Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
According to Betelgeuse#Betelgeuse's fate, it is quite likely that the star Betelgeuse would go supernova within the next hundred years (if I infer properly from the numbers provided). According to the article, the star's rotation is not near the Earth, so there is no chance of damage to the ecosystem. Two questions:
Would such an explosion cause problems for telecommunications and other electronic devices
I don't think it will cause any problems for electronic devices: after all, it's more than 500 light-years away, and besides, the Earth's ionosphere will probably block most of the radiation that does reach the Earth. Just my opinion though, I'm not a professional astrophysicist.
I'm guessing a kiloparsec is 1000 parsecs? If so, and this one is only 200 parsecs, then it would probably be worse than the 1kiloparsec mass extinction prediction.DrewSmithWhat I've done09:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Since Betalgeuse is approxamately 650 light years away, we wouldnt know it exploded until ~650 years after that happened. Livewireo (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betelgeuse has shunk in diameter by 15% in the past 15 years! Another example of a star to go supernova in the near future, although with a larger explosion (possibly a hypernova) but farther away but as a binary star but its axis is also not pointed toward us, is Eta Carinae. Currently, the closest star to us that is predicted to undergo a type Ibc or II supernova in the future is Spica, which would shine at the intensity of nearly the full moon; Betelgeuse would be a bit dimmer but would leave a bright nebula. ~AH1(TCU)01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose you have a species that's on the brink of extinction. To save the species, all surviving members are gathered and artificially bred to boost the population. There's a problem, though — there's only 1 male among the surviving individuals. Is there an optimal pattern of breeding, if the goal is to increase the genetic diversity of the offspring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.148 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put em in a cage, and let the dude get gangbanged. Jokes aside, the optimal breeding pattern is to put the male in a cage with as many females as he seems happy around. Add one female per day (or even per week) and observe the males attitude. When he starts to be aprehensive about the schedule time to add a female, stop adding them.DrewSmithWhat I've done03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is just one male left - then the breed is already gone. The lack of genetic diversity in subsequent generations would doom them. SteveBaker (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are many dog/cat breeds that came from one breeding pair, so i also think that having only one male dooming the species needs a source. The only certain limit to diversity would be in the Y chromosome, no?YobMod06:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want to think that one through a little more, Steve. You are incorrect, and there are plenty of practical examples to demonstrate that. One is BALB/c. These mice are for all intents and purposes isogenic - there is negligible genetic diversity among the entire strain - and yet are far from "doomed", indeed they continue to survive quite happily when bred together for over 200 generations. Note these mice are purposely inbred, but if you were trying to repopulate a species, you would purposely outbreed to maintain as much genetic diversity as possible. You would probably want to have enough fertile females that are genetically diverse to ensure you avoided creating too much of an artificial selective sweep. From this harem mating with your single male, agnate half-brother/half-sister pairings would have only a 12.5% coefficient of kinship, no big deal. You would then HapMap the offspring from the subsequent generations and set up crosses to minimize homozygosity. With careful management, the genetic diversity of your new population will correlate with the genetic diversity of your starting population, irrespective that all but one were the same sex.
Thus if certain other conditions are met, then a single male could be perfectly sufficient to repopulate a species. But even if you only had one male and one female, with a little bit of luck you could still propagate the species (albeit the repopulated species will be a not quite the same as it was before, for example BALB/c mice are noticeably different from a mouse you might catch living in your house, but they are all still mice). Rockpocket08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who are we to play god? Barring predators, (which I'm assuming you wouldn't be dumb enough to include predators in your cage) I think the animals themselves would best be able to choose a proper mate. They know better than we do what traits they "like", i.e. traits that are benificial to survival. If you put a male lab in the same cage with a healthy female and a crippled female, he would mate with the healthy female first, and most often. Again, I say just put em all in a big cage and let em have an orgy.DrewSmithWhat I've done09:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... you're slightly missing the point here, Drew. It isn't really about how to mate the one remaining male but how to manage the subsequent matings between half-sib offspring. Rockpocket's answer is best. What is being described is the reverse of what mouse researchers use to generate congenic mouse strains by using genetic markers to select the "best" pairings (i.e. between half-sibs, cousins, second-cousins, etc. that have the least amount of genetic information in common), and thus to increase the genetic diversity of the resulting population as much as possible. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I say let them choose. Diversity will happen over time, they don't have to be diverse right from the start.
Mate selection works statistically and on an evolutionary time-scale. With only one male left to choose for himself, there is no way to be certain he would mate with all the females to ensure genetic diversity, nor that he would choose the most "fit" for survival or reproductive success. If he did this 51% of the time, this would be enough for natural selection to work, but you cannot apply a statistical outcome to an isolated case. If he is asexual or monogamous or gay, you have just doomed the species for a philosophical stand! In fact for monogamous species, leaving them to an orgy would be the worst idea.YobMod12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is a good idea to let the predators amongst them once their numbers are a bit up. Otherwise natural selection would start choosing them for a cage environment. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as evolutionary changes take many many generations, this would seem a very far off and unlikely problem compared to preserving genetic divirsity, without which disease is likely to kill them all far more quickly.YobMod12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I'd like to know the stall speed and Vmc (minimum control speed, the lowest airspeed at which the pilot can maintain lateral control in case of engine failure) for the Lockheed L-10 Electra with a 3,600 lb. overload, as was the case with Amelia Earhart's plane on takeoff from Lae, New Guinea. I'm writing a song about Amelia, and I need those numbers to see if one of the lines is realistic or not (I've already been forced to take some liberties with the facts, and I don't want to do that any more than I have to). How I came up with 3,600 lbs of overload: ~7,100 lbs. airframe/engines/equipment + 6,600 lbs. (1,100 gal. * 6 lbs/gal) fuel + ~130 lbs. pilot (tall, thin woman) + ~170 lbs. navigator + ~100 lbs. or so of navigational equipment = ~14,100 lbs. gross weight; 14,100 - 10,500 max. takeoff weight = 3,600 lbs. overload. What I really want to know is, given these numbers, would it be possible to fly below Vmc without stalling out (not that anyone would choose to)? Also, I would really appreciate it if you could also calculate the speed that a Lockheed Electra 10-E with a 3,600 lb. overload would achieve after a takeoff run of 3,000 feet on a rough gravel runway at full power (1,100 hp combined power for both engines); would it be greater than Vmc, or less than Vmc? Thanks a lot!
