000 *16 bit image. however i am concerned about finding out how much a ] set of 7 identical image require? | |||
:Well, since we're assuming raw images, just multiply our figures to 7. That is 47.68 MB * 7 = 333.76 MB ☢ ]⌇] 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== What creatures have hearts? == | |||
Which creatures or animals have a ]? I was expecting to find this information in the first paragraph of the ] article, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I'd be interested in both a generality (something like "all vertebrates and a few invertebrates" or whatever's accurate) for the first paragraph, and any more detailed information that could be put later in the article. Thanks! -- ] 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I think all ]s more complex than ]s have hearts or analogous organs. ]<span class="venus">]</span> 01:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Also note that some animals, such as worms, have multiple hearts. ] 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::As does ], by the way. ] 12:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Let me use an indirect approach. site says "The heart develops in a human embryo around day 23." Since the development of the embryo mirrors the evolution, you only need to know which point of evolution is represented by day 23. I don't know when that is, but it must be fairly early in evolution. Any animals that evolved in our line after that moment will also have hearts (unless it evolved out in some line, which sounds rather unlikely). Assuming the heart developed only once on Earth (which is a rather big assumption), animals in other lines of evolutio will not have a heart. ] 13:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Aren't you assuming that ]? —] 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I am, although I didn't know what it was called or that it was named after this phrase. So I wasn't referring to Haeckel. But I ''was'' referring to the modern accepted idea that (quote from ] - quite an interresting little read with nice examples) "Generally, if a structure pre-dates another structure in evolutionary terms, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo." So my reasoning stands (and I am strengthened in my belief, thank you for that :) ). ] 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Sea life== | |||
Do any ]s or ]es have hearts? ]<span class="venus">]</span> 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:''"Echinoderms...have no heart, brain, nor eyes"'' (). Some (all?) nudibranches do: ''''. Hope that helps, --] (],]) 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Holograms == | |||
Hello, we are trying to find out exactly how monochromatic, transmission holograms work. Your article says ''"diffraction from the fringe pattern on the film reconstructs the original object beam in both intensity and phase"''. Exactly how is the virtual image recorded and reproduced so that it appears 3D?{{unsigned|203.32.123.14}} | |||
:I'll try to explain it as I best understand it from the book ''Shufflebrain'' by Paul Pietsch (who, awesomely, has excerpts from this 30 year old book online! ) | |||
::Light waves are ] by their incidence on an object, in phase and wavelength. This transform is transformed back by the effects of the lens and retina of the eye, resulting in a limited (2-D) perception of the original object. Light is similarly transformed when contacting regular photographic film, resulting in the storage of a limited amount of information on the object in an image. Think of these transforms as cancelling out, in a manner of speaking. | |||
::In holography, the transformed light is transformed again by interference with a reference wave, resulting in the ''transform itself'' being stored (in a diffraction grating) in the photographic medium, rather than the transform of the transform. When this transform is reconstructed by the reference wave, we get the same effect as when the light was initially incident on the object, or what appears to actually ''be'' the object. | |||
:Does that help at all? '']'' 04:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
That makes a little bit more sense, but exactly how is the transform stored in the plate? | |||
:Over the years, I've read a lot about holograms, but I've never truly understood them. There are no really simple explanations. Now, however, you can buy special kits and make your own! This might be the best way to understand. --] 12:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Of course, it's quite possible to use a thing and even build it without understanding all the details. For example, how many people who work on or own a car really understand the physics needed to explain combustion at the subatomic level ? ] 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Point taken, thanks for the help | |||
==]== | |||
Could anyone explain in simple terms the difference between autopolyploidy and allopolyploidy? ] 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
'''autopolyploids''' resulting from one species doubling its chromosome number to become tetraploid. | |||
'''allopolyploids''' resulting from two different species interbreeding and combining their chromosomes. | |||
I cut and paste straight from the polyploid article. Is that not plain language? ] ] 05:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Fair enough. I guess my question really is - what does it mean that autopolyploids "exhibit multisomic inheritance, and are often the result of intraspecific hybridization" and that allopolyploids "exhibit disomic inheritance (much like a diploid), and are often a result of interspecific hybridization"? (In particular, the hybridization thing I don't understand.) Also cut and paste straight from the polyploid article. ] 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Multisomic means that more than two chromosomes pair (sometimes called multivalent). Since the genome has doubled there are now four chromosmes and they can all pair together. This makes segregation of alleles less predicatable. | |||
If the diploid has two chromosome pairs: AA and BB When it is autotetraploid it will be AAAA and BBBB. Thus four chromosomes together are multisomic. | |||
Disomic means that only two chromosomes pair, the same as normal. Why the difference. Since alloploids are the result of two different plants hydridizing together (interspecific) the equivalent chromosomes are not identical and therefore cannot misspair with each other. | |||
If the two diploids have two chromosome pairs each : AA and BB (species 1) and CC and DD (species 2). When it is allopolyploid it will be AA, BB, CC and DD. Thus four disomic chromosomes are characterictic of a allopolyploid. (the diploid in each case has two disomic chromosome pairs). | |||
Hydridisation just means that species A mates with species B. What makes this special though is that it is only fertile if there is a duplication of the genome. if not the plant would be sterile. So two events are required to get an allotetraploid. | |||
1) Interspecific hydridisation (AA BB cross to CC DD) to give A B C D (this is sterile since the chromosmes are not equivalent cannot pair and therefore cannot segregate correctly during meiosis). | |||
2) Genome duplication of A B C D to give AA BB CC DD. This plant is now allotetraploid and fertile since all four chromosme pairs can segregate. | |||
] ] 23:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== How many species? == | |||
Approximately how many ] of organisms, ]s and ]s are thought to be alive? ] 06:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Would it improve my chances for a reply if I wrote that I'm 15 years old and I'm looking for friends among eukaryotes, too? Or is the Science reference desk just not the right place to ask such questions? ] 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Here's an answer to your question : It says "About 1.4 million species of eukaryotes have been described so far." | |||
:Note that this is the number ''described'', not the ''actual'' number of species (which is unknown). There are surely many more that we haven't described yet out there. About animals, keep in mind that these are a subset of ]s. BTW, there is an interesting website called . Hope that helps! --] (]) 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Thank you! And thanks for the link to - what a great project! ] 21:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Good luck finding friends among the eukaryotes! ]] 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Friends == | |||
How can i find online friends( I am 15 years old)? | |||
:You could start by figuring out the things you're interested in and searching for internet forums related to those. --] 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] is a good bet, where you can search by various categories. You could also try ]. ] 12:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::MySpace is owned by big bad wolf ], so I'd give that one a wide berth (hell even Microsoft isn't as evil as ]). | |||
::LiveJournal, on the other hand, runs on open source software. This, however, does not mean that the contents (the users' postings) are open source (as they are on Misplaced Pages), so I'm not sure about that. But at least it sounds better. ] 13:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
There are also online game sites, like Pogo , where you can play games and chat at the same time. This allows an easy start to any conversation, where you can start by talking about the game. These sites are often free (although they do charge for "premium" services and games). Be careful to avoid gambling sites, which call themselves "gaming sites", much like prostitutes refer to their "services" as a "date". ] 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*] is good for finding special friends. ] 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== waves == | |||
Supposing a stone is thrown into a pond of water,there is a leaf floating on the surface of the water,wont the ripples created by the stone disturb the motion of the leaf??If so,what happens during this? | |||
thanks | |||
:Well, that'd probably create ripples. The leaf will move on an elliptical tragetory, but won't really change position. See the little diagram on ]. ☢ ]⌇] 09:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The wave won't displace it permanently (only up and down as long as the ripple lasts in that spot). But there will also be some permanent water displacement (better known as a 'splash') and if the leaf is close enough to the rock it'll get knocked out of position by that. This is often forgotten. I imagine someone once came with this clever reply and since then everyone has been copying it without checking against reality. Something like the standard answer to the question whether you will remain drier if you run in the rain, namely that the rain will hit you at an angle, making you wetter at the front, where the surface is larger, so you will get wetter. Clever answer. Except that it is a load of bull. The angle the rain makes relative to your body is exactly (?) the same angle your body makes to the ground in order not to fall over. So the rain still hits you from 'straight above' (on the head, I mean). That is, if you regard the body as a stick on a wheel. Which it isn't. The movements of the human body are much more complicated. Th only way to find out is to try. And from my experience I'd say RUN! ] 13:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Regarding the rain thing, there's a reasonably easy way to show that running is indeed optimal. Assuming the rain is falling straight down, no rain will hit you from the front ''unless you move''. But you ''do'' need to move to get anywhere, and, since the density of raindrops in the air is more or less constant, the total amount of rain hitting you from the front is in fact directly proportional to the distance you move, ''regardless of speed''. Meanwhile, the amount of rain falling on your head from above is directly proportional to the time spent in the rain. Since the total amount of rain hitting you is the sum of these two contributions, minimizing it means choosing the shortest path and moving along it as fast as possible. In other words, run straight for cover. | |||
:::The above analysis assumes that your body remains vertical regardless of speed, but, as you've noted earlier, leaning forward while running actually helps you stay dry, at least as long as you don't lean so far that your back gets wet. A more significant assumption is that the rain falls straight down. If it doesn't, the situation gets more complex. Essentially, if the raindrops are moving fast enough in the direction you're going, it may be be better to match your speed to the horizontal velocity of the rain. The cutoff point depends on the ratio of the horizontal and vertical cross sections of your body. —] <small>(])</small> 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Cecil Adams had a go at that a while ago: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_395.html I have to say, though, all the explanations I've seen of it seem horrifically simplistic and very difficult to apply usefully. I've gotten fairly good at not getting anything important wet while moving through rain, under a fair variety of conditions, and here's what I've learned: If it's light, it doesn't matter how fast you go. If it's medium, hunch up, hug your books to your chest, and move fast, but not fast enough you slip. If it's hard, you're screwed anyway and might as well enjoy it. Or carry an umbrella. ] 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I like the last one. Could one term that 'positive fatalism'? Googling that even gives some results. ] 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== sound == | |||
how does the whispering gallery of st.paul's cathedral(London) reflect sounds?] 10:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)amy] 10:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. --] 10:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== File renaming script == | |||
I have a bunch of text files (html) of which I want the name and first line reversed. The files ar all named NRC-xxxxxxx-yyyyyyyy_body.html, where the 8 x's are the date and the 8 y's the article (they're newspaper articles). I want this to appear at the top of the list (added to the text, not replacing anything), and I want the original first line (the title) to replace the name, with the spaces replaced by underscores (leaving the .html intact of course and possibly leaving the date in there too). This way it's easier to categorise the articles by subject, whilst leaving the date info (and the original name on the original site) available. The number of files is rather large and about 10 are added to it everyday, so its rather important I automate this. So thanks for any help. ] 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Adition: in the source, the whole article is formatted in a table, so I want the original filename (the date) to appear between the <body> and <table tags (where closing bracket of the table tag comes much later). And the title (which should go in the filename) appears like this: | |||
<nowiki> <td class="artheader">...title...</td> </nowiki> | |||
Also, looking at the source, I notice that at the end of the file there is the following bit: | |||
<noscript><img src="...URL..." width="1" height="1"></noscript> | |||
where I've replaced the original text with URL, which I also want to appear (visible) at the top of the page. ] 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I had to do this in UNIX a long time ago, and it wasn't easy. I first built a script to construct a series of rename operations written to a file, using the "ls", "cut", and "grep" commands, to get something like this: | |||
mv OLDFILENAME1 NEWFILENAME1 | |||
mv OLDFILENAME2 NEWFILENAME2 | |||
mv OLDFILENAME3 NEWFILENAME3 | |||
:Then I executed the script. I had to do it this way to avoid a recursive error, where the new names would be renamed again, and so on, forever. ] 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::This is why I have ] around. It's so pathetically cheap to program on that these stuff can be done within the minute. ☢ ]⌇] 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::mIRC is msWindows-only and only valid for 30 days (after which I have no way to pay for it even if I wanted to), but I'll give it a try. I should really learn how to write scripts, but then there are too many things I should do which get preference (so why am I 'wasting' time here :) ). I was sort of hoping someone would say "Oh, that's easy, I'll take 5 minutes to write this for you". Well, there was the off chance. Thanks anyway. ] 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Modern Physics: Radiation of Blackbody== | |||
My professors are busy. I am doing an exercise about Modern Physics. If anyone can help me to check, I’d be happy. Thank you first. | |||