Oh, and by the way, does Vmc change significantly with the load? I'm not a professional pilot, but I know that stall speed certainly increases with the load, does Vmc do the same?
Judging by the time that Amelia would have realized that she had overflown Howland, it is quite conceivable that most of the fuel would have been burnt off. Some of the Itasca personnel were quite sure that her radio messages coming in loud and clear put her in the vicinity of the island. If the next hour involved a "crawl" back over navigation tracks, conceivably, Amelia would have reduced speed to above stalling speed: 65 kts/120 km/h (clean). If she let down flaps, stalling speed would be reduced slightly by approximately 5 kts. She would not have put down the gear. As to actual Vmc of the Lockheed 10 Electra, it is comparable to the PA-30 Twin Comanche, where the number is 90 mph and it's the left engine that's critical. Observers on Lae saw the Electra stagger into the air with its overloaded condition, so that the Vmc was probably adjusted to consider airframe configuration, accessories, air density and loading which all make a difference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I would be quite surprised if it were possible to figure this out. Finding data like this on a fairly obscure antique is going to be tough - but much, much worse - Earhart had heavily modified her plane - so the odds are very good that the details of it's performance weren't caefully measured even at the time. Since the plane itself was evidently lost in whatever befell Earhart - we'll probably never know. SteveBaker (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk -- thanks for the info about Vmc, it was very helpful of you. As for the stall speed, I was actually asking for the stall speed on takeoff with all that extra weight, would it still be so much lower than Vmc or would the overload bring it closer to Vmc? (BTW, you can forget that I ever asked about the airspeed after the 3,000 foot takeoff run, I can now calculate it with the data that I have.) Clear skies to you, and best regards!
I've done the calculations just this morning and came up with the following (very approximate) numbers:
--Stall speed (clean, overloaded): Depending on whether 65 kts. is the stall speed at empty weight or maximum takeoff weight, stall speed at 14,100 lbs. total weight will be either 72-74 kts. (if 65 kts. at maximum takeoff weight) or around 90 kts. (if 65 kts. at empty weight).
--Vmc was probably slightly higher than 90 kts. due to the hot weather conditions (between 90-95 kts).
--The actual velocity at the moment of takeoff is only a ballpark figure because I was only able to get a very rough estimate of rolling resistance, but the number I got was somewhere around 90 kts (FWIW). In other words, AE was literally threading the needle in terms of the plane's performance envelope: one wrong move on her part could easily have led either to a departure stall, or to an uncontrolled descent to the ocean's surface, or to a loss of lateral control. Just the fact that she even made it off that short, rough runway with such a big overload proves what a good pilot she was by that time.
Well anyway, thank you very much for the info. Clear skies to you, and best regards!
Where I live, a yard waste service carries away all the grass clippings and tree cuttings and food waste that I care to throw into our yard waste bin, and it's all mixed together with the neighbors' yard waste and at some 'central' location is turned into compost, at which point I believe it's sold to local nurseries and garden supply stores. Surely my yard waste contains thousands of seeds of weeds, and I'm sure the inferior yard waste of my unscrupulous neighbors is teeming with seeds of some of those noxious weeds that are impossible to get rid of once you've got them. My question: Is there some process (natural or otherwise) that occurs in composting that wrecks the seeds? Or am I dooming myself to additional hours of backbreaking labor every weekend by using compost? Tempshill (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the method used to make the compost. If they burn it and use the ashes, the seeds are toast (pardon the pun). If, on the other hand, they mulch, decay, or use any other method of composting, the seeds would likely survive. Especially through mulching.
This is also a problem when you mow your yard. If you simply mow over the weeds, you spread the seeds, and infect more of your yard with weeds.
My theory (I haven't tried it yet) would be to comb over every inch of your yard, plucking as many weeds as possible. Let it grow for awhile. This makes the weeds much easier to find as they grow a lot taller than grass. Pick more weeds. Now mow, and repeat the process. Combine with any form of weedicides (pardon the term) that you want. If you use compost, burn it and spread the ashes instead of just spreading the live compost. This will kill everything in the compost, but the nutrients are still there.DrewSmithWhat I've done04:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you care about runoff (You probably should) skip the herbicide step. Be careful about using ashes in your garden. It is true that ashes contain a large part of the original nutrients, but indiscriminate use of ashes can drastically influence the soil's PH which might end up hurting more than helping. Dauto (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commercially produced compost heats the original materials to such a point that renders seeds useless. It's a bit early on a Sunday morning - I can't find the relevant reference yet...maybe someone can help out here? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on who is doing the composting, and where. For example, in hawaii we our local companies compost using the decaying method (letting the compost sit forever until it stinks. Well, thats what it seems like anyway, it's probably a lot more scientific). Some also simply mulch it and resell it. Even traditionally heated compost has been known to have still active seeds (granted, not nearly the numbers of other methods).DrewSmithWhat I've done09:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decomposition bacteria can work at temperatures over 60 degrees that will kill most seeds, and they produce the heat as they consume the material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
turning a hot compost pile at SBI don't have a source on hand, but yes, if the compost is properly aerated over a period of time the thermophyllic bacteria can raise the temperatures to 65 C, which kills all but very large seeds, as well as many fungal spores and harmful bacteria (such as salmonella, which can be in animal manures).
As far as the process involved, the normal aerobic soil bacteria raise the heat in the pile to a certain temperature as a byproduct of their metabolism (just like you get hot when exercising), after which the thermophyllic (heat-loving) bacteria are able to function. The thermopyllic bacteria then take over, raising the temperature much higher and essentially pasteurizing the pile. The NOP standards for certified compost in the US require the pile to be kept hot (131-170 F) for at least 15 days, turning every 3 days to ensure adequate oxygen (anaerobic bacteria do not produce as much heat). --SB_Johnny | talk09:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really bothering me. When I Googled the question "What is the volume of all the water on Earth, I see a lot of different references. The vast majority seem to state that the volume of all the water on Earth is described as being about 1.3 billion kilometers. Now when I visualize 1.3 billion kilometers, I visualize a cube measuring 1.2 billion kilometers wide, 1.3 billion kilometers in width, and 1.3 billion kilometers high. If I am correct, the Earth itself is no where near 1.3 billion kilometers wide, and since our sun is something like 93 million miles from the Earth, this cube of 1.3 billion kilometers would exceed the distance by 11 or 12 times. What am I missing here?
Thank you for all your help,
Jim Lyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.45.161 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what 1.3 billion cubic kilometres means. It means 1.3 billion lots of one cubic kilometre, where one cubic kilometre is a cube 1 kilometre to each side. Thus the amount of water on earth is equivalent to a cube about 1090km to each side. Algebraist05:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)I think your numbers are rigt, but your explanation is basically affirming what he says. If you want to visualise it as "one giant cube" take the cube root of 1.3 bill which is roughly 1091. So each side of your cube would be around 1091Km's. Make it alittle simpler to understand?DrewSmithWhat I've done05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised to see any reference, let alone "a lot of different references", that quantify a volume in kilometers because that is nonsense. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I Googled "What is the volume of all the water on Earth" (without quotes) all of the results seem to give the answer in cubic metres [1] (except the first one, which gives the area). Interestingly, the fifth result is exactly the same post on Yahoo answers [2] and Googling with quotes give only that question on Yahoo. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I thought but WolframAlphaing "all water", "earth water", etc etc gave me no answer, seems to be picky about exactly how you phrase your question. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question has always popped up in my mind whenever someone speaks about unicellular organisms. Since it is only made up of one cell, what differs such an organism from a single cell? If there is no difference, why do we have two names for one thing in the same expression, i.e. why do we use this obvious tautology? // 85.229.103.178 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is more between unicellular and multicellular organisms (like, say, humans). A multicellular organism is made up of lots of cells, which aren't organisms in their own right, hence there is no tautology. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 08:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, some cells from multicellular organisms can "live" as single cells - HeLa, for example - but these are not considered an organism (at least not by most people). This is quite an important distinction that can be made using the apparent tautology Rockpocket08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what are the properties or components or chemicals are used for obtaining good quality of starch from maize corn?
After seperation of starch from corn which are other material or chemicals are added to create biopolymer?