'''Q:Please derive all of Rayleigh-Jeans’s Black Body Radiation Theory. And tell out why they failed.''' | |||
My solution is a little few. ‘Cause in Taiwain, any testing time has its own limit. I do it as brief as I can. As the followings: | |||
In a ],there exists some EM-waves to travel all-in it. | |||
*(1)]-waves' frequency <math>\nu \rightarrow \nu+d\nu</math>, | |||
:With <math>N(\nu)d\nu=\frac{8{\pi}V\nu^{2}d\nu}{c^3}....................(1)</math> | |||
:which gives that the more frequency(as<math>\mathcal \nu </math>),the more State-Numbers(as N). In the formula,<math>\mathcal V</math> is as ]. | |||
:Considering one dimensional ] <math>\Longrightarrow \sqrt{n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2}=\frac{2a}{\lambda}=\frac{2a\nu}{c}</math> | |||
:It can be set <math>\mathcal, r ,</math> be a <math>\frac{1}{8}</math> shell's ]. | |||
:Because EM-waves have 2 modes, | |||
::<math>\mathcal ,N(r)dr=2N'(r)dr=2 \cdot {1 \over 8} \cdot 4{\pi}{r^{2}}dr, </math> | |||
:Where <math>\mathcal, r ,</math> is a state-number which keeps a constant : <math>r=\sqrt{n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2}</math> | |||
:And <math>\mathcal, n_x, n_y, n_z, </math> can have different combinations to each other.(<math>\mathcal, 4\pi r^{2} dr, </math> is for a shell volume of whole-circle speed.) | |||
:By <math>2 \times \frac{1}{8} \times 4 {\pi}r^2dr</math>, gives <math>\mathcal \pi r^{2} dr </math> | |||
*(2)With "Energy continued distrubution of S.H.O." and with ] speed distribution, so energy released by a vibrating frequency <math>\mathcal \nu </math> on atoms <math>\bar{\epsilon}(\nu)=\epsilon(\nu)=kT</math> | |||
:By the difinition of energy density: | |||
:<math>\rho(\nu)d\nu=\frac{u(\nu)d\nu}{V}</math> | |||
:Total energy is that average energy multiplies state-numbers | |||
:<math>\frac{\bar{\epsilon}(\nu) \cdot N(\nu)d\nu}{V}=\frac{N(\nu) \cdot kTd\nu}{V}....................(2)</math> | |||
*(3)In a cavity, the energy density of <math>\nu \rightarrow \nu+d\nu</math> | |||
:With<math>\mathcal (1)and(2)\Longrightarrow \rho(\nu)d\nu=\frac{8\pi \nu^2}{c^3}kTd\nu </math>. Which we can ignore <math>\mathcal, d{\nu}, </math>both sides of it. | |||
::Obviously, as <math>\nu \rightarrow \infty</math> then the energy becomes <math>\infty</math>,any ] are broken, it is impossible! (Tragedy of ]-light) So their theory was wrong when higher frequencies.--] 17:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::It's called the ]. —] 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==A free software for surveys== | |||
Hello. I am looking for a free software that would allow one to carry out a survey from the building of the questionnaire to the exploitation of the results stored in the database. Can anyone help me find this? I am not speaking about online polls commonly used by webmasters. ] 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Gunpowder & creation of explosives == | |||
I've been told gunpowder is not a true explosive, as it really just burns very rapidly. If that's the case, if gunpowder was never discovered, how would this have influenced the creation of other, true explosives? Would it have put it back significantly? --] 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I don't see the distinction, an explosion is just a rapid burning (oxidation). ] 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Gunpowder is considered a ], because as you said, it merely burns rapidly (see ]). The chemical reaction only proceeds with the flame front, i.e. the ignition of the material. Contrast this with ], where the chemical reaction can proceeds with the shockwave (which is faster than the flame front)-- see ] for more info. | |||
::About the historical importance of gunpowder, I'm not sure what would've happened if gunpowder hadn't been discovered. The outcomes of wars would almost surely have been affected, so I think it would be hard to guess what might've happened with regard to the development of explosives. --] (]) 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I think you're talking about the distinction between low-explosive and high-explosive. This is explained pretty well at ]. Now, to the subjunctive question of what would happen if gunpowder was ''never'' discovered (i.e. the compound did not exist). | |||
:According to ], Nobel invented his "Safety Blasting Powder" as a safer alternative to gunpowder and nitroglycerin. According to ], the discovery of guncotton was serendipitous; it was discovered by accident. The likelihood is that mankind would somehow have arrived at dynamite and later high-explosive compounds, and they would probably be the same ones we see today. | |||
:The question of how it would be put back is immensely complex. You must consider all the political effects (positive and negative) over hundreds of years if gunpowder did not exist in certain wars. We also might be living in a world without a ]. However, it might be said that the discovery of gunpowder was not a surprise, but was inevitable as cultures sought to find a more effective way to inflict death on others. Therefore, if gunpowder were not discoverable, nitroglycerin and dynamite might have been discovered earlier, and would be more effective, leading perhaps to ] or ] domination of Europe. | |||
:Or, perhaps the person who discovered it would just accidentally blow themselves up. Hypothetical questions are difficult when you're dealing with hundreds of years of history. '']'' 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Some background: An explosion is a delayed expansion compressed in time. If oxidation (or whatever) leads to a (rapid) expansion and you hamper the expansion you'll get an explosion when the barrier is broken. If the barrier is too low (not strong enough wrapping around your home-made explosive - I speak from experience) you'll get a 'poof' or even just a 'sizzle'. I haven't managed to make one with too strong a barrier, though. Wonder what would happen. I suppose the expansion would kill itself, leaving an incomplete burning of the 'explosive'. For readers who need a disclaimer for lack of brainpower: don't try this at home. For others: feel free to try this, but ''do'' use the brainpower you (think you) have. ] 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Disease Spread in Enclosed Area == | |||
If you have a given number of people in an enclosed area for a given period of time, such as a hospital or stadium, and some are infected with a contagious disease, how do you figure out how many more people the disease spreads to? ] 19:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Unm...I just afford this:in Taiwan,people's influence just limit in "cold"(]) . In Japam,envirnment is better than in Taiwan,but I don't know very much about ]. AIDS is not Asians' influence. Main is ] or ].--] 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's difficult to say. There are many variables involved, and in fact, ]s have developed various mathematical models to investigate this phenomena. See ] for more info. Note that there are many assumptions involved in modelling, so these models don't fully represent the actual ] of disease. --] (]) 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Rape in the animal kingdom? == | |||
Does it exist? ] 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, it does. Can't name any particular species, but I'd guess it's common on species where the male is dominant over the female. ☢ ]⌇] 20:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Ya, I remember seeing some show on Discovery channel about spiders. The male would sneak up on the female and hold her with his front legs. He would then use his pedipalps (I think that's what they're called) to kind of scoop his sperm into the female. Then the male had to run quickly away, so as not to be eaten by the female. --] 20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::No, it doesn't. One of the basic elements of rape is knowledge that the raped person is not consenting (or recklessness as to whether he/she is consenting). There is no evidence that any animal other than homo sapiens can understand the concept of consent. ]] 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::I would think running away, biting the suitor, etc., is a pretty good indication that consent is not given. ] 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: Oh really! ] (]) 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's not really clear that that's rape though, it's kind of a human social construct. Not, of course, to take away from how serious it is, but it's still a construct. | |||
:::Rape ''is'' a human social construct- that's exactly the point. Asking whether bulls rape cows is as nonsensical as asking whether boy cabbages rape girl cabbages. ]] 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: Note: The above comment is factually incorrect (and even offensive). ] (]) 21:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: PS: See ]. ] (]) 21:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Certainly not the former; if the latter exists in your mind, that's your problem. ]] 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I'm not sure "rape" is a particularly good word for it, but male dolphins will "herd" females, following and surrounding them, and forcing them to mate. This herding can last from minutes to months. Also, dolphins tend to be given other behavior that could be termed lecherous ] 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:But hey, nobody talked with the female dolphins, so they ''must'' be enjoying it for all we know! ... Now, honestly, this get filed as rape in my book. Also, to quote ], "There is no evidence that any animal other than homo sapiens can understand the concept of consent." Oh really? What the hell are mating rituals then, when the female doesn't let a "unworthy" male to mate? That's consent, isn't it? And if the male uses force to copulate with her anyway, wouldn't it be rape? ☢ ]⌇] 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::No no no. A male spider has no concept of a female spider existing as a conscious entity. This is ludicrous ]. ]] 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::] anyone? Rape is a social construct, it isn't simply sexual relations without consent. The concept of consent is a human one, and laws, rules and human norms of rape vary by place and time. Animal social constructs are likewise different, if they exist at all. | |||
::There are clearly cases when the female refuses any attempt from certain males to copulate. If you say there's no consent in there, then you're being a bit ]. Now, if by "rape" the questioner asked about all this social aspect, with norms and etc, then there's no evidence of such thing as rape in the animal kingdom. But if "rape" is just unconsensual (sp?), forced sex, then there's no reason to think there isn't. ☢ ]⌇] 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::It's not remotely 'speciesist'. If there were a Mr Spider which had the intellectual capacity to understand that Miss Spider was a) a conscious organism and b) one which didn't want to be shagged, then he would be capable of rape regardless of his species. But there isn't. Spiders, blue whales and broccoli are all equally incapable of rape, murder or love. ]] 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::But we know that "Ms. Spider" chooses a male she wishes to have sex with based on several things. If the male, even being rejected, forcefully has sex with the female anyway, that'd be rape. ☢ ]⌇] 22:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm not sure on what basis you would call it that. Which definition of rape would you use? One of the hundreds of legal definitions? One of the thousands of social constructs? How would you demonstrate that there was any analagous understanding of that in spiders? ] 22:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Firstly, Miss (she is known to be unmarried) Spider does not 'choose' in the sense of conscious human choice- she responds to stimuli. Secondly, rape (in every human society of which I know) involves a mental element (]) in addition to the physical element (]). Mr S is incapable of that mental element. ]] 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Well, spiders are a lot different than, say chimps, lions or other mammals. This whole spider thing is a bit pointless. I don't really believe arachnids or insects have any form of "will", but lots of other animals do, and this was my initial point. This spider thing carried away the argument to a unproductive area. ☢ ]⌇] 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I don't think I would say that there is no such thing as forced sex in the animal kingdom, but the problem is applying the human social construct of rape to that. | |||
::Indeed, but considering the depth of the questions on the first place, I think you're assuming a bit too much. (Also, please sign all instances of your messages, even on different parts of the same discussion) ☢ ]⌇] 22:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry - not sure what you mean - what am I assuming? Do you mean that I am assuming that there is no animal construct that is analagous? ] 22:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Rape happens when "the victim is forced into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will." This can apply in the context of most higher animals (not restricted to mammals). The West does (finally) ] life much better today compared to Biblical times, and no one that matters equates cows and bulls to cabbages any more. ] (]) 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Where did you get that definition? It doesn't matter, it's as good as any other, but the choice to use it is a cultural choice - you would choose differently if you were a rural afghan, or a medieval cleric, or, indeed, a member of the religious right. Your taking a definition that has current legitimacy within your cultural context, and applying it, not only to all people, cultures and times, but species as well? I think that's a stretch too far. ] 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Not really, no. "Forced into sexual activity against his or her will" is pretty straightfoward. If you assume the creature in question has any form of will, then that definiton of "rape" is applicable. Also, by your logic, rape doesn't really apply in any case because some cultures find it acceptable? ☢ ]⌇] 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::That's your definition. Not all cultures / times have or do agree with you. I'm not going to argue that you're wrong, just that there is not only one definition. For example, whether someone can rape their wife is a question that I suspect that I know your reply to, but different laws and cultures give different answers. I know for a fact that spiders don't have the same concept of marriage as people, so what do we do with that? It just doesn't apply to animals. There may well be something else, but it's not the same thing as rape in humans, even if we could ever agree on exactly what rape in humans is. ] 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)] | |||
::::::So, you're basically saying animals don't choose, they don't have preferences or don't have any will? ☢ ]⌇] 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I think they appear to make choices, and have preferences, I assume they have will, but all of those are suppositions on my part, I can't prove it, and all are irrelevant to the question of whether they have a cultural concept equivalent to rape. It's quite possible that an animal may be forced to have sex against their will, it doesn't make it rape. One animal may kill another, it doesn't mean they consider it murder, one may force another into extinction, it probably isn't genocide. ] 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Cats always sound to me as if they're being raped. That awful noise they make hardly seems to be a response to pleasure. (I guess that's where the word "caterwauling" comes from.) ] 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That last comment turns out to be true. ''Caterwaul is from Middle English caterwawen, "to cry as a cat," either from Medieval Dutch kater, "tomcat" + Dutch wauwelen, "to tattle," or for catawail, from cat-wail, "to wail like a cat."''. Well, there you go. ] 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Why do cats cry when having sex? Consider this - the cat's penis has spines on it. Sex is painful for cats. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::You're right - sex just isn't the same thing for cats as it is for people. The concept of rape predisposes a whole load of values that we just have no idea whether animals have. It could well be (and I speculate here) that no female cat ever wants to have sex. That sort of biology, along with very different social norms, would make it hard for cats to have the same view of sex, or rape, as people. ] 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Many animals are ]. I don't see any cultural relativism in this definition..it's a pretty simple one. ] (]) 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It's a simplistic one. Rape, to the extent that it matters, is all in the minds of the rapist and the victim. Other animals just don't have the right kind of minds. ]] 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The fact that some animals display a behavioral trait doesn't allow us to deduce anything about their values, if indeed they have values. The fact that a creature is monogamous doesn't tell us anything about their cultural concept of rape, if any. ] 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::This is very mysterious. What was Mother Nature thinking when she made the very thing that is essential for the survival of the species so painful (and presumably, from the female cat's perspective, undesirable)? What purpose does painful sex serve? If it isn't pleasure that guarantees the continuation of the species, what is it? Cats are known for their ability to fight to get away from unwanted attention, so why do the females submit to this? Or is the tom stronger and more powerful, meaning he gets his way? Is sexual pleasure a human concept that doesn't necessarily apply in the rest of the animal kingdom? ] 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Female cats don't have menstrual periods, so the injury from the spike is used to signal their bodies to release eggs, which then combine with the sperm to make kittens. The female's urge to mate overcomes any memory of the pain from the last mating, which is likely from a year ago. Pain and sex are frequently associated, even in humans, just ask the ]. ] 02:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Everyone should take a look at ]. That article defines rape as: | |||