What are the processes or method for making bioplastic from maize corn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenmalvi (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain what metric expansion of space entails in the following situation? Say you have a crystal lattice in which atoms are regularly spaced. Since the crystal lattice is embedded in space, does an expansion of space cause the inter-atom distance to increase? If a large crystal is shaped such that a light pulse emitted from a source embedded in the crystal will later come back to the source, will expansion of space manifest as an increase in the time it takes a light pulse to come back to the same point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.108 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The expansion isn't a force pushing things apart, it's just leftover inertia from the inflationary epoch. The article "metric expansion of space" should be renamed to something more accurate like "expansion of the universe". The cosmological constant (if there really is one) is an exception; you can think of it as a slight modification to the self-gravitation of the object. The force is smaller than in a universe without the cosmological constant by a fractional amount roughly equal to the density of the crystal divided by 10-29 g/cm3. This is well outside the bounds of detectability, of course. (I don't know if we can even detect the self-gravitation, much less a decrease of one part in 1029.) -- BenRG (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) May I assume you are talking about cosmic expansion? If that's the case, the answer is no, that expansion does not entail the expansion of objects like a crystal latice within space. Dauto (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Space is stretching - but over small distances, the speed of that expansion is negligable. The forces between the atoms in the crystal can easily keep the lattice together. It's only over vast distances when the force of gravity is so gentle that things on the scale of galaxies can be moved further apart. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your lattice stays together is because of strong electron bonds. Those are strong enough the offset the very small counter-force of the expansion of space. On massive, massive scales, things like galaxies will be moved by the expansion of space, but not pulled apart. Common example is an ant on a balloon—the ant doesn't rip apart, because the forces that hold the ant together are much stronger than the forces causing the surface of the balloon to stretch. If you had a lot of ants on the surface of a very big balloon (a problematic endeavor) and you inflated it, each ant would perceive the other ants moving away from them, but no ants would be pulled apart. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Hubble expansion is not a force. It doesn't have the right units to be a force—it's a velocity per unit distance, not an acceleration. It is not pushing the lattice apart, not even by a tiny amount. The expansion rate is changing, and those changes are due to forces which do also act on the lattice, namely self-gravitation and cosmological repulsion. Of those, self-gravitation dominates overwhelmingly in ordinary circumstances—it's roughly 1029 times larger for a substance with the density of water. So the net effect of the forces implicated in universal expansion is to decrease the interatomic distance of a crystal by a very small amount. -- BenRG (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using force here in a technical sense. I'm just trying to conjure up an image for them of the relative ability of things to affect the position of things. One sees a galaxy zooming away from us—it's not actually zooming in the sense of being pushed, but it is easier to make sense of as an analogy to a pushing force. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the OP understood that an outward force/push/pull on the crystal would just cause a change in the equilibrium lattice spacing, not a gradual expansion. Nonetheless there is no such effect. An ant on a stretching rubber sheet would find its legs being forced apart, but nothing analogous happens as the universe expands. -- BenRG (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eating high volume and fibrous food can fill you up enough to not feel hungry, while easily having low enough calories to cause weight loss. Alternately, a normal varied diet can be eaten and weight still loss if doing enough excercise. Imo, people don't fail at sensible healthy diets because they are hungry, but becasue they crave certain comfort foods or are used to over-eating. They may intepret that as hunger, but it isn't really.YobMod12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why he said hungry, not hungary. Incidentally if this is for yourself your local GP will happily dole out diet advice, and that might be a good idea if you live in a country with free healthcare. Contributions/212.219.8.233 (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't usually possible to lose weight without feeling hungry except by getting some sort of disease, but it's possible to lose weight without depriving yourself of food, by exercising in the right way. If you can work up to running five miles a day, or go on a long backpacking trip, you will probably lose weight even if you eat as much as you want to. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How amount of UV in sunlight differs between time of day, season, and various places in north or south Britain
I'm looking for some figures for how the amount of damaging UV varies along the above dimensions please. As well as being affected by latitude, the amount might be affected by the amount of cloud cover, although I have heard that cloud cover makes little difference. 78.151.102.179 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are really three things to take into account:
The amount of sunlight intercepted by the earth per square meter of the surface is proportional to the sine of the latitude - so there is less sunlight at more northerly latitudes.
At more northerly latitudes, the light has to pass through more air - so more of it gets scattered. You can calculate that using the Beer–Lambert law.
As you say: The amount of cloud and humidity in the atmosphere also has an effect (although not so large as the others) - and differing weather patterns between the northern and southern parts of Britain might therefore make a difference.
I wonder how I could include similar effects due to the time of day? Does anyone know a formula for the earth's tilt angle in relation to the month of year? 78.147.253.196 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Van't Hoff reaction isotherm and van't Hoff equation are different ?
If it is how can I deduce van't Hoff equation from van't Hoff reaction isotherm?Supriyochowdhury (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't seem to have an article on the van 't Hoff isotherm, but Googling it turns up several sites ([3],[4], [5], [6](page 269 in the last)) From these I surmise that the van 't Hoff reaction isotherm refers to the equation giving the free energy change for a reaction system which is not in equilibrium: , where Q has the same form as the equilibrium constant but uses the current, non-equilibrium activities (concentrations). If you define the first term on the right hand side as , and use the relation , you can get the last equation on the van 't Hoff equation page. If you then take the derivative with respect to T (or 1/T), you obtain the first (or second) equation on that page. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Household science-themed activities for 18-26 year olds
Hi guys, this week I need to run a Science themed night for my Rover crew (probably about a dozen or fewer 18-26 year olds) and I'm pretty stuck for ideas. What kind of stuff can I do cheaply and not-too-destructively, that will demonstrate interesting or surprising science ideas? "Wow" factor is a definite plus, and preferably it should be something that they themselves can participate in rather than a long sequence of demonstrations. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who made the Periodic Table Table writes (or wrote) a column for Popular Science about spectacular experiments you shouldn't do because they're probably too dangerous. As a public service, I will point you to his website anyway. Tempshill (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm collecting those sorts of ideas - so far, I have three good ones that meet your criteria. They all require only things you'd find around the house - all three seem impossible at first sight - all three work very well - none of them need cost you a penny - none are destructive:
Measuring the thickness of a human hair using a laserpointer and a tape measure.
Measuring the speed of light using chocolate chips and a microwave oven.
I always thought it was pretty cool to invert a bowl of slaked cornflour (that's cornstarch in the US, and if it's slaked it's mixed with water to form a smooth paste - a bit more runny than glue) over someone's head. If you do it fast enough it sets. You can also make sure it sets by banging the bowl on the table first. I think it's something to do with it being a colloidal solution. It should appeal to the child in every young adult - well you could always get them to bet on the outcome! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could extract DNA from peas or kiwis (the fruit, not the people or the bird - though come to think of it - if you could find an Antipodean willing to donate a cheek swab, you could do a cool comparison between the DNA of the fruit and the person to demonstrate the ubiquity of DNA as the basis for life). Rockpocket21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link from says that you need a lot of material to extract a visible amount of DNA from using this technique - so a cheek-swab isn't going to cut it. It's certainly cool that you can extract DNA using such simple methods though. The end of the experiment seems like a bit of an anticlimax...so you've got this white stringy stuff...now what? It seems like you should be able to create an evil clone army with it or something! SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You can do it with a mouthwash sample so long as you use chilled ethanol rather than rubbing alcohol to precipitate the DNA. It would not quite get the same amount as from the fruit, admittedly. Should an Antipodean offer you 5ml of blood, you would really be in business though! First time I saw that experiment done I was totally amazed. DNA is such an abstract concept for most that to actually see it is really quite cool. But then again, I'm a geek. There are other stuff you can do with your DNA sample. If you have access to UV you can run a little forensics lab a la CSI. You can test for purines and pyrimidines in the sample using quite simple solutions. Even without the evil clones, there are hours of DNA fun to be had! Rockpocket02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking the "science factor", but high in the "wow factor", get an old microwave and put stuff in it - CDs, lightbulbs, tinfoil, candles. Please note that this could be very dangerous, I don't know, I just know it looks cool, and when I've done it, the microwave hasn't exploded. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grapes cut nearly in half and splayed out flat with just a thin piece of skin connecting the pieces, produce an impressive result when microwaved. If you're going to microwave a CD - don't use a recordable one - it needs to be a prerecorded disk to get the most impressive results. But PLEASE make sure everyone wears eye protection - and don't be surprised if it wrecks your microwave oven. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really seems unlikely to me. But if it worries you - keep a fire extinguisher in your kitchen (you should do that anyway). Any grape-induced microwave pyrotechnics can easily be extinguished with a CO2 extinguisher...and because there are MANY other things in your kitchen that could catch fire - you need one of those even if you aren't doing parlor tricks. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Aluminium and a solution of sodium hydroxide make hydrogen (and quite a bit of heat). You can quarter fill a wine bottle with sodium hydroxide solution, weigh it down and sit it in a bucket of water (as coolant) then roll up a piece of aluminium foil and stick it in the bottle. You can then put a balloon's neck over the neck of the bottle, it'll fill slowly. Do this outside, and note that the balloon will also have steam + NaOH in it. To fill a balloon with cooler hydrogen (and no steam) use wit and engineering to filter the hydrogen through water. My setup had a sealed plastic container containing the reagents, a tube carrying the hydrogen/steam from that into the bottom of a a 1 litre drink bottle; the drink bottle was 3/4 filled with water, and the balloon was filled from the bottle. Anyway, you can then do as you wish with the balloon full of hydrogen. The pop test is traditional. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone's interested, the night went quite well. I forgot to take a ruler or tape measure and nobody else had one and so we had to estimate all the appropriate lengths, but we got a width of 0.114 mm for a hair, a value of 2.98 for pi and a speed of light around 3.2 x 108 m s-1. Unfortunately we didn't have time to try the non-Newtonian fluid, so I now have a bag of cheap flour lying around. Maybe I will make the stuff next week and just bring it along. Thanks for the help! Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I fall from a motorcycle, does it really matter at what speed I am? Provided I don't hit a tree or other similar obstacle, my speed is parallel to the floor, so not that relevant, right?--Mr.K.(talk)17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this subject, but friction would increase with speed. It would be the difference between scraping a layer or two of skin and scraping off a considerable amount of muscle, wouldn't it? Plus, the more momentum you have the more likely you are to start rolling uncontrollably at high sped, risking sudden impacts and thus broken bones, etc. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "fall from a motorcycle"? Are we just talking about letting go of the handlebars and somehow just tumbling off the bike? I am not a biker, but I think that sort of accident is rare. APL (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this: When you're on the motorbike - your body has a certain amount of kinetic energy, which is proportional to the SQUARE of your speed. If you drive twice as fast you have four times the amount of energy. At 100mph you have 100 times more kinetic energy than at 10mph. When you fall off - bounce around a bit - then stop, that energy has to be dissipated somehow. How does it dissipate? Well, friction turns some of it to heat - the rest is consumed in ripping, smashing, tearing and otherwise breaking you and whatever you're still attached to. Certainly, the more slowly that energy is dissipated, the better. Hitting a tree will dissipate all of it in a tiny fraction of a second...sliding smoothely along the road will dissipate it much more slowly. However, what we can say is that it's not good! As for rolling - the frictional force of your body against the road is pretty much the same, no matter your speed - which means it'll take longer to come to a stop if you're going faster. But your speed is higher - so the rotational torque is higher too. Hence, you'll certainly be more inclined to roll. The faster you roll, the more centrifugal force is going to throw your limbs outwards - which means they'll be more inclined to get broken.
It's safe to say that the faster you're going when you fall off - the worse the consequences...and because (in the end) it's all about dissipating energy - it's probably going to be four times worse at twice the speed.