"Rape is a crime where the victim is forced into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will." | |||
If A forces B into sexual activity, and B is struggling to get away, that's rape. It doesn't matter whether A or B are humans or animals. ] 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I'm not sure what relevance a wikipedia article has to cats, and I'm not sure what 'mother nature' was 'thinking', but I am not convinced that the assumption that because sex is pleasurable to (most) humans, that means it is to animals. There are all kinds of other ways to set reproduction up. Yes, I think sexual pleasure does not necesarily apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. I also think that the concept of 'crime' doesn't apply to animals. For that matter, the concept of 'him' and 'her' doesn't apply to all animals. ] 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::What about "pain", "pleasure", "affection" and "fear"? Just askin'... ☢ ]⌇] 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't know. You don't either. ] 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::They ''do'' feel pain, pleasure, affection and fear, pretty much the same way we do. You're being speciesist. Why you say you don't know? Because you're not, say, a cat? That's a really stupid excuse. ☢ ]⌇] 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:How do you know that? ] 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
About animal monogamy, there were recently some interesting results regarding ''female'' monogamy in bats. If the females were promiscuous, this tended to favor male evolution towards larger testes (to make more sperm to compete) and smaller brains. On the other hand, if females were monogamous, the males evolved to have larger brains and smaller testes . --] (]) 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That's interesting - is it just an interesting item, or does it have a relevance to the rape debate? ] 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Just an interesting item... I figure I might as well throw that in, with all of the discussion going on about this question :P --] (]) 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yes, rape is a social construct, but so is the basis of most of this discussion. Until and unless ] returns to explain him/herself more clearly, we really ought to presume that he/she was asking the question in its simplest form, namely: Do all female animals provide "consent" (in whatever sense they are capable of) before sexual intercourse takes place, or are there species where the males forcibly impregnate the females? The answer is the latter. --] 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I agree - if the question is 'does sex without consent take place in the animal kingdom take place' the answer is yes. If the question is 'does the human construct of rape have close analogy in the animial kingdom' the answer is we can never know. I think any more argument is largely semantic. ] 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::So I repeat myself: considering the depth of the questions on the first place, I think you're assuming a bit too much. — Get it now? I'd have expected that if the original user wanted all that much insight, he'd have stated so in the first place. ☢ ]⌇] 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry - what assumptions are 'too much'? I ask not to provoke more largely futile argument, but because I don't understand your point. ] 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:"This is very mysterious. What was Mother Nature thinking when she made the very thing that is essential for the survival of the species so painful (and presumably, from the female cat's perspective, undesirable)? What purpose does painful sex serve? If it isn't pleasure that guarantees the continuation of the species, what is it?" | |||
:If you mean evolution, it's survival of the fittest, not the one with the least pain. The male cat's penis scraping against the female's vagina stimulates ovulation to begin, and this is useful because it's the only way to start ovulation. Also, from searching on Google, I've found out that some scientists doubt that sexual intercourse is painful for cats. By the way, do you think sex is painful for the male, the female, or both? ] 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Who knows? It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't painful, or whether pain is something cats would understand. Whatever the answer is sheds no light at all on whether a cat can rape another cat. ] 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Bowlhover, I have no idea. I was intrigued by Grutness's statement up there that "sex is painful for cats", so I asked some questions. Yes, I assumed it referred to the receptive partner, being the one whose inner parts are being subjected to a spiny penis. And in the context of this entire discussion, which is about whether animals rape animals, it seems quite pertinent to me. If in fact it is painful (which we will probably never know), then I was curious as to whether the tom has to force himself on the female (which may or not amount to rape, depending on your definition), or whether she is a willing participant despite any pain. ] 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: 67.40.249.122, stick a needle into a cat's belly, watch the reaction, then tell me whether you have any doubts that cats feel pain. ] 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree that it certainly appears that they do. Any denial of that is largely philosophical. The problem is that we don't know what values they attach to it. The pain of rape in humans, for example, is not simply physical, it has societal and psychological elements. I do doubt that these latter exist in cats, and, given that, and the fact that humans do things voluntarily that are nevertheless painful, I think we're on dangerous ground making too many assumptions. ] 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I once saw a rooster chase a chicken, force it into a corner and hump her. Judging by the sounds the chicken wasn't too happy about it. Admittedly, I don't understand chickenese, but one can make an educated guess based on sounds chickens make under other circumstances. Now I might as well tell another related tale. In Thailand I witnessed a house warming ceremony that included killing a chicken and throwing it over one's shoulder. A rooster passed by, saw an opportunity and grabbed it (literally). A case of vidi vici veni, where the vici didn't require much of an effort. | |||
Oh, and another example. I once saw a documentary in which some rodent (I think) was said to 'rape' newly borns, which then carried the sperm with them until they were sexually mature and then used it to fertilise themselves. I suppose this was called rape because for humans this would be quite shocking behaviour. But the things is that the animals weren't humans, so the same standard does not apply. Which is not to say that one can not come up with a neutral definition of rape and then see where that applies. Which instantly brings up the question whether rape is necessarily a bad thing. With this approach it wouldn't be, it would just be a neutral description of something. ] 12:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You're right Dirk - in human terms a crucial element of rape is that it is a crime. I don't think there is an analagous concept, or, at least, we have no way to establish whether it is, in the animal world. A spider, a chicken, or an amoeba may or may not give consent, may or may not enjoy it, it is still not rape. to make non-consensual sex 'rape' you need a system of values that recognises crimes. ] 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I believe some birds and mammals do have a concept of "crimes", meaning activities which must be punished by the community, with perhaps the most common punishment being banishment from the group. Obviously, this can only apply to communal animals. ] 17:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::That's quite possible - I just think we should be careful about attributing human labels to that. ] 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
You are all squabling over semantics. "Rape" is just the HUMAN term for unwanted sex act. Would it settle the debate if we said that the female "didn't want it" but received it by force? When you phrase it that way, you can apply the concept to humans and animals alike. Then, yes, there are many species where the male copulates with females who would reject it were they larger, smarter, faster or whatever. This is often seen in primates, although at the moment I can't recall exactly which species. I know that as regards dogs a female will not accept the male during her first days of heat. Apparently, he waits. Guppies, on the other hand, are different. When I worked as a manager in a pet shop, we had to tell people always to by more females than males. An equal number or preponderance of males will chase the poor girl sometimes even to death of exhaustion. Tom cats must hold queens rather viciously by the scruff of the neck, (but who knows, in this example - Lotsa people like rough sex) If she don' wanit, she don' wanit! | |||
One thing we all seemed to have overlooked is that the question is about whether rape exists in "the animal kingdom". We humans are part of the animal kingdom, so the short answer is "yes". ] 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed. ] 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: The morality baggage (whether rape is "good", "bad", "justified", "unethical", etc.) does not form a part of the definition of the term "rape." You don't need to even have a concept of ethics (forget compatibility of ethical systems) to have the concept of rape. ] (]) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think that's true. Forced sex is not the same as rape. Rape is a moral or legal judgement about a sexual act. For example, statutory rape is when someone apparently gives consent, but is deemed to be not legally able to give it. Forced sex within marriage is not always judged to be rape. etc etc. The 'morality baggage' is the crux of what rape is. ] 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: I just checked out definitions from atleast a dozen different sources, just to be completely sure. Most define it as a physical act rather than a legal or a moral one. Some even define it to include sexual activity forced upon someone ''unable to'' give consent. ] (]) 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well sure, but those definitions will be either legal or moral judgements. They are a range of definitions, and do not completely agree with one another. A law will not define murder as a legal judgement about an act of violence, it will define it as a physical act. The way that you can tell that it's a moral or legal judgement is by the different definitions depending on social context. ] 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Right, but the question is not whether some non-humans consider rape "legal" or moral, but whether or not they rape. OTOH, many social non-human animals might have ethical systems that do not consider rape justified. ] (]) 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::PS: For example, in some societies, they do not consider lying to be bad in many circumstances (e.g., if it is done to spread their religion etc.) This doesn't allow us to say "they don't lie." | |||
:Well, but the problem is that we cannot, abstracted from any particular legal or ethical system, determine which acts are rape and which are not. Different legal and moral systems define it differently. You can say that a sex act is forced relatively confidently, but whether it is rape will depend on the social or legal construct. I suspect that what you want to do is to tell me that your preffered moral or legal system is the 'right' one, and that all others are flawed. In which case, I wish you well, we have nothing more to say to each other. ] 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Your lying example highlights this too - you have one definition of lying, these other folks have another. They say they don't lie (which, by their definition, they don't), you say they do (by your definition they do). What can we do with this? Nothing except say that their construct of lying is different to yours. ] 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: They say they lie, and they say it's good. That's the point :) The definition of a ''lie'' is simple and independent of the cultural context. Telling something that is untrue, knowing that it is false, is a lie. ] (]) 01:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I misunderstood you - the confusion here is that 'lie' is not a crime, or unambiguously considered wrong. I guess the analogy would be that sometimes a lie is fraud, at other times it's not. Fraud law or misrepresentation is culturally contextual. ] 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There is no need to worry about legal or moral issues to answer the original poster's question. We just use the most popular definition of rape--that is, sexual activity forced upon someone--and apply it to animals. Of course rape is a human term. All words are since humans invented them. Animals, at least some animals, definitely do have feelings, and some animals will definitely not be happy if sexual activity is forced upon them. As for whether sex is painful for cats, a spiny penis doesn't have to hurt. The spines aren't knives or anything. In fact, since the vagina is a sexual organ, it might even be pleasurable (like an orgasm). | |||
::This discussion is getting long. Maybe we should move it to somebody's talk page? You can move it to ] if you want--it doesn't contain anything except the welcome notice and two other messages. ] 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Sure - whereever, but the problem is that the definition you give is a folk definition that is not a definition of the crime of rape in any jurisdiction. You are describing non-consensual sex, and trying to say it's the same as rape. Rape is a legal or moral judement about an act. Not the act itself. Think of killing and murder. Killing is unambiguous, but we only judge it murder sometimes. Think of going 60 miles per hour in your car - sometimes this is a crime, at other times not. Non-consensual sex is sometimes the crime of rape, at other times it is not. It depends on many things. ] 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Sky colour== | |||
OK, so the sky is blue because light disperses readily at that frequency, and get's red because of particles in the atmosphere that cause reds to disperse. Why don't we seen green skies? | |||
: see ]. -- ] | ] 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The sky is blue because air scatters short wavelengths more readily than longer ones. During a sunrise/sunset, the sky doesn't get blue because of particles. It gets red because there is more air between the Sun and your eyes, therefore longer wavelengths are also scattered. ] 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I mean, the sky doesn't get red because of particles. Sorry for making that mistake. ] 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks! I thought polution in the sky made skies redder? I know that it's also distance. The green flash page is helpful, but why is it so rare? I mean why don't we see a steady progression of blue->green->red? | |||