I think I may be the first biker to comment on this, and its not a very scientific answer. Whatever speed you fall off at, it will hurt. If you're not wearing appropriate safety gear (and I mean leathers or kevlar) your speed parrellel to the floor is what I'd be most worried about. Denim will not protect mate, you can fall over wearing jeans and tear a whole in them. The wavey hand science above is all correct though. Dont it into your head that spead doesn't matter, I can testify to the fact that it doest notm and that falling off ALWAYS hurts. If you want to learn to ride fast safely, there are a whole host of advanced rider courses.Alaphent (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you see racing motorcyclists fall, you do indeed see them slide along the ground (a very considerable way); remarkably often they are only slightly bruised. So it's possible, but it's a difficult thing to achieve. In their favour, the professionals have: a) very long runoffs, so plenty of room to scrape down to zero without hitting a telephone pole b) really good suits and other safety gear c) they often put the bike down; better to be doing a slide along the ground than pinwheeling around after a collision; d) they know how to fall (because they've all done it a lot); they know how to get onto their back (where the spine protector will eat the damage) and to avoid rolling (which, as Steve says, will break limbs). And of course they almost always come off at corners, when the speed is relatively low and they're already virtually on the ground anyway. If it was only a bit safer you could get a pretty good new sport out of it: fire bikers out of a gun and watch them slide along the tarmac - they get points for style and for tricks. 87.115.144.38 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who has fallen off a motorbike I can confirm that;
it does definitely hurt
there is an awful lot of damage (lost skin and flesh) even at low speed if you are stupid enough not to wear any safety equipment (tee-shirt and sandals don't count)
(in the context of this post) I am stupid
it probably does get worse to v2 but I'm not going to experiment
Of course your speed matters. It's sort of appalling that this has not been beaten in to your head, as a motorcycle driver. Because a motorcycle driver is categorically the least safe driver (both by his/her own actions, and because of some unforgiving physics), it is extremely important that you understand how dangerous speeding is.
First, if you speed, you are more likely to be involved in a crash.
Second, if you are involved in a crash, your speed will be the primary predictive factor in the severity of injuries and death that you will sustain yourself and inflict on other drivers. As a motorcyclist, your statistics are unfortunately weighted towards inflicting death and injury on yourself, rather than other vehicles. As a motorcyclist, you will be 6 times as likely to be in a fatal accident than an automobile driver. Speeding on a motorcycle is correlated with fatal accidents 1.5x as much as it is for automobiles. If you are a driver of a "sport bike" (typically, one which you ride leaning forward, with a faster top speed and acceleration than a Touring or Cruiser bike), you are in the category of "most statistically likely to die" of any motor vehicle operator, passenger, or bystander.
When you crash, your speed will be the primary parameter of the impact. (This is more important than incidence angle for many reasons). There is the simple matter of kinetic energy to dissipate - which increases as velocity squared. As mentioned above, if you drive twice as fast, you will have four times as much energy.
Okay, first, it's not uncommon for motorcycles to crash by hitting a slick spot and sliding, without hitting anything. If you are completely covered in leather and helmet, and the terrain is completely flat, and you don't try to stop yourself with your hands, and you don't get tangled up with the motorcycle, you are likely to slide without major damage even at high speed. But if you hit even a small obstacle or start tumbling, lots of nasty things can happen. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Space is curved. Does the curve extend to form a circle? If so, does the curve exist in all directions to form a sphere? If that also is so, what is outside the sphere? Can it be said there is no outside? Where does the third dimension, in the everyday sense of the word, fit into this? – GlowWorm.
It is difficult to answer the question because "space" by definition is a void without form. That means no curves, no lines, nothing. The other stuff is just floating about in that space. If God loves us, or we love him enough, maybe some of it does form that complete loop. I hope so. Apparently a black hole could curve light in such a way that you can see its other side (as though you were hovering over England but could see bits of Australia and Antartica around the edges!) Nobody can say if the universe has an outside because, not only can we not see it's outer edges, we cannot even see that which is in our view (see Dark matter). Dimensions as we know them are classed as three to help us with mathematical equations (up-down, left-right, in-out) but in reality all objects with mass are curved, without linear form. No up-down, left-right, only across and in that across, only in one direction. You will not be able to calculate the volume of an area if you think in one dimension but that is the only dimension you will ever have. ~ R.T.G21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RTG: Please stop answering questions you have no clue about. Nearly every sentence of what you wrote is wrong: Space is curved - so it has curves (duh!) - you can trace them by following the paths of lightbeams. Space does what space does without the help of god or gods - there is no shred of evidence for gods of any kind - and all of the physics of space-time works perfectly well without divine intervention. Black holes can only theoretically curve light into a closed loop (see Photon sphere) it's not possible in practice because "photon spheres" are unstable - otherwise black holes only bend light like any other gravitational source - nothing remarkable going on there. The universe cannot have an "outside" because that too would (by definition) be a part of the universe. The word "universe" pretty much means "everything" (as you'd know if you took the time to read the very first sentence of our article universe). "Dimensions as we know them are classed as three to help us with mathematical equations" is a meaningless statement. Mathematics can comfortably cope with any number of dimensions - we routinely use four (for space-time) and string theorists go with dozens of dimensions. No - the reason we talk about space as having three dimensions because we can uniquely identify every point in space with three numbers - those don't have to be up-down, left-right, in-out - they could be azimuth, elevation and range...or any of an infinite number of other coordinate systems - however, all of them need exactly three numbers ("dimensions") - hence, "three dimensional". You say that "all objects with mass are curved" - that's nonsense - a proton, for example, has mass - but has zero size - it can't be "curved". Space around objects that have mass is curved. I have no clue what you are babbling about measuring the "volume of an area"...by definition, an area is a measure of a surface - a two dimensional entity - volume relates to three dimensions. Please - don't answer questions unless you are clear on what you are saying in response. SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proton does too have a size. I agree with everything else you said (specially the point about RTG not answering questions about things he doesn't understand). Dauto (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Steve. "Space" is not the definition of a void, and matter can be described as having as many dimensions as you like so long as it is not the one I mention. See Gravitational lens for the best Einstein theory about how a black hole might curve "light", GloWorm, and don't kid yourself that Steve knows what shape a proton is, or that we know if a proton "...has mass - but has zero size ..." (that doesn't actually make sense but you can definitely calculate the theory using mathematics). There is no experiment to show an object (or a space) to have zero size. It is possible to calculate zero through maths but, like Steve says, it is also possible to calculate infinite dimensions through math. Math is not reality. Infinite dimensions and time travel are as feasable as extending your life by transferring you brain onto a neural net (it's a double negative, it still is not your brain) all you can hope is that some part of it keeps on going and that, my friend, is 1 to the power of higher. Like I said, we cannot observe most of the universe that is within our viewing range so the best theories on the outside or the shape of it are all sci-fi. ~ R.T.G08:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're at it, RTG, please don't change the order of the posts, as you just did by moving Steve's and Dauto's comments away from under your comment and to the bottom of this topic, which I have corrected along with this response. Steve's comment was a direct response to your response, and it's far easier for people to follow the discussion when it's organized as a dialogue, instead of placing the newest posts at the bottom. By preserving that order, we can separate the threads of this discussion and make it easier for new readers to follow things, which becomes increasingly important as the discussion gets more in-depth and diverse. Your edit summary said, "reverting the order of the posts to their original state", but that's not what you did -- you changed the order of the posts. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Captain Disdain, and how about you check the order of the posts before "Steve" posted and fix them up right for me? no? Didn't think so. ~ R.T.G08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve posted in an entirely correct manner. He separated the discussion you are having from the other (related) discussion below, which makes this whole thing more readable. Had he posted at the bottom of this topic, it would've made for a more confusing conversation. There's nothing to fix. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, besides Dauto's point, I wanted to respond to your statement here: "The universe cannot have an "outside" because that too would (by definition) be a part of the universe." It's possible that the universe is part of a multiverse, meaning that there exist other, distinct universes. Admittedly, the evidence is slim at best—really, the best evidence we have is that it doesn't completely break down our current theories—but with something like brane theory I believe one can say that things exist "outside" our universe. OP, you should take a look at those articles I linked to for some ideas. —Pie4all88TC22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In a 3-dimensional coordinate system three numbers are needed to define the position of a point in space in relation to the point of origin. However, to define the position of an object in space a fourth number is needed – time. For instance, an airplane may be at a certain azimuth, elevation and range in relation to a point of origin. However, it is also necessary to state the time at which it is there. The same would apply to any other coordinate system. The position of a point in space can be defined by the quantity of numbers required by the coordinate system (number of dimensions). But to define the position of an object the time at which it is there must also be stated. An object can move. A point in space cannot move. – GlowWorm.
To state my last point differently, a moving object moves from point to point in space. When we state its position at a particular time, we are really stating the point in space at which it is situated. - GlowWorm.
There is a really great picture on Special relativity for thinking about a "point in space" called "Diagram 1". Time is great for co-ordination but it is merely the name we give to tapping our feet in the rhythm and counting, no more real than that action. It is possible that your continuous loop will bring the universe back to the same place one day but plotting a point in yesterday, and expecting it to be there, that is "Gods and indistinguishable from Gods" only. When you find a place that is a day of the week, you will surely be able to return to it. ~ R.T.G11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the universe could loop around and repeat itself exactly is utterly discredited. The idea was that if the universe ended in a "Big Crunch" (the opposite of a "Big Bang") then the "next" universe would start with another big bang from the singularity created by the end of the this one (see Cyclic model). Since the properties of this true singularity would (hypothetically) have precisely the same starting state as the previous one (so the theory proposed), all subsequent events would unfold identically - and all of history would repeat endlessly. However, the "Big Crunch" is now firmly disproved - and in any case quantum randomness would ensure that the universe would not repeat exactly the same way anyhow. Your idea that time is just something we dreamed up is patent nonsense. There are plenty of things that depend on time that were doing their thing long before we came along. Time is required in order for there to be a change in entropy - and everything really depends on that. RTG: Please stop posting your own random daydreams and try to stick to actual science - you aren't helping our questioners with this stream-of-consciousness babble. Your last five or six answers here on the science desk have all been horribly wrong in really fundamental ways. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Space is without substance by its very definition. All things things within space, you say, are under some curving effects, they are not space. Time has no more substance than space. Space = go read a dictionary. Time, refer us to the substance of time, Steve. (I am not the only person posting here that space and time have no substance) Can I not ask questions around here because I am not good enough, a babbler, full of BS, streaming conciousness (what are you on>?), am I stringing random words about colours and teapots, come on Steve what insult have you for me this time or is it Dauto in for the intermission? ~ R.T.G14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really appropriate for you to completely redefine the concept of "spacetime" while answering a question on the reference desk. If you have a problem with the great physicists of our age, I recommend you take it up with them, and when you've made them see the light, and they write papers about it, then you could reference those papers here and prove to the world that you were right all along. APL (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? When did I insult you RTG? listen, Steve may have been unecessarily harsh but he is right that the ref. desk is not a soap box ffor you to express you uninformed opinion about things you don't really understand. Remember earlier when you complained about being constantly bombarded by inconsistent titbits of misinformation? Well, now you're being part of the bombardment. Don't