Part of the problem is a cognitive/perceptual thing. We understand that the sky will be blue. If you look at the sky ''critically'' at certain times such as sunrise and sunset, it is really faintly green, but we tend to ignore this. Artists understand this, and will often paint skies in colours which - if presented just on a palette - would seem unrealistic. However, the eye is far more sensitive to light in the central part of the spectrum than towards the edges, so those times when there is a green tinge to the sky, the sky also seems very pale. So you will never see a deep green sky, though a faint greenish tinge to an otherwise pale sky is quite a regular occurrence. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::There can never be a completely-green sky. The sky is blue because blue light is scattered the most. The Sun is sometimes red because all shorter wavelengths have been scattered. When green light gets scattered, blue light gets scattered even more, so the sky is bluer than it is green. Also, yes, an increased concentration of dust particles makes skies redder by reflecting the sunlight (which is red at sunrise/sunset). ] 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The article on why the sky is blue is at ], not ]. --]]]] 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Sound Made By Hitting a Large Steel Cylinder == | |||
Hello | |||
Does anyone know how to calculate the level of sound (decibels) made when a hammer hits a very large diameter and very long thin walled steel cylinder. | |||
I am trying to establish this for the safety of workers in or near the cylinder. An exact number is not really necessary, an order of magnitude or approximation will do. | |||
Thank you for your attention, | |||
Mark | |||
:That'd depend greatly on the distance from the source. Also, bear in mind that an order of magnitude makes a great deal of difference on the decibel scale - there's only one order of magnitude of difference between human breathing and a jet engine, for example. As for an answer, I'd say about 90-100 dB at a few metres. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:: Pardon me? By ], 10 dB ''are'' an order of magnitude. ] 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Indeed, but the number itself can have an additional order of magnitude (]) ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::: Thank you for the link - I wasn't aware of that term, and the article contains nice pictures. Mark's question was a bit ambiguous, and since I'm not aware of any practical use of tetration, I didn't think this is what he meant. But I see now that you probably just wanted to point out the ambiguity. ] 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I work at a company where there is quite a safety hazard with loud noises. The only way is to measure the noise with a standard instrument, and to invoke hearing protection if you have any doubt. Otherwise, you are in big crapola with the regulators. --] 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Hmm, I'm afraid you may be dealing with acoustic events of zeizmic proportions ;-)! | |||
But to take up the challenge of the question. I'd say, we can estimate at least an upper limit for the sound energy by estimating how much energy is exerted by the hammering. To find the energy of a hammer stroke, let's assume a ring-the-bell hammer at a country fair has a weight of 20kg and tosses it 5m up. So we obtain for the energy E = Ug = m*g*h =~= 1000 kg*m²/s² = 1kJ. Now assume the tube is 100% efficient in converting this energy into sound, and you're 1m away and the sound is evenly distributed in all directions (obviously not the case in a tube, but just to keep it simple). Then that energy fills a volume of about V =10 m³ and the pressure p = E/V = 1 hPa. Going to the definition of decibel (by pressure), we get p_dB = 20*log*(p/20µPa) = 20*log*(5,000,000) =~= 20*6.7 = 134dB(SPL). . For 3m distance, you'd get 104db(SPL). Then you need to apply the appropriate ], but at least this gives us a good upper limit. That this roughly fits GeeJo's estimate gives me some confidence, but I still could have overlooked an important step. ] 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I have no idea of what you guys are nattering about, but I think of this as the big gong in King Kong 1933. Something like that is ''earsplitting,'' so according to this it is 125 db, whatever the heck that really means. Since it is over 90, it means you better put your pluggies in, or you'll never win your suit against Apple. --] 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Whatever the noise level, ear damage is also to a large extent a result of extended exposure to noise. I believe that it also matters a lot if one gets some relief time. So 10 minutes in one go would be more damaging than 10 times one minute spread over one hour. Also, a metal tube will produce specific (over)tones in stead of noise, though I don't know if that will have any effect on ear damage. And then there is the question how much working in a noisy environment will affect the mood and therefore productiveness of the workers. Don't rule that one out! Orchestra musicians work under extremely loud conditions and occasionally suffer from severe hearing damage, but want to continue never the less, despite the lousy pay, simply because they love the noise. ] 12:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Go to ] or whatever your local electronics store is and pick up a sound pressure level meter. In the US, you can get one for less than $100. Then go and measure the actual sound. Until you know that the sound level is safe, you should wear hearing protection while metering. You'll have better luck if you get a digital meter that can record peaks and has a fast response. Also, be sure that your meter position approximates the position and orientation of the workers' ears. If this is a serious endeavor, and especially if it's in the US, you can get more proper, approved dosimeters that can show if you're within the safe limits for exposure. Check out . ] ] 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= February 5 = | |||
== Teleprompter == | |||
I read on your site about the teleprompter and who invented the paper and electronic teleprompters for TV. Someone I know here in Las Vegas--Thomas (Thom) J. Knutson, a former cue card man from Hollywood, claims to have invented the teleprompter and then made a fortune selling the idea in Hollywood. Any truth to any of that? Thank you. {{unsigned|205.188.116.74|22:57, February 4, 2006}} | |||
:If he still works as a cue-card man, then no. And it's not ''my'' site, it's ]. ]] 08:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I don't see his name in the ] article. --] 08:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== metal == | |||
worlds strongest metal | |||
:] ? ] 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Difficult to say, as the strength of a metal depends on how you prepare it and what you do with it, but our article on ] suggests ]. ] ] 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Elementary metals or alloys? ☢ ]⌇] 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:suitly emphazi? --] (]) 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Generally, ] ] are the strongest metals that are useful, but it really depends on the application and what you mean by strength. For example, AISI Grade 18Ni Maraging ] might be several times stronger than ], but tungsten might out-perform it in a particular high temperature application. | |||
Other important properties to think of are: | |||
*]- how much abuse a material can absorb without failing. Very high strength materials are often brittle and will fail in applications where a weaker but tougher material succeeds. Structural steel alloys usually offer the most toughness bang for the buck. | |||
*] resistance- important in abrasive and cutting applications. Hard and Brittle materials can out-preform tougher materials in this application. | |||
*Strength per unit weight (important in the ] industry)- ] and ]s win here (note: pure (non-alloyed) titanium is soft and gummy and not very strong). | |||
*] resistance- Some high strength or exotic alloys might have a fatigue limit, while other, weaker metals might have an infinite fatigue life in the same application. | |||
See also; ], ], ].--] 08:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::] followed closely by ]. :-) ]|] 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Revoked SSL certificate == | |||
What does a revoked (Status = "REVOKED"), yet still-valid (Validity period start <= Current date < Expiration date), SSL certificate (actively being used in a server with https:// protocol) really mean for its site visitors? ] 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: It's hard to know why the cert was revoked: perhaps a commercial matter between the cert authority and the cert owner (like they didn't pay their bill), perhaps a technical issue (like an update hasn't been pushed to the correct server), or perhaps a genuine revocation (actioned perhaps because the security of the associated secret information was compromised). Whatever the reason, the conservative thing to do is to not trust it. -- ] | ] 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Elbino effect in humans == | |||
I would like to find out if you find elbino mutation in all human ethnic groups? I am only aware of this accuring in African people (black people). | |||
: I don't know if albinism occurs in ''all'' ethnic groups, but it certainly is not restricted to black Africans. I have known some Caucasian albinos. ] (who have rise to ]s), was a famous albino Englishman. Check out ] for more information. ] 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The only two albinos I have ever met were a European ("Caucasian") and a New Guinean (i.e., Melanesian). The mutation seems to occur in a wide variety of ethnicities. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] is an albino. And I think ] is too. Of course, ] would be an obvious read, though I don't know if it has an answer. It ''does'' name the son of a Signaporean PM as an albino, but then one would have to know the whole ethnic background. ] 12:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Interesting that "negro" (meaning "black") is considered offensive these days, but "albino" (meaning "white") isn't. ] 12:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Is it? Doesn't that also depend on which part of the (English speaking) world you're in? By the way. in Dutch, the neutral word is 'neger', which is obviously derived from 'negro'. ] 13:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: You are probably right, DirkvdM. ] 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I believe that it can happen in any ethnic group. By the way, it's spelled "]" - ] 17:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Microwaves== | |||
If a 2000-watt microwave oven will heat my soup in 5 minutes, will a 2 megawatt microwave oven cook it in 0.3 seconds without any side-effects? --] 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Not any more than if a conventional oven at 500 degrees cooks a turkey in an hour an oven at 5000 degrees will cook it in 6 mins. In both cases, the outside will burn and the interior will stay cold. You need time to allow the heat to distribute itself evenly. Stopping it and stirring will certainly help. Too bad you can't stir a turkey. ] 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::And even if you could, it would be hard to stop it and take it out within the 0.3 second interval. ]] 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh yeah, and when was the last time you saw a 2-megawatt microwave oven without a timer that you could set in 10ths of a second? Hmmmmm??? :-) | |||
:::Seriously, it's true that microwaves don't just heat food on the surface the way a conventional oven does, but heating does not extend evenly throughout the food. Most of it is in the outer layers, and even then it isn't uniform due to formation of ] effects such as ]s (things like deflector fans and turntables only reduce the non-uniformity). StuRat is right: probably some parts of the soup would boil explosively while other parts didn't warm enough. --Anonymous, 08:54 UTC, February 5, 2006. | |||
:I guess you would have to spread the soup in a thin layer on a very wide dish to get away with this. Obviously, your oven would have to be specially shaped too. | |||
::I believe the ideal shape is a thin circle with a thicker ring at the edge. I would like to offer a line of microwaveable dishes with this shape, or alternatively, frozen foods in containers with such a shape. Perhaps it should be called donutware or torusware (as ]ware is unlikely to sell :-)). ] 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh dear, there's a language called 'anus' it seems. That could easily become the butt of some anal jokes, such as referring to the fact that speaking is also done through an orifice. I won;t lower myself to that level, though. ] 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I envision a language featuring a variety of fart sounds: "No Timmy, you only make the wet fart sound when asking a question." 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm invisioning trailers for the movie ] in a time where all food is microwavable and all microwaves are 2-megawatts and all food containers and microwaves are giant 2 meter diameter discs hanging from the roof of their ultra-house. Unfortunately the microwave doesn't have a digital keypad and you have to 'dial in' the timer. ]] 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::I actually prefer dials to digital pads. My current mic has one dial for time and one for power level. It has a handle you pull to open, not a button you have to depress. It has no digital display. I can't stand those electronic pads where you have to enter info in a specific way to get it to cooperate and need to re-enter the time after every power glitch to prevent it from flashing 12:00 all the time (like a VCR). Also, on a TV which lacks a volume dial, it's impossible to turn it on and turn the volume down in the early morning hours without waking everybody in the house. With a dial you can turn the volume down before even turning it on. | |||
::::Another example of technology run amok is the digital "temperature control system" on my truck. In order to receive "permission" to switch to recirc mode when the truck in front of me is belching diesel fumes, I must first page thru the menu until I set it to the face vents position, otherwise it will flash a red light at me that means "access denied". Good luck doing all that while driving. Then, when I turn the vehicle off, all the settings go back to the defaults, as opposed to a manual system which would damn well leave it how I had set it. I guess I will just have to get used to looking (and coughing) like a chimney sweep. Well, I enjoyed my good morning rant, did you ? ] 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why is there a star beside the title of this section? Microwaves isn't a featured article--] 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I guess it's a featured question. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
Now it's gone! Weird! or is it Wierd? --] 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Just remember - this is a weird place. In fact, we put the "we" in "weird". ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== 2 questions (Quantum)== | |||
*Why do the ] can be applied to solve the Quantum harmonic oscillator ? | |||
:<math>H_n(x)=(-1)^n e^{x^2}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}e^{-x^2}</math> ] | |||
:<math>H = {p^2 \over 2m} + {1\over 2} m \omega^2 x^2</math> ]'s energy | |||
--] 12:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Shouldn't the Ĥamiltonian, have a ĥat?--] 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* Ok.. I don't get your question? There are plenty of derivations of this in the textbooks. The simple answer is this, when you solve the harmonic oscillator, you can eventually work your way to a differential equation of the form <math>H_n''(x)-xH_n'(x)+nH_n(x)=0.\,</math>, where n is an integer (the quantum number). This happens to be what's known as Hermite's differential equation, and the Hermite polynomials are the solution to it. So that's why you have to apply them. --] 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Within atoms, why do the electrons not crash into the nucleus? == | |||
As electrons and protons are oppositely charged, why do the negatively charged electrons not fall toward the positively charged protons at the center of the atom? Does this ever happen naturally, can electrons be forced to do this, and what is the result if it has be achieved? | |||
* Well, there are a couple of answers to that, depending on how sophisticated you want to get. If you keep to the good old planetary model as worked out by ] and his ilk, then it's the same reason that the planets don't crash into the sun even though gravity is pulling them in: the tangential velocity is such that the attractive force causes the electrons to orbit. If you go for one of the more complicated quantum models, then there's a whole bunch of interacting forces that create different energy levels such that an electron is much more likely to inhabit a particular space around the atom (called an ]) that generally doesn't include the nucleus itself. ] 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I know the planetary model, of classical physics, doesn't adequately explain the phenomenon. So it looks like I want to get more sophisticated than that, into quantam physics. I read somewhere that that the planetary model has been disproven. Yes thanks, I know its called an orbital, thanks. No need to be rude. The site asks that question posters do as much research of their own to try to find the answers to their questions to avoid unnecessary posts. I have researched this enough to know what an orbital is. Does anyone actually know the answers to the originally posted question, other than postulations and contrived hypothoses? | |||
::After reading the above answer, I did not find the tone to be rude, nor condescending. The original question did not leave enough detail to know what level of sophistication you required from the answer. One of the "rules" of Misplaced Pages is to assume good faith. Your clarification of the question allowed others to provide you with a better answer. - ] 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:In the early 20th ],Franch ] published a theory of "particle-wave alike". It explained how an <math>\mathcal, e^-, </math> not fall onto/crash on ]. Please see if you'd be pleased.--] 14:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:(I think that don't need to write "a/the" in question ]s.And should be "onto" nucleus not "into". Because of impossible going through nucleus,there exist some ] in them.)--] 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*I have a little want to explain. Your question answering briefly as:When electrons on their ] satisfy ] conditions then they keep ] without radiating any photons.--] 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: The description of the first ] results from the solution to the ] for ]s. Effectively, the ] disappears very close to the ], so the ] of finding an ] "on" the nucleus is actually close to zero. ]<span class="venus">]</span> 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thank yous, HydrogenSu and the others, for your thoughtful responses. I have followed the links and am amazed by this idea of the wave structure of matter. I must find out more about it. | |||
First, are you saying that some greater force within the nucleus repels the electron while a lesser force (the positive proton) attracts it, thus keeping it relatively balanced as it journeys about in a region that forms the orbit? ( I know that the orbit is only an estimate of about 90% of where the electron would probably be located) | |||
If this is what you mean, then what is the name of this repulsive force? | |||
Secondly, one of you mentioned that as the electron approached the nucleus it would lose its charge. Why? and how is this known? | |||
--Leah | |||
:NoNo...Strong interactions(forces) in nucleus belong to some short distance interactions. They will not influe further space,or we early found ]. Electrons do not crash on nucleus just for the reasons of they belonging to ] particles and accepting quatum energy only. So also radiate quatum ]-waves,called ]. If any questions,I'd be pleasured to discuss with.--] 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The '''classical''' equations of motion for an electron orbiting a nucleus are exactly the same as those for a planet orbiting a star, just with different parameters. However, at the end of the 19th century, I was realised that whenever charges accelerate (and circular motion is a form of accelerated motion), they must lose energy via radiation. The natural conclusion is that the electron should slowly lose all its energy and spiral inwards towards the nucleus. Naturally this doesn't occur in nature. The problem was solved in the early twentienth century with ] (QM) | |||
In QM, particles exist in various ''states''. These states have information about probablities of the electron's position and momentum at various times. In each situation, there are only a few states that are allowable. Allowable states satisfy something called the ]. When you analyse the mathematics of the hydrogen atom, it becomes clear that there are discrete states. The lowest state, called the ''ground state'', corresponds to an electron orbiting the nucleus at a radius ''r''. The mathematics of the Schrodinger equation rule out any state where the electron 'is' at the nucleus, or orbiting at a radius less than ''r''. Since these states aren't allowed , the electron does not (cannot), move closer to the nucleus. ] ''']''' ] 16:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:No, I don't really think that's true; most solutions include some probability of finding the electron within the nucleus. Maybe the question is, can the electron then ever "stick" to a proton, making a neutron? In fact, that ''is'' possible -- see ]. --] 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Oh~~sounds wonderful,doesn't it? There may exist such possible. "Everything in the world is possible". For ex:] might travel through stars at the speed greater than that of light. If UFO "existed"...no. If UFO exists...oh~yes! | |||
::I think every possible in the world must its own existed condition. Maybe this is the law which God made.--] 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Finding an article == | |||
Is there some way I can search the list of articles alphabetically when ] is down? --] 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Try ]. ] 14:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted. Wikiwax seems to have been down for the past couple of days... --] 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Maybe WikiWax has melted or been attacked by a giant Q-tip. ] 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Coal-to-Oil Processes == | |||
I've heard/read that Coal can be turned into Oil, (as in the kind of oil for use as automotive fuels and many other useful things in life.) | |||
What is the newest and/or ''most effective'' method to do this, and is there an article about it? --] 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. --] 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Standing Waves' Math Expression == | |||
It seems to be a paradox. | |||
For | |||
:<math>\mathcal {\mid}\Psi(x,t){\mid}^2=A^2sin^{2}(kx)*cos^{2}({\omega}t)=0 {\neq}1 </math> | |||
which means that it does not equal to 1. Thus caused not coresponse ]. Known a ] is expressed as | |||
:<math>\mathcal, \Psi(x,t)=Asin(kx)*cos({\omega}t), </math>. | |||
Can anyone talk about your thoughts? Thanks. | |||
*One more question that '''what's difference between ] and ]?''' My opinions and thoughts: | |||
::By their math expression we can clearly find ] of <math>\mathcal V_p ,</math> <math>\mathcal \omega </math> which keeps constant when a wave vibrates up and down localized. That may because of energy transports into a wave is conservative,just like a particel moves up and down in a Y axis,localizedly(which keeps energy conservative). | |||
::But for another one,it travels in an X axis,that hints its phase-angular is the function of time. By time changes,then <math>\mathcal \omega </math> naturely changes either. | |||
I'm a little not sure above. Could anyone discuss with me?--] 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yes, could someone please discuss further? At this point I am understandably confused. Are you saying that standing wave theory may be flawed, or is false? Or is a paradox in that, mathematically, can be both proven true and false? Mostly, how does this all relate to my original question, why an electron wave/particle could never approach the nucleus? Or could it? --Leah | |||
:I think the questions I proposed above won't contradict anything by sientists last century. I just can't understand why their multiples are 0 ? Is it about ] independance with group ones? I'm confused. | |||
:The ] model is the production in ] theory. ] and ]'s theories are better. It's not wrong but is an elder model.--] 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:*LoL, Standing Wave Functions--] 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*To Leah:Your question can be another way solving. For one of examples,use ]. Its math is not hard for understanding. You could try it. Right now I have something to be busy. Taiwan is now in dark-night. I'd be back here to discuss the detail way of it with you.--] 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
To HydrogenSu, As you can see I am very persistant about this. I'm not very educated in higher maths, but I have a pretty strong science background. I'm willing to look up all the topics, references, so forth. But it will take some time. It is night here where I am too. I'm sleepy and I have to work in a few hours. I will check into all the concepts that everyone has mentioned. I hope that you will be willing to continue this thread over the next few days, especially to clarify any really tough maths. In the meantime, maybe you have an instructor who not only knows the answer, but who can explain things well. | |||
Thanks to all, -- Leah | |||
:I was pointed towards , I found it quite clearly explained the concepts of phase and group velocity. (It's an interactive Java applet). ] 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* A plane wave cannot be normalized. --] 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: (over the entire x axis) --] 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== I Have a Question about Hydrogen Atom == | |||
I have a question about '''hydrogen atom''' in Modern Physics. Why may we estimate its radius by <math>E=\frac{<P>^2}{2m}+U(r) </math> then we go next step of something like...etc..(sorry but I forget the details). | |||
Can it be calculated by ]? Or it can't be? And by Wilson-Sommerfeld's quantumlization theory,radius of H can be elpise shape,but how do we calculate it in this case? | |||
--] 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
*I imagine it could be done classically, it would just probably be wrong--] 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:thanks . I'll be back my room for checking--] 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Adding:<math>\mathcal <P> </math> is not about Classical M. It's an operator.--] 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Wouldn't <math>\mathcal{\hat{P}}</math> be an operator, where as <math>\mathcal <P> </math> would be an experimental parameter?--] 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: More precisely, <math>\mathcal{\hat{P}}</math> is the momentum operator, <math>\mathcal <P> </math> is the statistical expectation value of that operator. --] 02:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* It cannot be done classically. However, it can be done semi-classically through the ], which will give you the Bohr radius, which is the expectation value for the electron radius. It does not of course have an exact radius. As for why you can estimate in that manner, it's by using the uncertainty principle. (The deriviation is in the ''Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III'', among other places). As for calculating the wavefunction of a hydrogenic atom in an electrical field (giving elliptical solutions), you need to solve the wavefunction in elliptic coordinates. It's a long derivation. See for instance ''Quantum Mechanics (non-relativistic theory)'', Vol 3 of Landau and Lifshitz "Course of theoretical physics", §77. --] 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Quantum mechanical operators== | |||
I like '''Ĥ'''ats, why does it seem that I am the only one who does?--] 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
<!--PS, this is a serious question relating to quantum mechanical operators and the use and/or omission of hats, so don't delete it--> | |||
:Since we're asking silly questions about operators: | |||
::Q:Why won't Heisenbergs' operators live in the suburbs? | |||
::A: They don't ]! ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:I just don't look good in hats, so I don't like them. Of course, I've never been exactly ]. --] 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== **don't know which undergraduate degree to study** == | |||
I want to study a course regarding the chemical composition that sustains the memory processing of the brain. Which university's offers this degree. I do not want to study this through a medical degree, if it is possible. | |||
Any other information about the Brain, its chemicals, how it works and anything that has to do with memory and how to improve it by correcting the brains chemical imperfections would be helpful. | |||
please send reply to *]* | |||
:You'll need to be specific about which country you're in if you want actual University recommendations. doesnt give many hits, so I'm inclined to believe that you can't get a course dedicated to the subject, so if you're in the UK, I'd say your best bet therefore would be to go for a general biochemistry course, which most universities will offer, and choose your modules accordingly in the later years. ] <sub>] ]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
: Sounds like you want to do research in neurology. When it comes to any well-defined research topic, you'll have plenty of different inroads, because educational programs rarely ever target a single field of research. So, one way would be to become a neurologist. E.g. study medicine and increasingly focus on the brain and on chemistry, rather than on clinical things. Or you could become a molecular biologist or biochemist, and focus towards medicine. I'd suggest perhaps seeing what choices were made by people in related fields, such as those doing research on Alzheimer's. But this is not stuff you need to worry too about as an undergraduate. Start with focusing on medicine, biochem or molecular bio, or all three. Once you head down the path, the choices will present themselves. --] 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:My own school, the glorious ], offers an undergrad degree in neuroscience . In general, you could google "college search" and use any of the many websites you find to search for schools with neuroscience, biopsychlogy, and similar majors. It's important to keep in mind, however, that it's extremely common not to end up majoring in what you think you will when you start. So be sure to choose a good overall college; better safe than sorry. --] 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Do an undergraduate degree in Human ]. - ] 02:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Edgar Cayce and Ian Stevenson == | |||
What's the mainstream scientific opinion about Edgar Cayce and Ian Stevenson? | |||
This is what is says in the article about reincarnation: | |||
Ian Stevenson, Prof., M.D., is Director, Division of Personality Studies and Carlson Professor of Psychiatry, both a part of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, . Ian Stevenson publishes only for the academic and scientific community, and his writing—densely packed with research details and academic argument—is difficult for the average reader to follow. Dr. Ian Stevenson offers convincing scientific evidence for reincarnation. | |||
but... if it's so convincing as it says there... then why doesn't the scientific comunity acknowledge it? are there any counter arguments?.--] 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have read Stevenson's book (the shorter one). If you read it in isolation and assume no selective description of facts, no omission of inconvenient ones, absolute sincere honesty on all parts (his and his informants), then you have a series of accounts of cases "suggestive of ]" (his phrase). So why isnt reincarnation acknowledged? It doesnt fit with anything else we know about human beings and their personalities. No one has refuted it because there is no way to refute it other than to prove a more likely alternate explanation (like ''proving'' --not just suspecting-- that he or his informants are deceived or deceiving or perhaps being overly selective in the facts presented). Those are hard things to demonstrate when he has gathered his stories from remote villages around the world. As I read it I was saying to myself, "wow, maybe there is something to this", but afterwards there is just nowhere to go with it; it just doesn't fit with the rest of my knowledge and assumptions about what people are and how the world works, so it just sits there as an unexplained curiosity in a dusty corner of my cerebral cortex. | |||