expect the folks here at the ref. desk to take that lightly. Dauto (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment to me, Dauto, was to "...say something that normal people can understand." You say Steve acted unessecarily yet he was "right". You say that after insisting that I make contradictory and insensible statements. Do you see what I am telling you? You both say that my disagreements with you on fundamental principles are unnacceptable and yet, right here on this post, you are contradicted all over (see next post down, for instance). As Ben says, I am really not suitable to answer very many questions about anything here but why should I be slapped in the face and not slap back? You are not stronger than me, friend. If this post can't be finally enough for you, you are on your own. You certainly haven't won me over, wether it is important to you or not. I am not following you. This is likely to be the last post I ever direct at you. I will not be sad if you win a prize. I will not be happy if you cannot add teaching into your method of instruction but, please God, I will never know. ~ R.T.G19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did I isult you? I don't think I did. When did I slap you in the face? I don't think I did. All I did was to point out that your posts are hard to understand and that you don't know enough to understand many of those things you like talking about and that you shouldn't answer questions about subjects you don't understand. None of that is offensive. Heck, I even took the time to right a very careful response to one of your post to help you see why you are falling short. Dauto (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Big Crunch scenarios aren't ruled out—it depends on the nature of the dark energy, and there are fairly natural models where the energy density eventually goes negative, after which the universe recollapses (see astro-ph/0409264). And there are other cyclic models that don't involve a recollapse, like Penrose's wacky conformal cyclic cosmology. But RTG, I have to agree with the others who've said that you shouldn't be answering cosmology questions here. -- BenRG (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GlowWorm, you mentioned that "An object can move. A point in space cannot move." I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to point out that since space is being created all the time—see Metric expansion of space—then depending on your reference point, time is a factor since a position could be referring to different points. That's how I understand it, anyways. Does that explanation make sense? —Pie4all88TC22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the curve extend to form a circle? Nobody knows. The hypothesis is called "Multiply connected Universe", a term taken from topology (see Shape of the Universe). Think of it like this: A ring is a one dimensional structure, where every straight path leads back to the origin. A sphere is a two dimensional structure, where every straight path leads back to the origin. The universe could be a three dimensional structure, where every straight path leads back to the origin. That's hard visualize as a geometry, but very easy to do with vectors and modulo arithmetic. It has interesting physical effects. For example gravity between two objects would act from multiple sides, first from the front side, then, when the force has travelled around the universe, from the back side. It could expain the accelerated expansion of the universe and disprove the dark energy theory, but that is not widely believed. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18523179
That paper (on the arXiv here) is obviously wrong and shouldn't have passed peer review. They compare an infinite universe that's empty except for one supercluster (inhomogeneous, average density zero) to a compact universe containing the same supercluster (homogeneous, average density nonzero) and find a difference in the gravitational field. If they'd given their infinite universe the same matter distribution as their compact universe then the difference would have disappeared (aside from anisotropies). They conclude that their effect can't explain the dark energy anyway, but in fact the effect doesn't even exist. -- BenRG (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Space is not curved, though Spacetime is. (You have to have a mathematical model that demonstrates it, according to our article). In classical Newtonian physics the question can't come up, because space and time are regarded as imponderables which merely set the stage for motion. Einstein's model, which made space and time a single concept, associated curvature with the force of gravity. This had nothing to do with spheres and circles; there is no relationship between general relativity and geometry. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't some of this theory, or hypothesis? Some things are theorized, are they not? Other things are considered to be known beyond a shadow of a doubt. For instance, the existence of dark matter in the universe has I think recently come under question. I don't know if curvature or the absence of curvature as a quality of space is really known with assuredness. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, somethings are considered hypothesis while others are considered to be known beyond a shadow of a doubt, as you said. General Relativity falls on that second cathegory. Dauto (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, while researchers are still active in trying to extend and complete the theory of General Relativity and integrate it it with Quantum Mechanics, the central bulk is really beyond dispute; its predictions have been experimentally confirmed numerous times over the last ~90 years. See Tests of general relativity, which discusses several experiments that have measured the curvature of space-time (or, the bending of light) in presence of gravitational bodies. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to what is "outside the universe", drawings are sometimes used to depict the various theories about the shape of the universe. (Some of these drawings are shown in the Wikepedia article "Shape of the Universe".) All these drawings raise the question of what is outside the shape depicted. The drawings themselves have white space around them. The white space is misleading. It does not represent space outside the universe. The complete depiction of the universe stops at the outer edge of the actual drawing. – GlowWorm.
Most(?) of us have played games where, if you move your spaceship off one edge of the screen, it reappears on the opposite edge. The principle can be extended to a three-dimensional box. (Someone living in that universe would not see boundaries.) What is the 'outside' of that universe? —Tamfang (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere that cannot be traditionally reached, I guess? For example, going through a wormhole might be considered "outside" that universe in the context of this question. —Pie4all88TC22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enjoying this very interesting discussion. I noted the comment above: "Math is not reality." This is of course true as an ordinary statement, but in the case of particle physics (the context being the nature of protons), math provides our only glimpse into the "reality" of phenomena. This is true whether we're talking about quantum electrodynamics or string theory or any other perspective I know of (not being a physicist). --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![{\displaystyle 1090\approx {\sqrt[{3}]{1.3\times 10^{9}}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8954b04be5c5988657c6c020a1d6374be488ef8a)