Many eminent scientists (I am not) reacted the same way a century ago when ] was all the rage: some were fascinated, some skeptical, but few of the scientists were involved in the exposures of so many of the mediums as fakes. Most dismissed or ignored the claims as not worth the trouble or out of their realms of expertise or a curiosity not amenable to scientific investigation. ] 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Any research about reincarnation is going to verge on pseudoscience by the very method of the inquery. Instead of starting with that which is observable, and drawing conclusions from what you see, you are starting with a religious belief, and looking for ways to either prove or disprove that. So you immediately get into trouble, since what you're looking for may not be disprovable. Then you have a problem of bias. Few people can have an open mind about these kinds of issues. Who wouldn't find it incredibly exciting to discover reincarnation? In my opinion, the most convincing scientific discoveries have always been those which have gone straight against what people wanted and expected. (For instance, the famous ]) Then there's the fact that anecdotal evidence is simply not considered proof, in particular if you don't have a detailed theory explaining what's going on. Saying "it must be reincarnation" is not detailed. For comparison, I could collect a hundred stories of people retelling (completely honestly) strange occurances which seem unexplicable, and present them all with the explanation: "it's magic!". That doesn't prove "magic" exists nor does it actually explain the anecdotes. Then there's the problem with selection bias. Shouldn't everyone have similar knowledge their past lives? If not, then why? If you can't give a good, detailed, answer to that then your results are biased. Basically, it's all very unscientific, both the question posed and the method of inquery used. --] 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed. ] 03:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
In defense of Stevenson (not the theory of reincarnation), you should look at the books because your criticism above doesnt quite do them justice. They are painstaking compilations of case reports presented in an objective manner, without interpretation. He hardly claims more than that they ''suggest'' reincarnation and he has no better interpretation. The apparently objective presentation without arguing an interpretation is disarming to the skeptical reader. There is all the difference in the world between Stevenson and Cayce. I just cannot believe that reincarnation is the explanation of his cases because there is too much other evidence against it, but I have trouble calling Stevenson's books "pseudoscience" (even though I have no problem applying that to a hundred other forms of nonsense) because he doesn't spin silly theories and he doesn't seem to have an obvious a priori assumption. Read it and see if you still think your comments above are fair. ] 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Cosmic girl, I'm not a scientist, but I think my beliefs regarding the supernatural are similar to many scientists'. My favourite phrase is: "abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscene". Just because nobody can find a natural law explaining an event, it doesn't mean no natural law can explain the event. For example, you may use ghosts to explain why a door slams shut seemingly by itself. If you run away, scared to death, you may not realize that there's a natural law which can explain why the door slammed--because you forgot to close a window! And even if there really is no natural law, you're not proving that ghosts exist, only that a new theory needs to be invented. I can make up a creature, called a Suglot, which is invisible and goes around slamming doors. Why would you explain weird events using a ghost and not a Suglot? Because more people believe in ghosts? That's totally unscientific. ] 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Totally agree... we have yet a lot to explain and I never called Ian Stevenson pseudoscientific, I think he has a scientific way of working, I just asked what was the scientific consensus on his findings.--] 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
= February 6 = | |||
== Nigrelli Regiment == | |||
I have long tried to find more information on The Nigrelli Regiment as discovered in a search of my Family name" NIGRELLI" . It came up in the following response to a Search "Knötel's Austrian Army of the 18th and 19th Centuries 4 Musicians of Infantry of the 18th Century, Fifer of the Deutschmeister Regiment, Drummer of the Regiment Nigrelli KA- 5 Infantry Regiment Graf Brown ... | |||
http://www.uniformology.com/KnotelsAustrianArmy.html". I have not been able to find out any more info. | |||
I wonder if any of your researchers have access to more detailed historical information than I seem to be able to get my hands on. Thank You so Much for all your future efforts , sincerely Dennis Nigrelli | |||
: You'd probably have to look in a book on the history of the Austro-Hungarian army. I'm certain there are many (although perhaps not in English). mentions a Captain Nigrelli who participated in quelling the protestant/anti-Hapsburg uprisings in ] in 1672, so it could be named after him. Probably there was some Austro-Hungarian noble family by that name. Being that it's an Italian name, there are no doubt other families named that too, though. --] 04:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::You might get more responses if you asked at one of the other reference desks, too - it's hardly a science question! ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== The ringing tone of fingers on wine glasses == | |||
Is there a term for the ringing tone that you get when you run a moistened finger around the rim of a wine glass? I've been looking for a Misplaced Pages entry for it but haven't been able to find one linked off of the ] or ] entries. I'd like to know what causes the ringing and what properties the glass must possess to make it ring. Thanks, ]|] 05:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I don't know if there is a term for the tone itself. Various terms have been coined for the "instrument", including "singing wineglass", "microtonal glass organ", "glass harp", "verrophone" and "armonica". The ] is based on this principle. These may be of interest: , , and . ] 06:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Hm. If any article had it, I would have expected it to be ] (which is worth a look anyway). It may well simply be called the "singing" of the glass. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== What is the condition for a particle to be relativistic? == | |||
What is the condition for a particle to be relativistic? | |||
*When you push something and it doesn't accelerate but heavier instead. :-) ] has a few equation, there is also an article on ], where the idea is developed. For the full works and to see the puzzle pieces fall together, read ]. ] 06:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:01, 25 December 2024
Welcome to the science sectionof the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
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.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.
December 13
What is the most iconic tornado photo
Request for opinions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What photo of a tornado would you say is the most iconic? I'm researching the history of tornado photography for an eventual article on it and I've seen several specific tornadoes pop up over and over again, particularly the Elie, Manitoba F5 and the "dead man walking" shot of the Jarrel, Texas F5. Which would be considered more iconic? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 17:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
|
December 15
help to identify File:Possible Polygala myrtifolia in New South Wales Australia.jpg
Did I get species right? Thanks. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 06:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- related: https://species.wikimedia.org/Wikispecies:Village_Pump#help_to_identify_species Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 06:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I can't detect any visible differences between the plant in this photo and the ones illustrated in the species and the genus articles. However, the latter makes it clear that Polygala is a large genus, and is cultivated, with hybrids, so it's possible that this one could be a close relative that differs in ways not visible here, such as in the bark or roots. That may or may not matter for your purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
How to address changes to taxonomy
Hi all,
I am a biology student brand new to wiki editing who is interested in cleaning up small articles/stubs for less known taxa. One that I've encountered is a mushroom that occurs in the pacific northwest (Fomitopsis ochracea). The article mentions that this fungus is occasionally mistaken for another fungus, Fomitopsis pinicola.
However, the issue I've run into is that F. pinicola used to be considered a single species found around the world, but relatively recently was split into a few different species. The original name was given to the one that occurs in Europe, and the one in the pacific northwest (and thus could be mistaken for F. ochracea) was given the name Fomitopsis mounceae.
The wiki page says
Historically, this fungus has been misidentified as F. pinicola. When both species are immature, they can look very similar, but can be distinguished by lighting a match next to the surface of the fungus. F. pinicola will boil and melt in heat, while F. ochracea will not.
Since the source says pinicola (as likely do most/all other sources of this info given the change was so recent), and since technically it's true that they used to be mistaken for it... what would be the most appropriate way to modernize that section?
My questions are:
Should I replace F. pinicola with F. mounceae? Or is that wrong because the source doesn't refer to it by that name? Would it be better to write something like (now known as/considered F. mounceae) next to the first mention of the species? Or is that a poor choice because it implies all the members of F. pinicola were renamed F. mounceae?
Any advice on how to go about updating this section is incredibly appreciated
TheCoccomycesGang (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- First, take these sorts of questions to the relevant Wikiproject, in this case Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fungi. I am not as familiar with the consensus at WP:FUNGI, but it seems like they defer to Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium and Mycobank to decide. Those sources presently seem to consider Fomitopsis pinicola a good species. Also, be careful about "replacing", there are rules to ensure the continuity of the article history. By the way, there is a hilarious but unencyclopedic/copyvio recipe appended to the Fomitopsis mounceae article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips, I didn't know about projects so I'll go read up on that. And thanks for the warnings about replacing things. I've been reading a lot of help pages, but I'm still in the process of learning the all conventions and what mechanics break if you do things the wrong way.
- I actually saw the recipe ages ago before I made my account and completely forgot about it... it was one of many things that prompted me to get into wiki editing. TheCoccomycesGang (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- First, take these sorts of questions to the relevant Wikiproject, in this case Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fungi. I am not as familiar with the consensus at WP:FUNGI, but it seems like they defer to Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium and Mycobank to decide. Those sources presently seem to consider Fomitopsis pinicola a good species. Also, be careful about "replacing", there are rules to ensure the continuity of the article history. By the way, there is a hilarious but unencyclopedic/copyvio recipe appended to the Fomitopsis mounceae article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Does stopping masturbation lead to sperm DNA damage?
I'm looking for information on the potential link between the frequency of ejaculation (specifically through masturbation) and sperm DNA damage. I've come across some conflicting information and would appreciate it if someone could point me towards reliable scientific studies or reviews that address this topic.
Specifically, I'm interested in whether prolonged periods of abstinence from ejaculation might have any negative effects on sperm DNA integrity. Any insights or links to relevant research would be greatly appreciated. HarryOrange (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Only males may abstain from sperm-releasing Masturbation that serves to flush the genital tract of old sperm that in any case will eventually dissipate. No causal relationship between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder has been found but abstinence may be thought or taught to increase the chance of wanted conception during subsequent intercourse. Philvoids (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's many rumors about that topic. One is that not ejaculating frequently increases the risk of developing prostate cancer. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing really conclusive but there's some evidence that short periods are associated with lower DNA fragmentation, see
- Du, Chengchao; Li, Yi; Yin, Chongyang; Luo, Xuefeng; Pan, Xiangcheng (10 January 2024). "Association of abstinence time with semen quality and fertility outcomes: a systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis". Andrology. 12 (6): 1224–1235. doi:10.1111/andr.13583. ISSN 2047-2919.
- Hanson, Brent M.; Aston, Kenneth I.; Jenkins, Tim G.; Carrell, Douglas T.; Hotaling, James M. (16 November 2017). "The impact of ejaculatory abstinence on semen analysis parameters: a systematic review". Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 35 (2): 213. doi:10.1007/s10815-017-1086-0. ISSN 2047-2919. PMC 5845044. PMID 29143943.
- Ayad, Bashir M.; Horst, Gerhard Van der; Plessis, Stefan S. Du; Carrell, Douglas T.; Hotaling, James M. (14 October 2017). "Revisiting The Relationship between The Ejaculatory Abstinence Period and Semen Characteristics". International Journal of Fertility & Sterility. 11 (4): 238. doi:10.22074/ijfs.2018.5192. ISSN 2047-2919. PMC 5641453. PMID 29043697.
- for example. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mature sperm cells do not have DNA repair capability. Inevitably, as sperm cells get older, they will naturally and unavoidably be subject to more and more DNA damage. Obviously, freshly produced spermatozoa will, on average, have less DNA damage. It is reasonable to assume that the expected amount of damage is proportional to the age of the cells, which is consistent with what studies appear to find. Also, obviously, the more the damage is to a spermatozoon fertilizing an oocyte, the larger the likelihood that the DNA repair in the resulting zygote, which does have DNA repair capability, will be incomplete. The studies I've looked at did not allow me to assess how much this is of practical significance. --Lambiam 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
December 16
Abelian sandpile model
Thanks to those who answered my last question, I think it should be added to a disambiguation page. If anyone wants to help me write that, reach out.
A sandpile seems disorganized and inert, but these are critically self-organizing. Do the frequency and size of disturbances on sand dunes and snowy peaks follow power law distribution? Gongula Spring (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be at the Math Desk? Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the question is not about the model mentioned in the heading but about the physical properties of sand dunes and snowy peaks, this here is the right section of the Reference desk. --Lambiam 08:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I await a non-mathematical answer. Abductive (reasoning) 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It depends is probably a fairly reasonable non-mathematical answer for these kinds of systems. For sand dunes anyway, sometimes avalanche frequency is irregular and the size distribution follows a power law, and sometimes it's close to periodic and the avalanches span the whole system. It seems there are multiple regimes, and these kinds of systems switch between them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm impressed this seems so casual, but surely you read this somewhere that might have a URL?
- Gongula Spring (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It depends is probably a fairly reasonable non-mathematical answer for these kinds of systems. For sand dunes anyway, sometimes avalanche frequency is irregular and the size distribution follows a power law, and sometimes it's close to periodic and the avalanches span the whole system. It seems there are multiple regimes, and these kinds of systems switch between them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I await a non-mathematical answer. Abductive (reasoning) 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the question is not about the model mentioned in the heading but about the physical properties of sand dunes and snowy peaks, this here is the right section of the Reference desk. --Lambiam 08:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, this is an interesting and somewhat open question! A lot of work is done on these models but much less on careful analyses of real dunes. I did find this dissertation that is freely accessible and describes some physical experiments and how well they fit various models. The general answer seems to be that the power law models are highly idealized, and determining the degree to which any real system's behavior is predicted by the model ahead of time is very difficult. Update: This is one of the earlier important works on the topic and it does include discussion of how well the model fits experiments.SemanticMantis (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That dissertation is great!
- Gongula Spring (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Polar night
Are there any common or scientific names for types of polar night? The types that I use are:
- polar night - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below horizon entire day (there is no daylight at solar noon, only civil twilight), occurring poleward from 67°24′ north or south
- civil polar night - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -6° entire day (there is no civil twilight at solar noon, only nautical twilight), occurring poleward from 72°34′ north or south
- nautical polar night - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -12° entire day (there is no nautical twilight at solar noon, only astronomical twilight), occurring poleward from 78°34′ north or south
- astronomical polar night - meaning a day when sun's altitude remains below -18° entire day (there is no astronomical twilight at solar noon, only night), occurring poleward from 84°34′ north or south
These names were changed on Polar night article, and I wnat to know whether these named I listed are in use in any scientific papers, or in common language. (And I posted that question here and not in language desk because I think that this is not related to language very tightly.) --40bus (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some definitions at The Polar Night (1996) from the Aurora Research Institute. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- These seem to be generalizable as: X polar night is a period, lasting not less than 24 hours, during which the sun remains below the horizon and there is no X twilight. The specific definitions depend then on the specific definitions of civil/nautical/astronomical twilight. These can be defined with a subjective observational standard or with an (originally experimentally determined) objective standard. --Lambiam 10:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I as a former amateur astronomer have never previously thought about the question of Polar twilight and night nomenclatures, but immediately and completely understood what the (previously unencountered) terms used in the query must mean without having to read the attached descriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- These seem to be generalizable as: X polar night is a period, lasting not less than 24 hours, during which the sun remains below the horizon and there is no X twilight. The specific definitions depend then on the specific definitions of civil/nautical/astronomical twilight. These can be defined with a subjective observational standard or with an (originally experimentally determined) objective standard. --Lambiam 10:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
December 17
differential equations with complex coefficients
In an intro ODE class one basically studies the equation where x is a real vector and A is a real matrix. A typically has complex eigenvalues, giving a periodic or oscillating solution to the equation. That is very important in physics, which has various sorts of harmonic oscillators everywhere. If A and x are complex instead of real, mathematically the ODE theory works out about the same way. I don't know what happens with PDE's since I haven't really studied them.
My question is whether the complex case is important in physics the way the real case is. Can one arrive at it through straightforward coordinate transformations? Do the complex eigenvalues "output" from one equation find their way into the "input" of some other equation? Does the distance metric matter? I.e. in math and old-fashioned physics we use the Euclidean metric, but in realtivity one uses the Minkowski metric, so I'm wondering if that leads to complex numbers. This is all motivated partly by wondering where all the complex numbers in quantum mechanics come from. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps I don't understand what you are getting at but simple harmonic motion is xdot=j*w*x where w is angular frequency and j is i Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- If PDEs count, the Schrödinger equation and the Dirac equation are examples of differential equations in the complex domain. A linear differential equation of the form on the complex vector space can be turned into one on the real vector space . For a very simple example, using the equation can be replaced by
- --Lambiam 01:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be at the Math Desk? It almost seems like the IP could be trolling, given the same question just above. Abductive (reasoning) 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question whether the complex case is important in physics the way the real case is, is not a maths issue. IMO the Science section is the best choice. I do not see another post that asks the same or even a related question. --Lambiam 21:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as above, I await a non-mathematical answer to this question. Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question whether the complex case is important in physics the way the real case is, is not a maths issue. IMO the Science section is the best choice. I do not see another post that asks the same or even a related question. --Lambiam 21:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be at the Math Desk? It almost seems like the IP could be trolling, given the same question just above. Abductive (reasoning) 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all. Greglocock, your SHO example is 1-dimensional but of course you can have a periodic oscillator (such as a planetary orbit) in any orientation in space, you can have damped or forced harmonic oscillators, etc. Those are all described by the same matrix equation. The periodic case means that the matrix eigenvalues are purely imaginary. The damped and forced cases are where there is a real part that is negative or positive respectively. Abductive, of course plenty of science questions (say about how to calculate an electron's trajectory using Maxwell's equations) will have mathematical answers, and the science desk is clearly still the right place for them, as they are things you would study in science class rather than math class. Lambiam, thanks, yes, PDE's are fine, and of course quantum mechanics uses complex PDE's. What I was hoping to see was a situation where you start out with real-valued DEs in some complicated system, and then through some coupling or something, you end up with complex-valued DEs due to real matrices having complex eigenvalues. Also I think the Minkowski metric can be treated like the Euclidean one where the time coordinate is imaginary. But I don't know how this really works, and Misplaced Pages's articles about such topics always make me first want to go learn more math (Lie algebras in this case). Maybe someday. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
December 18
Why don't all mast radiators have top hats?
Our mast radiator article describes a device called a "top hat" which increases the range for mast radiators that can't be built tall enough.
So, why would you bother building a mast radiator without a top hat? Couldn't you just build it shorter with the top hat, and save steel? Marnanel (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The main source cited in our article states, "
Top loading is less desirable than increased tower height but is useful where towers must be electrically short due to either extremely low carrier frequencies or to aeronautical limitations. Top loading increases the base resistance and lowers the capacitive base reactance, thus reducing the Q and improving the bandwidth of towers less than 90° high.
" If "reducing the Q" is an undesirable effect, this is a trade-off design issue in which height seems to be favoured if circumstances permit. --Lambiam 21:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Name of our solar system
Is our star system officially called "Sol", or is that just something that came from science fiction and then became ubiquitous? 146.90.140.99 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's called the Solar System, and its star is called Sol, from Latin via French. Hence terms like "solstice", which means "sun stands still" in its apparent annual "sine wave" shaped path through the sky. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Via French? According to the OED, it came direct from Latin. --Lambiam 11:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
- Old French plus Latin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also in Old French, the word meaning "sun" was soleil. --Lambiam 23:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Old French plus Latin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Via French? According to the OED, it came direct from Latin. --Lambiam 11:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
- Let's say to that claim. The star is indeed called Sol if you're speaking Latin, but in English it's the Sun (or sun). Of course words like "solar" and "solstice" derive from the Latin name, but using "Sol" to mean "the Sun" does seem to be something from science fiction. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Sol" is occasionally used to mean the Sun by astronomers. I feel like it is used in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish our experience with the Sun here on Earth, such as sunsets, from more "sterile" aspects of the Sun one might experience off the Earth. Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Being an astronomer myself, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "Sol" outside of a science fiction context. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Scientific articles that use the term Sol; Development of the HeliosX mission analysis code for advanced ICF space propulsion and Swarming Proxima Centauri: Optical Communication Over Interstellar Distances. These are rather speculative but as I mentioned, the usage is for off-planet situations. Abductive (reasoning) 13:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Using Sol, Terra and Luna to refer to the Sun, Earth and Moon only happens if you write your entire article in Latin and in science fiction, not in regular science articles. They are capitalised though. Just as people write about a galaxy (one of many) or the Galaxy (the Milky Way Galaxy, that's our galaxy). The Solar System is also capitalised. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article says "Sol" is the "personification" of the sun. Google Image the term "old Sol" and you'll see plenty of images of the sun with a face, not just Sci-Fi stuff. And "Luna" is obviously the basis for a number of words not connected with Sci-Fi. Lunar orbit, lunar module, etc. And the term "terra firma" has often been used in everyday usage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And yet, if you ask 1,000 people "What's that big yellow thing up in the sky called?", you'll get 1,000 "the Sun"s and zero "Sol"s. Yes, in specialised contexts, Sol is used; but that doesn't justify saying our solar system's star "is called Sol" without any qualification, as if that were the normal, default term. It's not. -- Jack of Oz 12:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And after you've gotten that response, ask them why it isn't the "Sunner System". And why a sun room attached to a house isn't called a "sunarium". And why those energy-gathering plates on some roofs are not called "sunner panels". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? The question was 'Is our star system officially called "Sol"?' (my emphasis). The answer is it is not. And that does not preclude other terms being derived from Latin sol (or, often enough, from Greek helios), nobody denies that, it is irrelevant to the question. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the OP's question contains false premises. One is the question of what the "official" name is. There is no "official" name. It's the "conventional" name. And the second part, claiming that "Sol" comes from Sci-fi, is demonstrably false. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then demonstrate (that the usage of "Sol" as a name for the Sun, in English, not its use to derive adjectives, originated outside of SF), with references. The original question does not even include any premises, with maybe the exception of "ubiquitous". --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Is our star system officially called "Sol" , or is that just something that came from science fiction and then became ubiquitous? ". And the wording of your own question, just above, does not make sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing colloquial references to "old Sol" (meaning the sun) as far back as the 1820s. No hint of sci-fi derivation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great! Well done. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to box up this section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great! Well done. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing colloquial references to "old Sol" (meaning the sun) as far back as the 1820s. No hint of sci-fi derivation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The 1933 OED entry for Sol, linked to above, gives several pre-SF uses, the earliest from 1450. --Lambiam 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, but that's not surprising, is it? 15th century humanists, astrologers and pre-Victorian poets liked to sprinkle their texts with Latin words. But I don't think this is what the question is about. It's a matter of context, but it should be up to OP to clarify that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not surprising, but the discussion was not whether the use of Sol in English texts is surprising, but whether it originated outside of SF. --Lambiam 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, the question has a clear scifi bent, and that particular usage ("Where shall we go for our vacation? Alpha Centauri or Sol?") does not originate in the 15th century. The word is much older, of course it is, but the usage is not. In the 15th century people didn't even know that the Sun is just an ordinary star and could do with a particular name to distinguish it from the others. The connotations of sol were vastly different from what they are today and from what is implied in OP's question. Incidentally, the IAU doesn't even define a name , although they recommend using capitalised "Sun". Certainly no "Sol" anywhere. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not surprising, but the discussion was not whether the use of Sol in English texts is surprising, but whether it originated outside of SF. --Lambiam 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, but that's not surprising, is it? 15th century humanists, astrologers and pre-Victorian poets liked to sprinkle their texts with Latin words. But I don't think this is what the question is about. It's a matter of context, but it should be up to OP to clarify that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Is our star system officially called "Sol" , or is that just something that came from science fiction and then became ubiquitous? ". And the wording of your own question, just above, does not make sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then demonstrate (that the usage of "Sol" as a name for the Sun, in English, not its use to derive adjectives, originated outside of SF), with references. The original question does not even include any premises, with maybe the exception of "ubiquitous". --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the OP's question contains false premises. One is the question of what the "official" name is. There is no "official" name. It's the "conventional" name. And the second part, claiming that "Sol" comes from Sci-fi, is demonstrably false. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? The question was 'Is our star system officially called "Sol"?' (my emphasis). The answer is it is not. And that does not preclude other terms being derived from Latin sol (or, often enough, from Greek helios), nobody denies that, it is irrelevant to the question. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And after you've gotten that response, ask them why it isn't the "Sunner System". And why a sun room attached to a house isn't called a "sunarium". And why those energy-gathering plates on some roofs are not called "sunner panels". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Does that make it a Sol-ecism? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like a Sol-ips-ism. Meaning a factory where suns are made. From Sol = sun, and ipso = facto. Thus endeth the entymogology lesson for today. Go in peace to love and serve whomsoever. -- Jack of Oz 19:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And yet, if you ask 1,000 people "What's that big yellow thing up in the sky called?", you'll get 1,000 "the Sun"s and zero "Sol"s. Yes, in specialised contexts, Sol is used; but that doesn't justify saying our solar system's star "is called Sol" without any qualification, as if that were the normal, default term. It's not. -- Jack of Oz 12:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article says "Sol" is the "personification" of the sun. Google Image the term "old Sol" and you'll see plenty of images of the sun with a face, not just Sci-Fi stuff. And "Luna" is obviously the basis for a number of words not connected with Sci-Fi. Lunar orbit, lunar module, etc. And the term "terra firma" has often been used in everyday usage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Being an astronomer myself, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "Sol" outside of a science fiction context. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Sol" is occasionally used to mean the Sun by astronomers. I feel like it is used in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish our experience with the Sun here on Earth, such as sunsets, from more "sterile" aspects of the Sun one might experience off the Earth. Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Mountains
Why there are no mountains on Earth with a height above 10,000 m? As the death zone is about at 8,000 m, and above 19,000 m, there is an Armstrong limit, where water boils at normal human body temperature, it is good that there are no more mountains higher than 8,000 km than just 14, but if there were hundreds of mountains above 9,000 m, then these were bad to climb. If there were different limits for death zone and Armstrong limit, would then there be possible to have higher mountains? I have just thought that, it is not a homework? --40bus (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are mountains elsewhere in the solar system that are over 20km high. Given that some of those are on airless worlds, I don't think the air pressure has any bearing on it. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple sources from web searching suggest the theoretical maximum height for mountains on Earth is around 15,000 m – the limiting factor is Isostasy; the higher (therefore more voluminous) a mountain is, the more its weight causes the crust beneath it to sink. The actual heights of mountains are a trade-off between how fast tectonic movements can raise them versus isostatic sinking and how quickly they are eroded, and tectonic movements do not last for ever. See also Orogeny. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And erosion goes faster as the mountain gets higher, in particular when it's high enough to support glaciers – one reason why mountains can get higher on an airless world. Now it gets interesting for a mountain high enough to reach into the stratosphere, as it would be too dry to have anything but bare rock. I suppose it would locally raise the tropopause, preventing that. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
December 19
Does human DNA become weaker with each generation?
As with photocopying something over and over, the text becomes less clear each time.
Does human DNA become weaker with each generation? HarryOrange (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, DNA replication is not perfect, although proofreading reduces the error rate to about 1 mistake per 10 nucleotides (see our article on DNA Replication). But that is per generation of cells, not of the whole organisms. Many mutations will be neutral in effect (because much of our DNA is redundant), some will be deleterious, and a few might be advantageous. It is the process of natural selection that hinders the spread of deleterious mutations: sometimes this aspect is called purifying selection. One thus usually expects a stable mutation–selection balance over time rather than that "DNA becomes weaker with each generation". Medical science is reducing the selection pressure against some mutations, which consequently may become more common. One of the problems for asexual organisms is referred to as Muller's ratchet; assuming that reverse mutations are rare, each generation has at least the mutational load of its predecessor. In contrast, in sexual organisms genetic recombination generates the variation that, combined with selection, can repair the situation. Sexual organisms consequently have a lighter genetic load. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- So purifying selection won't work properly in case of Inbreeding ? HarryOrange (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The larger the degree of inbreeding, the larger the chance that deleterious traits are expressed. But this very expression of traits leading to decreased biological fitness of their bearers is what actually enables purifying selection in the longer term. --Lambiam 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lambiam so DNA repair won't stop these deleterious traits to get expressed? HarryOrange (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is not an issue of damage to the DNA. The genes involved are faithfully reproduced and passed on from generation to generation. --Lambiam 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lambiam so DNA repair won't stop these deleterious traits to get expressed? HarryOrange (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The larger the degree of inbreeding, the larger the chance that deleterious traits are expressed. But this very expression of traits leading to decreased biological fitness of their bearers is what actually enables purifying selection in the longer term. --Lambiam 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- So purifying selection won't work properly in case of Inbreeding ? HarryOrange (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Or stronger e.g. "...we found that genes specifically duplicated in the Greenland shark form a functionally connected network enriched for DNA repair function", and those guys live for centuries and have much more DNA than us. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lambiam If not due to DNA damage, why do babies from inbreeding appear like DNA-damaged species? HarryOrange (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Inbred offspring of species that normally outcross may show abnormalities because they are more likely than outcrossed offspring to be homozygous for recessive alleles that are deleterious. In individuals that are heterozygous at these loci, the recessive alleles will not be expressed (because the other wild-type dominant allele is sufficient to do their job adequately). See our article on inbreeding depression. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lambiam If not due to DNA damage, why do babies from inbreeding appear like DNA-damaged species? HarryOrange (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Larvae going south
In a novel I've just finished (The Chemistry of Death by Simon Beckett) he writes:
- leave the body in an orderly fashion, following each other in a neat procession that always heads south. South-east or south-west sometimes, but never north. No-one knows why.
The author has done considerable international research on the science of forensic identification of decayed bodies and I assume his details can be trusted.
I've looked online for any verification of this surprising statement, but found only this, which seems to debunk it.
Is there any truth to this? -- Jack of Oz 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't speak to its truth, but . . .
- Does Beckett state this in his own auctorial voice (i.e. as an omniscient narrator)? If so, he might be genuinely mistaken.
- The book was published nearly 20 years ago, what was the accepted wisdom then?
- What specific species (if any) is the book describing? – your linked Quora discussion refers only to "maggots" (which can be of numerous species and are a kind of larva, but there are many others, including for example Processionary caterpillars).
- Alternatively, if the statement is made by a character in the book, is that character meant to be infallible, or is he portrayed as less than omniscient, or an 'unreliable narrator'?
- Regarding the statement, in the Northern hemisphere the arc of South-east to South-west is predominently where the Sun is found well above the horizon, the North never, so the larvae involved might simply be seeking maximum warmth or light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This appears in the very first paragraph of Chapter I, which starts out:
- A human body starts to decompose four minutes after death. Once the encapsulation of life, it now undergoes its final metamorphoses. It begins to digest itself. Cells dissolve from the inside out. Tissue turns to liquid, then to gas. No longer animate, the body becomes an immovable feast for other organisms. Bacteria first, then insects. Flies. Eggs are laid, then hatched. The larvae feed on the nutrient-rich broth, and then migrate. They leave the body in an orderly fashion ... (then the quote above completes the paragraph).
- It's not until para 2 that he starts talking about any human characters, and not until para 4 that he invokes the first person.
- That's as much as I know. But I find it hard to believe he'd just make up a detail and put it in such a prominent place if it could so easily be debunked if it were not true. -- Jack of Oz 02:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder how they would measure the migratory path of maggots within a sealed coffin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context of the novel is about finding decaying corpses that have been dumped in a forest. No coffins involved. -- Jack of Oz 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs, see also body farm research facilities. Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could it be that the larvae are setting off in search of another corpse? The prevailing wind in the UK is from the south-west, so by heading into the wind they won't be distracted by the frangrance of the one they've just left. Shantavira| 09:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context of the novel is about finding decaying corpses that have been dumped in a forest. No coffins involved. -- Jack of Oz 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder how they would measure the migratory path of maggots within a sealed coffin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This appears in the very first paragraph of Chapter I, which starts out:
If you can, have a look at 'Heinrich, Bernd. “Coordinated Mass Movements of Blow Fly Larvae (Diptera: Calliphoridae).” Northeastern Naturalist, vol. 20, no. 4, 2013, pp. N23–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43288173.' Here are some extracts
- On the fourth day, after a cooling night with dew on the grass, a stream of tens of thousands of larvae exited from beneath the carcass within 1 h after sunrise, and proceeded in a single 1-2-cm-wide column directly toward the rising sun...
- However, in this case, the larvae left at night, within 1 h after a cloudburst (at 21 :00 hours). But, unlike before, this nocturnal larval exodus in the rain was diffuse; thousands of larvae spread out in virtually all directions over an 8 m2area. Apparently, the sudden moisture had cued and facilitated the mass exodus, but the absence of sun had prevented a unidirectional, en masse movement.
- However, on the following morning as the sun was starting to illuminate the carcass on the dewy grass, masses of larvae gathered at the east end of the carcass at 07:00 hours. In one half hour later, they started streaming in a column directly (within one degree) toward the rising sun, and the carcass was then nearly vacated.
It goes on. Maggot migration appears to be a bit more complicated than the novel suggests. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) I suppose you could try to address it from the other direction and look at the technology your average maggot has access to in terms of light detection, heat detection, olfactory systems, orientation in magnetic fields (like many arthropods) etc. They presumably have quite a lot of tools. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If orderly migrating maggots tend to move towards the sun, they should display a northward tendency in Oztralia. --Lambiam 10:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the novel is set in England.
- I must say, as soon as I read the quoted para for the first time, my immediate thought was that it might have something to do with the magnetic field of the earth. -- Jack of Oz 10:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Prime suspect might be the Bolwig organ, the photoreceptor cluster many fly larvae have. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously, Jack, you need to create a corpse, place it in a nearby forest, and carefully observe which way the maggots go. For Science! And Literary Criticism! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
December 20
Winter solstice and time of sunrise?
How is it that despite December 21st supposedly being the shortest day of the year, sunrise here happens later and later until December 26 and only on January 05 starts to turn around to occur earlier and earlier. On December 25 it takes place at about 08:44, between December 26 and January 04 it takes place at about 08:45, and on January 05 it takes place again at about 08:44. (Google rounds out the seconds). Is it Google's fault? Is it everywhere the same? Confused in Brussels, Belgium. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The pertinent article is Analemma, start with the section Earliest and latest sunrise and sunset. The details are not that simple to understand, but it's basically due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit and its axial tilt. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also note that sunset begins to be later on 22 December so that the time between sunrise and sunset is a few seconds longer than on 21 December (3 seconds longer on 22/12/24 in Brussels according to this). Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see Equation of time#Major components. The obliquity of the ecliptic (that is, the Earth's axial tilt) is the main component and hardest to understand. But the idea is that the time when the Sun is exactly south (that is, the true noon) moves some minutes back and forth throughout the year and it moves quite rapidly to later times in late December. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Three unit questions
- Why territorial waters are defined by nautical miles instead of kilometers?
- Why GDP is usually measured in US dollars rather than euros? Euro would be better because it is not tied into any country.
- Are there any laws in United States that are defined by metric units?
--40bus (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- There were nautical miles in use before there were kilometers.
- There were US dollars in use before there were Euros.
- Yes.
- The questions all reduce to Why can't millions of people make a change of historically widely accepted units that continue to serve their purpose, and convert to different units that would have no substantive difference, because someone has an opinion. Philvoids (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do any people use metric units in marine and air navigation like "The ship is 10 kilometers from the port", "The plane is 10 kilometers from the destination? And is there any European country with metric flight levels? --40bus (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Inland shipping (rivers, canals and lakes) in Europe (except the UK) is fully metric. Ships going for example Tilbury – Duisburg may have to switch units along the way. Gliders and ultralight aircraft in Europe often use metric instruments and airport dimensions are also metric (including runway length). Countries are free to define their territorial waters in whatever way they deem fit, so with nautical miles having no legal status in a fully metric country, they may define their territorial waters as extending 22224 metres. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Our nautical mile article says: "In 1929 the international nautical mile was defined by the First International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference in Monaco as exactly 1,852 metres (which is 6,076.12 ft). The United States did not adopt the international nautical mile until 1954. Britain adopted it in 1970..."
- Inland shipping (rivers, canals and lakes) in Europe (except the UK) is fully metric. Ships going for example Tilbury – Duisburg may have to switch units along the way. Gliders and ultralight aircraft in Europe often use metric instruments and airport dimensions are also metric (including runway length). Countries are free to define their territorial waters in whatever way they deem fit, so with nautical miles having no legal status in a fully metric country, they may define their territorial waters as extending 22224 metres. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- As the US customary units are actually defined in terms that relate them to metric units, any US law based on measurements is technically defined by metric units.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The US dollar has been the world's dominant reserve currency for about 75 years. As for the metric system in the US, it is standard in scientific, medical, electronics, auto manufacturing and other highly technical industries. By law, all packaged foods and beverages have metric quantities as well as customary quantities. See Metrication in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do any people use metric units in marine and air navigation like "The ship is 10 kilometers from the port", "The plane is 10 kilometers from the destination? And is there any European country with metric flight levels? --40bus (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipaedia article on the Nautical Mile talks about how the term originated, it was originally defined in terms of latitude not as a number of meters 114.75.48.128 (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
December 24
Unknown species of insect
Am I correct in inferring that this guy is an oriental beetle? I was off-put by the green head at first, but the antennae seem to match. JayCubby 03:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(reference: https://www.genesdigest.com/macro/image.php?imageid=168&apage=0&ipage=1)
It looks like one of the invasive Japanese beetles that happens to like my blackberries in the summer.Modocc (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would say not necessarily a Japanese beetle, but almost certainly one of the other Scarab beetles, though with 35,000 species that doesn't help a lot. Looking at the infobox illustration in that article, 16. & 17., "Anisoplia segetum" looks very similar, but evidently we either don't have an article or (if our Anisoplia article is a complete list) it's been renamed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not the Japanese beetle for this beetle appears to lack its white-dotted fringe although its condition is deteriorated. Its shape is also more or less more slender; and not as round. Modocc (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is the shining leaf chafer Strigoderma pimalis. Shown here. Modocc (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That looks like easily the best match I've seen so far, and likely correct. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)